Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

You Are a Sovereign Being – Start Acting Like It

Monday, March 6, 2017 5:24
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

by Jeff Divine Cosmos

There is a growing awareness and indignation about the injustice and inequality running rampant in our world, and growing interest in creating the better world that we all know can exist. One of the key changes that needs to happen to enable the transformation of our humanity is to reclaim our personal power to think for ourselves, to discern truth from disinformation, and to stand firm for what we know is right.

The Source that created us endowed us with free-will and the power to create with our thoughts, words, and deeds. Yet many of us are squandering these endowments, squandering them so badly that the probable future of humanity is not looking very bright.

Humanity is at a critical junction in its history — one road leads to a very bleak future, and the other has the potential to be a new golden age. The outcome depends on us, each one of us, starting right now and it starts by freeing your mind! The key to reclaiming our freedom and creating a better world is for each of us to reclaim our sovereignty.
What is Sovereignty?

The word “Sovereign” refers to the power or right that a nation/state or individual has to determine its own destiny — to not be controlled by others. The ability to determine one’s own destiny has been termed SELF-DETERMINATION and it is one aspect of the timeless ideal called FREEDOM. Self-determination and freedom are said to be intrinsic rights bestowed on us by Source/God. The American founding fathers firmly thought so and called these “inalienable” rights. Personal sovereignty refers to the intrinsic right of an INDIVIDUAL to self-determination.

But having the right of sovereignty is not the same as BEING sovereign. One must assert a right through one’s thoughts and actions, or the right is essentially lost. Ultimately your sovereignty has to be demonstrated. The classic saying “Freedom is not free” echoes this idea — rights must be claimed by the constant application of attention, thought, and engagement.

An important part of being truly free is the responcibilty to be highly discerning about the ideas, beliefs, and attitudes that we choose to accept from society. In fact, we must be independent minded and confident enough to form our own ideas, beliefs, and attitudes — despite the pressure that society puts on us to conform. We must not just blindly accept everything our government, religions, teachers, and so called “experts” want us to believe. Doing so gives away our power and allows the “powers that be” to create a world that serves their agenda — a world that might not be in our best interest.

Why Personal Sovereignty is Important

If we don’t start forming our own beliefs, trusting our inner knowledge, and standing for what we know in our hearts is right, the future of our world will be defined and created by a very few with a very self-serving agenda. In this world that worships the almighty dollar commercial interests are steering the ship. We have allowed them to hijack our government, our religions, our media, and our beliefs and attitudes — materialism, consumerism, separatism, and fear serve their interests.

Giving Away Our Power

But the “powers that be” only steer the ship because we’ve bought into all the beliefs and attitudes and have let ourselves become apathetic and disengaged. So let’s not point fingers and blame those that we perceive are manipulating us. Realize the we are ALLOWING ourselves to be manipulated, allowing ourselves to be taken to a future not of our design. We are fully responsible for everything about our lives including what we let happen to us, and we are letting a lot happen to us. Don’t fall into the “victim mentality” trap and get caught up in the blame and complain game — that only gives away your power.

Far too many of us are just are letting our beliefs and values be determined by others. Far too many of us are just going along with what we are told, following what our government, church, teachers, or idols have told us to believe, or do, or be, explicitly or implicitly.

Far too many of us are deferring to the opinions and ideas of the “AUTHORITIES”. This gives away our power and allows others to control us. And often times the “authorities”, or those that control/influence them, have hidden agendas that are not in our best interest.

Mass beliefs in the power of outside authorities are firmly entrenched in your psyche … raising many questions about the truth of who you are and why you place your trust outside yourself.
— Barbara Marciniak, Path of Empowerment

To reclaim our power we need to start forming OUR OWN beliefs, trust our inner truth, and do what WE KNOW is right, not what others tell us, or society expects. We need to engage our hearts and minds and stand firm in what we know is true and right. If we don’t do this soon, we might find ourselves living in a dystopian future like the ones explored in numerous fiction novels.

The Erosion of Freedom in The Age of Distraction, Obsession, and Fear

In this era dominated by consumerism, materialism, and the pursuit of the almighty dollar many of us are so busy and distracted by chasing the money, and the possessions, and the thrills that we are failing to see that we are gradually giving away more and more of our power and freedom. This slow erosion is going on all around us, subtly and not so subtly, on many levels.

Our obsession with the accumulation of possessions — materialism and consumerism — keeps us distracted from what really matters. Our fixation on all the dangerous, bad, fearful things happening in the world keeps us distracted from what’s important. All the wars including the “war on terrorism” and the “war on drugs” keep us mesmerized in fear.

Your power ends where your fear begins.
— Barbara Marciniak, Path of Empowerment

And who does this all serve? It serves shadowy commercial and political interests and the military-industrial complex and keeps them in the power and in the money. For them it’s all about the money, nothing else seems to matter, no higher purpose than to serve themselves. And they are masters of manipulation and are capitalizing on our weaknesses and our fears. Isn’t it obvious? Haven’t we had enough of this?

Reclaiming Our Power

It’s our divine right and responsibility to own our beliefs, ideas, principles, and values. It’s time we reclaim our confidence in our inner knowledge and have the courage to stand for truth and justice despite what our institutions, the media, and others may be telling us. We need to stop blaming the system and wake-up from our laziness, distractions, and dependencies to reclaim our power so we can create a better world!

It’s time to remember who you really are, not who others or society says you are or can be. It is time to stand in your own personal truths, not what others have told you is true. It is time to form your own beliefs, rather than just adopt what others believe. It is time to stand for what you know in your heart is right, rather than what society tells you is right, even if it means standing alone.

You are a slice of the powerful infinite being that we call the Universe, the source of “All That Is”. Stand in that power confidently! BE TRUE TO YOURSELF and STOP being a FOLLOWER!

You don’t need teachers, experts, professors, gurus, priests, pastors, church leaders, or heroes/idols to tell you what to believe, or what the truth is, or to show you how to connect with God. You don’t need THEIR beliefs, ideologies, or specific practices that they swear are the one and only way to reach the truth.

It is all within you, all the knowledge of the universe is deep within you. You are connected to all of it, to Source or God or whatever you choose to call it, just go within and become quiet and trust what you find, what you feel, what you know.

A bright future for humanity is still very much possible, but we’re going to have wake up out of our haze of consumption, distraction, laziness, apathy, and fear and start paying attention and getting engaged. Even thou all our experiences expand Sources understanding of itself and the nature of its existence and, therefore, are all valuable, surely we’ve had enough of the many less than desirable themes repeating in our experiences. Surely we’ve had enough of wage and debt slavery, of going to a job every day that we hate or bores us to tears, of all the competition and conflict, of all the pain and suffering — have we not? I think it is safe to say that our Source would encourage us choose a higher and grander vision of what we could be. I think it’s safe to say that our Source would prefer the experience of joy, abundance, and freedom — for all.

Let’s make it happen!

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Every Day is Earth Day



Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/riseearth/KZKa/~3/kOfEnid-eXk/you-are-sovereign-being-start-acting.html

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 12 comments
  • charlie2dogs

    most all that ever stood before the people as leaders were nothing more than traitors and criminals, the legal system is nothing more than a system of corruption, greed, racketeering, plunder and injustice, it has allowed criminal politicians to rape the country and the world through corrupt forms of govt, and there is the religious system, all of them are nothing but cults, enslaving the minds of most humans, but then humans themselves are not much more than dumb sheep, and will believe any shit put out for them to feed on, this civilization is reaching the place where it needs to disappear like those before it. The world is not evolving, it is degenerating. People are not waking up to anything meaningful, its only waking up to the horrors that humans have created. This world is quickly becoming nothing more than a shithole of crime, filth, disease, lies and deceit.

  • FraMar

    The “DO NOT BELIEVE…” poster is a very nice thought, but in itself, should not be believed.

    I would say do not believe or DISBELIEVE anything you hear, without vetting it.

    Just because an idea fits within your personal paradigms, is no assurance that it is true. There are far too many events and conditions in this world today, that the most critical are not believable. “Contemplation” or “rings true with your heart” simply don’t cut it!

    Wake up and smell the roses – they are dying. You need to vigorously and thoroughly research what you read or hear. You will be surprised at how much “conspiracy theory” actually is true, and failure to recognise that, WILL “come back and bite you in the ass.”

  • Ideas Time

    We have “Unalienable Rights” not “inalienable” rights as the writer suggests. People writing articles need to learn the difference and meaning of the two words.

    • Dun Foaming

      Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
      ‘the shareholders have the inalienable right to dismiss directors’

      • Dun Foaming

        Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
        ‘the shareholders have the inalienable right to dismiss directors’

        Unalienable: another term for inalienable

        • Ideas Time

          UNALIENABLE.
          The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

          Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

          “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

          You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

          Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

          You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

          Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-’life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

          Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that ‘all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS’ UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

          “Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as “the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;” and therefore it has been justly said, that “absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security–the right of personal liberty–and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Potter’s Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

          From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

          (“[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations.” SANDIN v. CONNER, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

          In the second article of the Declaration of Rights, which was made part of the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is declared: ‘That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled, to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent; nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be, vested in, or assumed, by any power whatever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.’ (Dec. of Rights, Art. 2.). . . (The Judge then read the 1st. 8th. and 11th articles of the Declaration of Rights; and the 9th. and 46th sections of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. See 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. Penn. Laws p. 55. 6. 60. in the Appendix.) From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

          I had thought it self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights. It is that basic freedom which the Due Process Clause protects, rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. . . It demeans the holding in Morrissey – more importantly it demeans the concept of liberty itself – to ascribe to that holding nothing more than a protection of an interest that the State has created through its own prison regulations. For if the inmate’s protected liberty interests are no greater than the State chooses to allow, he is really little more than the slave described in the 19th century cases. I think it clear that even the inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty – at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity – which the Constitution may never ignore. MEACHUM v. FANO, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)

          All commissions (regardless of their form, or by whom issued) contain, impliedly, the constitutional reservation, that the people at any time have the right, through their representatives, to alter, reform, or abolish the office, as they may alter, if they choose, the whole form of government. In our magna charta it is proclaimed (2d section of the Bill of Rights, under the 9th Article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania), that ‘all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government, in such manner as they may think proper.’ It has been well said, by one of the ablest judges of the age, that ‘a constitution is not to receive a technical construction, like a common law instrument or a statute. It is to be interpreted so as to carry out the great principles of the government, not to defeat them.’ Per Gibson, C. J., in Commonwealth v. Clark, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.), 133. BUTLER v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 51 U.S. 402 (1850)

          The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ‘To secure these rights,’ says the Declaration of Independence, ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these ‘unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.’ Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

          “. . . The question presented is not whether the United States has the power to condemn and appropriate this property of the Monongahela Company, for that is conceded, but how much it must pay as compensation therefor. Obviously, this question, as all others which run along the line of the extent of the protection the individual has under the Constitution against the demands of the government, is of importance; for in any society the fulness and sufficiency of the securities which surround the individual in the use and enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

          ‘By the common law, the king as parens patriae owned the soil under all the waters of all navigable rivers or arms of the sea where the tide regularly ebbs and flows, including the shore or bank to high- water mark. … He held these rights, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of his subjects at large, who were entitled to the free use of the sea, and all tide waters, for the purposes of navigation, fishing, etc., subject to such regulations and restrictions as the crown or the Parliament might prescribe. By Magna Charta, and many subsequent statutes, the powers of the king are limited, and he cannot now deprive his subjects of these rights by granting the public navigable waters to individuals. But there can be no doubt of the right of Parliament in England, or the Legislature of this state, to make such grants, when they do not interfere with the vested rights of particular individuals. The right to navigate the public waters of the state and to fish therein, and the right to use the public highways, are all public rights belonging to the people at large. They are not the private unalienable rights of each individual. Hence the Legislature as the representatives of the public may restrict and regulate the exercise of those rights in such manner as may be deemed most beneficial to the public at large: Provided they do not interfere with vested rights which have been granted to individuals.’ APPLEBY v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364 (1926)

          I Elliot’s Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876) 319 et seq. In ratifying the Constitution the following

          declarations were made: New Hampshire, p. 326, ‘XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.’ Virginia, p. 327, ‘… no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience, and of the press, cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States.’ New York, p. 328, ‘That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.’ After the submission of the amendments, Rhode Island ratified and declared, pp. 334, 335, ‘IV. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force and violence; and therefore all men have a natural, equal, and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others. … XVI. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments. That freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.’ JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

          As to the objections made on the other side to our interpretation of the compact, that it impugns the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is inherent in every society of men, and is incompatible with these unalienable rights of sovereignty and of self-government, which every independent State must possess, the answer is obvious: that no people has a right to pursue its own happiness to the injury of others, for whose protection solemn compacts, like the present, have been made. It is a trite maxim, that man gives up a part of his natural liberty when he enters into civil society, as the price of the blessings of that state: and it may be said, with truth, this liberty is well exchanged for the advantages which flow from law and justice. GREEN v. BIDDLE, 21 U.S. 1 (1821)

          This court said, in the case of The Bank of Columbia v. Okely (4 Wheat. 235), in speaking of a summary proceeding given by the charter of that bank for the collection of its debts: ‘It is the remedy, and not the right, and as such we have no doubt of its being subject to the will of Congress. The forms of administering justice, and the duties and powers of courts as incident to the exercise of a branch of sovereign power, must ever be subject to legislative will, and the power over them is unalienable, so as to bind subsequent legislatures.’ And in Young v. The Bank of Alexandria (4 Cranch, 397), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall says: ‘There is a difference between those rights on which the validity of the transactions of the corporation depends, which must adhere to those transactions everywhere, and those peculiar remedies which may be bestowed on it. The first are of general obligation; the last, from their nature, can only be exercised in those courts which the power making the grant can regulate.’ See also The Commonwealth v. The Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. et al., 43 Pa. St. 227; State of Maryland v. Northern Central Railroad Co., 18 Md. 193; Colby v. Dennis, 36 Me. 1; Gowan v. Penobscot Railroad Co., 44 id. 140. U.S. v. UNION PAC. R. CO., 98 U.S. 569 (1878)

          It is significant that the guarantee of freedom of speech and press falls between the religious guarantees and the guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances in the text of the First Amendment, the principles of which are carried to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. It partakes of the nature of both, for it is as much a guarantee to individuals of their personal right to make their thoughts public and put them before the community, see Holt, Of the Liberty of the Press, in Nelson, Freedom of the Press from Hamilton to the Warren Court 18-19, as it is a social necessity required for the “maintenance of our political system and an open society.” Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, at 389. It is because of the personal nature

          of this right that we have rejected all manner of prior restraint on publication, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, despite strong arguments that if the material was unprotected the time of suppression was immaterial. Pound, Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 640. The dissemination of the individual’s opinions on matters of public interest is for us, in the historic words of the Declaration of Independence, an “unalienable right” that “governments are instituted among men to secure.” History shows us that the Founders were not always convinced that unlimited discussion of public issues would be “for the benefit of all of us”13 but that they firmly adhered to the proposition that the “true liberty of the press” permitted “every man to publish his opinion.” Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. 319, 325 (Pa.). CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)

          While the “meaning and scope of the First Amendment” must be read “in light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress,” Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 14-15, this Court has also recognized that “this Nation’s history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State.” Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, at 760. “The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.” Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213 (1963).5 The Court properly has noted “an unbroken history of official acknowledgment . . . of the role of religion in American life.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S., at 674, and has recognized that these references to “our religious heritage” are constitutionally acceptable. Id., at 677. EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

          When the First Congress was debating the Bill of Rights, it was contended that there was no need separately to assert the right of assembly because it was subsumed in freedom of speech. Mr. Sedgwick of Massachusetts argued that inclusion of “assembly” among the enumerated rights would tend to make the Congress “appear trifling in the eyes of their constituents. . . .” If people freely converse together, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a thing that never would be called in question . . . .” 1 Annals of Cong. 731 (1789). Since the right existed independent of any written guarantee, Sedgwick went on to argue that if it were the drafting committee’s purpose to protect all inherent rights of the people by listing them, “they might have gone into a very lengthy enumeration of rights,” but this was unnecessary, he said, “in a Government where none of them were intended to be infringed.” Id., at 732. Mr. Page of Virginia responded, however, that at times “such rights have been opposed,” and that “people have . . . been prevented from assembling together on their lawful occasions”: “[T]herefore it is well to guard against such stretches of authority, by inserting the privilege in the declaration of rights. If the people could be deprived of the power of assembling under any pretext whatsoever, they might be deprived of every other privilege contained in the clause.” Ibid. The motion to strike “assembly” was defeated. Id., at 733. RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)

          “Gentlemen, I have insisted, at great length, upon the origin of governments, and detailed the authorities which you have heard upon the subject, because I consider it to be not only an essential support, but the very foundation of the liberty of the press. If Mr. Burke be right in his principles of government, I admit that the press, in my sense of its freedom, ought not to be free, nor free in any sense at all; and that all addresses to the people upon the subjects of government, and all speculations of amendment, of what kind or nature soever, are illegal and criminal; since if the people have, with out possible re-call, delegated all their authorities, they have no jurisdiction to act, and therefore none to think or write upon such subjects; and it would be a libel to arraign government or any of its acts, before those who have no jurisdiction to correct them. But on the other hand . . . no legal argument can shake the freedom of the press in my sense of it, if I am supported in my doctrines concerning the great unalienable right of the people, to reform or to change their governments. It is because the liberty of the press resolves itself into this great issue, that it has been in every country the last liberty which subjects have been able to wrest from power. Other liberties are held under governments, but the liberty of opinion keeps governments themselves in due subjection to their duties.” 1 Speeches of Lord Erskine 524-525 (J. High ed. 1876). HERBERT v. LANDO, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)

          The denial of human rights was etched into the American Colonies’ first attempts at establishing self-government. When the colonists determined to seek their independence from England, they drafted a unique document cataloguing their grievances against the King and proclaiming as “self-evident” that “all men are created equal” and are endowed “with certain unalienable Rights,” including those to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The self-evident truths and the unalienable rights were intended, however, to apply only to white men. An earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence, submitted by Thomas Jefferson to the Continental Congress, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

          The Declaration of Independence states the American creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This ideal was not fully achieved with the adoption of our Constitution because of the hard and tragic reality of Negro slavery. The Constitution of the new Nation, while heralding liberty, in effect declared all men to be free and equal – except black men who were to be neither free nor equal. This inconsistency reflected a fundamental departure from the American creed, a departure which it took a tragic civil war to set right. With the adoption, however, of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom and equality were guaranteed expressly to all regardless “of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”1 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218. BELL v. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)

          • Dun Foaming

            lol…try looking in a dictionary; much simpler, and avoids the interference of lawyers :cool:

          • Global Citizen Watch

            I love the thoroughness of your reply. I am going to make myself a cup of tea and sit back while I enjoy reading it all. This is a gem.

  • Anonymous

    There are self-initiators, on both sides of countless, social issues, who are appreciating what you have written, here, taking it as a given — somewhat like the allegory of preaching to the choir, without making any new converts. If independence of initiative and moral free agency had some label, I would be tended to join. If it required my input, I would think to contribute.

    I think that moral masochists have to satisfy their urges, on eachother, to the bitter end, before we can all have a sane discussion, about this. I am not proposing anything rash, or even cynical. Let’s face it, what more would you have to do than sit on your hands, if not maintain your own holding pattern.

    I hope those people, who understand me, can have long, healthy lives, love beauty, and grow independently.

    • Anonymous

      Dang autocorrect.

      But, I think you get my point.

  • Global Citizen Watch

    The word ‘sovereign’ comes from an old word meaning ‘lord’ or ‘ruler’. See here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereign

    To really understand the original background to concepts like ‘freedom’ and ‘divine right’ versus this world’s military industrial complex, we need to take a closer look at the two original covenants: a covenant for good and a covenant for evil. In ancient times, all of society was organised around the system of government by covenant. Check this:

    The Two Covenants
    http://globalcitizennews.blogspot.nl/p/the-two-covenants.html

    What is a sovereign citizen?
    http://globalcitizennews.blogspot.nl/p/what-is-sovereign-citizen.html

    Women’s covenant rights
    http://globalcitizennews.blogspot.nl/p/womens-rights.html

  • Gordon

    Sovereignty in its purest state is realized when no one stands between you and God. Getting back to sovereignty requires transformation in Jesus (Yeshua). Here’s how

    http://www.shadow-free.com/the-shadow-of-the-spiritual-introduction/#comment-734

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.