"Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem"

The Congressional Watch
February 1, 2001

The opening provision of the First Article of the United States Bill of Rights, is a 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' constitutional demand placed on Congress, which declares that 'Congress shall make no law...,' which will in any way, abuse or misconstruct the 'absolute' rights enumerated within the First Amendment. The opening clause steadfastly limits and restricts Congress, in any and all matters relating to the "absolute" basic American human rights and principles enumerated to in the First Amendment.

The constitutional restraint placed on Congress, and members of Congress, under this opening clause to the First Amendment is not an option. This is a declared and mandatory restriction placed on Congress by the United States Constitution.

Congress is not to create or make any type of Law or proposed Law, which will in any manner be hostile to the basic American human rights ordained and established within the First Amendment. This includes any and all types of congressional legislation, bills, unwritten law(s), form of law, decree, order, legal process, constitutional law, common law, statute law, ordinance, civil law, legal code, corpus juris, and/or any other law or piece of legislation that may lead to, or result in, any type of constitutional amendment and/or any act that may, and/or will, and/or could create laws that may, and/or will, directly or indirectly, interfere with and/or abridge, the basic American rights enumerated to in the First Article of the US Bill of Rights.

There are no difficult questions for the Courts and those in government to answer, and no lengthy legal debates needed over intent and meaning in regards to the opening wording in the First Amendment. The wording of the opening clause of the First Amendment is clearly written and it is precise in what it states to Congress, and members of Congress. 'Congress shall make no law...' is a mandatory constitutional requirement of all members of Congress, with no exception. It is part of a Congressperson's obligation and sworn duty to 'support,' and therefore, preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. There can be no argument; the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' opening provision of the First Amendment is clear in the message which it conveys to Congress, and members of Congress. To give it any other meaning, destroys the whole of the First Amendment.

The masses of American people are to have certain constitutionally guaranteed immunities against abuse, and these rights and principles are not to be abused, misconstructed, and/or abridged in any manner by those in the United States government, and in a large degree to those outside of government. It is also the obligation of all Americans, no matter what their place in United States society, to support, uphold, obey, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Many in and outside of government continue to argue that Congress has the power and authority under the last paragraph of ARTICLE I, Section 8, to propose and pass whatever legislation that they like for the general welfare of the people. This presumption about ARTICLE I, Section 8, of the US Constitution is a total falsehood. Thomas Jefferson gave this very binding opinion in 1791, on just what Congress can and cannot do, in regards to providing for the general welfare, and that is, "They [Congress] are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them (Congress) up straitly within the enumerated powers and those which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

"The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There is also another radical right argument and misconception that Congress, and members of Congress, are free under ARTICLE V of the US Constitution, to propose constitutional Amendments any time Congress feels like doing it. While this may somewhat be the case with many parts of the Constitution, it is not the case with the First Amendment. The First Amendment restriction placed on Congress, which states that "Congress shall make no law..." which abuses or misconstructs any of the provisions of the First Amendment, supersedes the authority Congress has under ARTICLE V.

It is the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' provisions found in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which contain the essential essence of the constitutional instructions, whereby the 'absolute' rights empowering the real Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans are found. It is within these 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' clauses, that the true republic can be found, and without these necessary and important clauses, there can be no true and real republic, there can only be a Federalist oligarchy masquerading itself as a republic.

Failure by any member of Congress, to strictly obey, preserve, protect, and defend all of the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' constitutional rights found in the US Constitution, is committing a high crime against the Constitution and people of the United States. Such willful, flagrant, negligent, and intentional disregard for the absolute authority of the United States Constitution, by certain members of Congress, who have sworn an oath and/or affirmation to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution, are treasonable offenses. Anything less than to strictly support and properly obey, uphold, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Note: The term enemy as used by those who framed the Constitution, means; Something destructive or injurious in its effects, i.e., something that is 'hostile' to the intended and/or true meaning of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant, and meant their prohibitions to be "absolute."
Hugo Black, United States Supreme Court Justice - Limits on the power of Congress and the courts to reinterpret the Constitution

The United States Supreme Court feels so strongly about 'absolutes' in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, that they have favored the provisions and protections of the US Constitution over legislative passed statutes and Laws, time after time. American Jurisprudence:

Any attempt to do that which is prescribed in the Constitution in any manner other than that prescribed, or to do that which is prohibited is repugnant to that supreme and paramount law and is invalid. (16 AmJur 2nd, 82)

No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guaranties of the Federal Constitution.
(16 AmJur 2nd,70)

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. (16 AmJur 2nd, 71)

Neither emergency nor economic necessity justifies a disregard of cardinal constitutional guaranties.
(16 AmJur 2nd, 81)

The superiority of the US Constitution is so supreme and unquestioned, that there is a United States Civil Law protecting American's against constitutional abuses by those in power:

42 USC Sec. 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, Any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. This United States Code has been upheld by the Supreme Court: "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of government authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owen vs City of Independence, 100 S.Ct. 1398 (1980)

The most recent United States Supreme Court case to be heard involving an issue over the sanctity of the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' protections of the US Constitution, and in this case, the provisions of a State Constitution, came in the recent and highly publicized George W. Bush, 2000 Presidential election case. One of the most important issues the high court considered, was the soveringty and absoluteness of a Florida State Constitution provision, which included 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' "shall not/shall make no" wording in it. The US Supreme Court, ruled in favor of Bush, and the ruling was based largely on the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' "shall not/shall make no" provisions of both the US Constitution, and the Florida State Constitution. The decision by the high court, clearly imparted that the meaning and intent of "shall not/shall make no," is an 'absolute' and sovereign part of the Constitution. The high court gave the phrase meaning and intent, by making it a useful part of the Constitution, and this follows the instructions of Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers very closely.

There is something very interesting and important to note here, and it very much needs some attention.

The individuals and groups most involved with this Bush lawsuit over the absoluteness of the constitutional provision of "shall not/shall make no," were those individuals and groups heavily tied and aligned to the radical religious right.

These same radical right individuals and groups, are also the same individuals and groups that are heavily involved in having their radical right counterparts in Congress, create Congressional Bills which are 'hostile' to the same "shall make no" provision of the US Constitution, which the right used in Court, to have George W. Bush made President! This shows a double standard on the part of the radical right, and a double standard that can have only one purpose, and that is the domination of the political and governmental processes of the United States of America. [See Doctrine & Agenda of the Right]

As a Nation, and as a people, this Jefferson statement with a profound question about the subtilties of treason from within, is one which we need to be deeply and seriously asking ourselves. In 2001, the reality of this statement by Thomas Jefferson, one of Americas principal founding fathers, is becoming painfully clear, and ignoring it, is only going to make matters worse for the United States.

To view some current and past Congressional Bills which are 'hostile' to the United States Constitution, go to the main index of The Congressional Watch. For those that want to venture out on there own, and wade through the literally thousand's of Congressional Bills which have been created since the 101st Congress, and sort out the 'hostile' Bills for themselves, then connect up with Thomas, Legislative Information on the Internet. The author of this article spent ten days, at three hours per day sorting through the Bills, and barely made a dent in the massive number of Bills that are at the site, and came up with 5,000 +/- Bills which could be considered as 'hostile' acts towards the preservation, protection, defense, and support of the US Constitution.

What ever happened to the part of the constitutional rule of law, which puts into place the lawful and public accountability of those members of Congress, who purposely manipulate or misconstruct the United States Constitution, and in so doing violate their constitutional Oath or Affirmation to support, and therefore, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ? Just merely voting a religiously or otherwise misguided member out of Congress, for their hostile transgressions against the US Constitution, has no longer become enough of a deterrent. Radical right and other members of Congress, who continue to tamper with the US Constitution and the Republican Form of Government in a hostile manner, need to be held accountable for these hostile actions, and they need to be held accountable as if they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

"I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies."
Thomas Jefferson, 1799

Email:

United States and other International Copyright Laws apply to this, and all the other pages at F.A.C.T.S.
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 F.A.C.T.S. & Sherwood C. Ensey

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." Thomas Jefferson, 1814

"Believing… that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Thomas Jefferson, 1802