It explains how it is a common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive …

But further explains that there is no such right in the US Constitution … and that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege …

And that privilege can be taken away at any time by modifying rules, or adding laws … like the added law of wearing a seat belt … you wear it or you loose your driving privileges …

Or on another note … the modifying and adding laws banning the feeding of mainstream poor …

I consider only diabolical hearts and sinister minds would put in place laws making in harder to supply food to the mainstream poor … or to ban all together efforts of feeding the hungry …

Now the article also presents facts that we the mainstream people, all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness …

But when you really look deep into the works of the constitution …. life and liberty was also a privilege and not a right … assassinations, targeted genocide even horrid human experiments leading to death has proved this …

As I’ve mentioned before HERE … the very first Bill of Rights amending the constitution plainly says that the constitution governing the government, will at no time, make a law as to respect any establishment of the mainstream people’s religion ..

Now even though they, (the people of the constitution governing the government) would allow free exercise for mainstream people to establish their religion acts … that privilege could and have been taken away at any given time … and usually done so by modifying rules or magically adding laws or simply by force …. like adding on the costly emission sticker law … no emission sticker, driving privilege can be taken away by laws controlling the people … 

And they (the people of the constitution governing the government) use public excuses of these laws being best for the people while at the same time allowing poisons in food, water and the atmosphere … acts that clearly indicates they (the people of the constitution governing the government) have cared less about the best for the mainstream people ….

And at the same time, using comas (,) and semicolons (;) and the word “or”… the writing of this first amendment links their first few written words stating that they “will make no law”… to every statement that follows in this first amendment  …

 Read this for yourself
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or (no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or (no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or (no law abridging) of the press; or (no law abridging) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Meaning that the door was left open allowing the constitution governing the government, not to respect any religion …. and allowing them the opportunity to prohibit any free religious exercise they choose … and allow them to abridge (meaning restrict rights to) any freedom of speech … and restrict rights to the freedom of the press …. and allow them the opportunity to restrict rights to any people peacefully assembling …. and we see governing officials taking advantage of this all the time …

And I ask … what are rights with no law enforcing respect of those rights ? …

An individual has the right to say no to a rapist .. but if that rapist do not respect that right … and no law enforcing that right … he or she can still be sexually assaulted … with no justice enforced by a law …

The amendments of the constitution seem to have no law restraining the congress of constitution which governs the government’s action against the mainstream people … only laws giving them power to do what they can actually get away with … just as amendment 16 …

Amendment 16 – Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History states;
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Now I consider that one reason the constitution separates church and state … is because under the law of a Loving GOD they themselves would be bound by the element of Loving one another …

It says HERE that  Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized  (meaning having removed the element of religion)  …

To remove the element of a religion … is an attempt to remove the GOD Source from the people … but if I must worship the GOD of my inner Positive Light-of heart,  in the solitary of meditation … no one shall separate me from my GOD Source of the CREATOR …

And I’m still trying to understand how a hand full of proclaimed statesmen can think of laws and put them in play to govern seemingly millions of mainstream people … and the majority of these people gave no yea or no nay of any kind for establishment of these laws …

We need ONE Law as to govern all people, there in all heavens, and all earths  … and under that ONE law, all other governing rules and regulations for the betterment of a mainstream people  should be based …

And that law is to Love one another, in the Character of Positive Energy … and to enforce this ONE law diligently …