Real Time Web Analytics

Libertatum.2 – Subtle Violations

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

BY Sortes Vivit

 

untitled

 

  

Anyone with any knowledge knows what the bill of rights is and, hopefully, what it protects. The question may rise currently as to what would happen should those rights in some way be suspended. Would that be for a limited time or for an indeterminate period? If for a limited time, who would be the governing power which would ensure these rights were reinstated?

 

Thomas Jefferson inscribed within the Declaration of Independence that, “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 statement is one of the more famous statements derived from the revolutionary period and – although the Declaration of Independence is not considered a legal document – it is, quite possibly, the most declarative statement describing the roots of which the Bill of Rights is founded upon. In short, it is self-evident that the creator (whichever version of our creation you believe in) endows upon us rights which cannot be alienated (or taken) from us, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Emphasis has been placed on “among those” in order to stress that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as broad as those terms may be, are not the only inalienable rights. In the spirit of efficiency, however, let’s focus on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness we are endowed with.

 

According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, the definition of these words are as follows:

1. Life – a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body; b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction; c: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual

2. Liberty – a: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely; the power to do or choose what you want to; c: a political right

3. Happiness – a :  a state of well-being and contentment, joyb :  a pleasurable or satisfying experience

 

So, considering these definitions, which aspect of them or to what extent are you willing to give them up? Absent committing a crime, is there anyone whom you would allow to take your life, liberties, or happiness? One example of this occurring in our country is the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department. A high school basketball team wore shirts with the expression “I Can’t Breathe” on them. This prompted the Sheriffs Department Association to issue a public statement about the incident which, in part, stated:

“Simply put, the Mendocino County Deputy Sheriff’s

Association does not agree with the myriad assumptions

and opinions implicit in the use of the currently fashionable

phrase, ‘I Can’t Breathe.’ … Interjecting a political

statement into a local high school basketball game

is disrespectful to those who have and continue to serve, disenfranchises those students with an opposing view point and detracts from the very simple purpose of a local athletic event, (namely) friendly team competition between schools.

No one has a monopoly on virtue and no group, …, can lay

greater claim than another to the privileges afforded

under the first amendment.” (Interjection Added)

The author of this statement, Craig Walker, is implying that what those students did was wrong and against the purpose of a school function such as a sporting event. Considering the possible psychological factors considered by someone who has come under the angst of law enforcement, it is an extremely viable possibility that the Deputy’s Association believes their disagreement is supposed to swing the students’ desires to let the world know how they feel about an issue that is affecting people nationwide – in spite of the statement’s claim that the epidemic of police brutality is “patently false.” Pertaining to the “I Can’t Breathe” phrase, those police involved with that incident claimed Eric Garner was being arrested for selling loose cigarettes, which is illegal. Can anyone offer any justifiable reason anyone would need to be arrested, detained and hauled into jail for something such as this? Shouldn’t issues like this be a summons? Regardless, force should never have been used in that situation. The “I Can’t Breath” phrase is more than Eric Garner, it is a nation saying that we can’t breathe under increased regulations and criminalization. We Can’t Breathe when law enforcement officials are trained to believe that dissent is criminal and, as Craig Walker said, those rights afforded by the Bill of Rights are mere “privileges”.

The Founding Fathers of this nation made a choice that they were not going to be denied those rights which were inherently theirs to keep. Taxes ended up being the straw which broke the camel’s back, taxation without representation. Misrepresentation, by the public employees whom work for us, is essentially no representation. We cannot have a representative form of government if those called by us to govern our affairs are misrepresenting how we are to enjoy our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Ask yourself, what would happen to you and your friends were you to pull off an act such as that of the Boston Tea Party? What would happen if your city, parish/County, or state were to send not a request for secession, but rather, a declaration of independence? The same as that which occurred before, but it would be perpetrated on you by the very government which continues to taught the fact that they keep you safe. And you’ll be even safer when you just listen to what you’re told and don’t question it.

 

 

About Nathan Laurenson

Editor at The Daily Resistance, Citizen Journalist, Activist and Co Host Of Battle Of New Orleans Radio On 990 AM WGSO Airs 8pm Wed.| Resist Daily