America: We Are Now a Guilty Until Proven Innocent Society
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Congress, the FBI, IRS, ATF, EPA and other executive agencies of the federal government violate American property and due process rights every single day. Now through the draconian use of the “guilty until proven innocent” standard through federal civil asset forfeitures, Gun and accessory bans, and land grabs, members our federal government are not only turning their backs on the Constitution, but are also denying the States’ authority to protect the rights of their own citizens. For example, a federal ban on gun accessories like “bump stocks” is not simply a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but also violates every protection of due process. It is in the very least, an unreasonable search and seizure of privately owned property.
Read more: America: We Are Now a Guilty Until Proven Innocent Society
What Are the Step 2 Consequences for Any National Healthcare Program
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Expansion of the federal government has crept along slowly but surely decade after decade. It’s a bit like a “connect the dots” page, where you can’t quite make out the picture until the lines are all drawn. We don’t seem to connect the dots of cause and effect, so we never seem to see the picture until it’s too late. When someone does connect the dots, it sounds like a fairy tale because we are not used to seeing it all at once. Here is a bit of connect the dots to make you think.
Read more: What Are the Step 2 Consequences for Any National Healthcare Program
This is What Red Flag Laws Will Do To America
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
Red Flag Laws are not only an infringement of an individual’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms, they are an egregious denial of an individual’s Rights to due process and property. In Texas the RedFlag-style process is being implemented even without a law being passed by the legislature. Brandon Masin, a conservative first year law student at the University of North Texas, Dallas College of Law is being subjected to RedFlag-style targeting.
The Boston Tea Party- History of Resistance to Government Controls
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
257 Years of Resisting Tyranny
I recently anticipated with joy reading a conservative blogger’s attempt to connect the TEA party movement to its historic roots; a topic I have been meaning to write about for months now. The blogger rightly said that the “the historical precedent for today’s Tea Party Movement wasn’t the Tea Party event in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.” I actually uttered an “Amen, brother!” He went on to describe the Continental Association established on October 20, 1774 by the First Continental Congress in response to the Intolerable Acts. That’s when I realized that I have waited long enough to write this article.
Read more: The Boston Tea Party- History of Resistance to Government Controls
6 Little Known Facts About The Bill of Rights
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
Here are 6 little known facts about the Bill of Rights to help you defend Liberty.
1. The Bill of Rights is not an afterthought of the founders to "correct" the Constitution. It was actually a negotiated condition for ratifying the Constitution.
The delegates of of 5 States were refusing to ratify the Constitution, Virginia was one of those States. Virginia delegates agreed to ratify the Constitution only if there would be a guarantee of debate on provisions to add a Bill of Rights.
On 7 Mar. 1788 the Virginia Baptist General Committee discussed the Constitution:
"Whether the new Federal Constitution which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”
Without Virginia's consent there would be no Union, no Constitution, & no federal government. In order to form the Union, the other 8 States agreed to adding a Bill of Rights.
2. The Bill of Right was not established to “control” the federal government. It was written to “remind” the people to never let government control their inherent rights.
In the debate of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the argument was made proving the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights. Not a document to control government, but a document to remind the people. In The Letter From A Federal Farmer To The Republican #6 this truth is articulated:
“…Fortunate it is for the body of a people, if they can continue attentive to their liberties, long enough to erect for them a temple, and constitutional barriers for their permanent security: when they are well fixed between the powers of the rulers and the rights of the people, they become visible boundaries, constantly seen by all, and any transgression of them is immediately discovered: they serve as centinels for the people at all times, and especially in those unavoidable intervals of inattention.”
The Bill of Rights was permanently placed within the Constitution to be a “constant reminder” to the people to control the limited power of their government. The Constitution is not a restraint on government, as it is simply a paper with ink. Our founders said the Constitution was simply a “parchment barrier” without the “true republican jealousy and vigilance [of the people], the strongest guard against the abuses of power.”
***Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not "establish" or "grant" rigths to the people. It recognized the rights of the people that already exist!***
3. “You have the right to remain silent and everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to an attorney and have him present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided to you for your defense” is not from a Supreme Court case, it is a summary of a few of the principles in the 5th & 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The 5th Amendment reminds us: No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
The 6th Amendment reminds us: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
These are not rights “bestowed” by judges in a courtroom. These are rights that are essential to the protection of the inherent rights of all citizens.