Do We Still Need The Bill Of Rights? By Jacob G. Hornberger
(2018-05-31 at 17:04:39 )

Do We Still Need the Bill of Rights? by Jacob G. Hornberger

When you think about it, the United States Bill of Rights constitutes one gigantic insult against the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation - yes, the very people that Americans profusely thank for "their service." That is because the Bill of Rights implicitly accuses these entities of being grave threats to the rights and freedoms of the American people.

Okay, the First Amendment refers to Congress, but it really applies to the entire federal government. It prohibits the entire federal government from destroying such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from seizing peoples guns.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments prohibits the federal government from killing people without due process of law or from searching their homes and businesses without judicially issued search warrants.

Let us assume that the federal government decided to do those all things. Let us assume it started incarcerating people who criticized the government, seizing peoples guns and making it a felony to be caught with a gun, assassinating critics, and barging into peoples homes to look for incriminating evidence.

Who would actually be doing those things? Would it not be the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a combination? Who else would be able to bring that type of force to bear, especially if people resisted?

Yet, the troops, Central Intelligence Agency agents, National Security Agency officials, and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents are considered our friends and protectors. It is said that they make the ultimate sacrifice for us. They volunteer to serve. We are exhorted to constantly thank them for their service. Should we really be insulting them by suggesting that they are the biggest threat to our freedom and well-being?

So, do really still need the Bill of Rights anymore? Does it not just insult those who are supposedly protecting and defending our rights and freedom by suggesting that they are actually the biggest threat to our rights and freedom?

The enactment of the Bill of Rights and the type of federal governmental structure that was brought into existence back in 1789 really goes to show how differently our American ancestors viewed the concept of freedom and the role of government in a free society.

Our ancestors believed that the biggest threat to their rights and freedoms did not lie with foreign regimes or entities, as most Americans today believe. They believed instead that the biggest threat was the very federal government that they were bringing into existence with the Constitution.

They knew that they needed a government, especially to protect the nation in the event of a foreign invasion of the United States. But their concern was that this same government would end up destroying their rights and freedoms.

They just did not trust federal officials, not even the democratically elected ones.

Thus, the question they faced was: How do we bring a government into existence and, at the same time, make certain that it does not become the destroyer of our rights and freedoms?

That was the purpose of the Constitution, the document that called the federal government into existence. Rather than trust federal officials, including the democratically elected ones, with the power to just do the right thing, the Constitution severely limited the powers of federal officials.

But even that was not good enough for the American people. They demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights as a condition for approving the Constitution.

They viewed the federal government as their biggest threat and they wanted to make certain that it would not become their destroyer. That is why they wanted a Bill of Rights, which actually is a Bill of Prohibitions because it prohibits federal officials, including those in the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, from destroying our rights and our freedoms.

Notice something important about our ancestors mindset: They did not look upon the military as the friend of the people. It looked upon the military as the biggest threat against the people of this country.

Compare that mindset to the mindset of Americans today, who look upon foreign dangers as the big threat to their rights and freedoms and the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as their friends and protectors.

To really make certain that federal officials could not destroy the rights and liberties of the American people, our ancestors did not even bring into existence a Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, or Federal Bureau of Investigation.

They wanted nothing to do with governmental entities that could, in a very real and practical sense, destroy their rights and freedoms.

That is why there was no big standing, permanent standing army or military establishment. That is also why there were no intelligence or surveillance agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency or a federal police force like the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thus, notwithstanding the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and notwithstanding the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights, our American ancestors figured that it would be best to play it safe by denying federal officials with the means that governments throughout history had used to pull off the destruction of liberty of their own citizenry. No Pentagon, no Central Intelligence Agency, no National Security Agency, no Federal Bureau of Investigation. And it stayed like that for more than a century.

Today, Americans have obviously chosen a different course. The United States now has an entirely different governmental structure, one that entails a gigantic, permanent, and ever-growing military establishment, a highly secretive intelligence agency with omnipotent powers, including assassination, a highly secretive surveillance agency, and a national police force.

Do such entities pose a threat to the rights and freedoms of the American people??

Many Americans would scoff at such a notion. The troops, the Central Intelligence Agency agents, the National Security Agency bureaucrats, and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials are our friends and protectors, they say. We need to keep thanking them for their service.

But if such is the case, then what do we need a Bill of Rights for? Is it not insulting to the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to suggest that they would do the types of things the Bill of Rights prohibits them from doing??

An interesting aspect to all of thi is that whenever the military and the Central Intelligence Agency operate in foreign countries without the constraints of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they end up doing the things that the Bill of Rights prohibits them from doing, such as indefinite detention without trial, kidnapping, torture, domestic surveillance, and barging down peoples doors without warrants.

They also install into power and support and train brutal and tyrannical dictatorships, ones that jail and kill critics of the government and censor the press.

Coming to mind are the Shah of Iran, the Guatemalan coup, the Pinochet regime, and todays totalitarian or authoritarian pro-United States regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, and elsewhere.

Thus, the question arises: If they will destroy freedom over there to protect "Their National Security," why would they not do it over here for the very same reason, should they determine that circumstances require it??

I say: Let us keep sending a message to these "friends and protectors" by keeping the Bill of Rights intact, no matter how much of an insult they might consider it to be. Better yet, I say we should play it safe by restoring a constitutionally limited-government republic to our land.

Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!