That Right To Life & Liberty: A Protection of the American Individual

George Washington was a soldier always longing for his farm; for a return too harvest his field, to fix that hedge, to sit in his rocking chair; but to the frontiers of Virginia did he travel to protect the local people from attacks from warring tribes of Native Americans. His progress as a Christian marks his daily life and can be gleaned from his writings that compliment the national heritage of America. His one thought over the years was the issue of slavery; and in the process of the Continental Congress and his volunteer service as Commander of the Continental Army, and later as President, began to show the steady walk towards honoring liberty and justice for all. In 1792, for example, along with Congress, he designated the Northwest territories as free of slavery. He understood that slavery had to be constrained, limited, hindered, and finally brought to a close if the purpose of the United States of America was to grow and expand its roots of liberty. In his last testament, he put forth that his slaves be freed, that a perpetual fund be set for their caretaking, their professional education, and for the creation of a school and home for orphaned slaves. He set a continuous sum of money also for his personal aide, who was African-American; that the man be kept in the same quality of economic condition he was accustomed to with George Washington.

What we have after in terms of doing the right thing, as Abraham Lincoln, the scholar, so aptly put forth in his writings, are congressional actions that included in word and spirit an understanding that slavery was the opposite of the individual, natural rights to life and liberty: these are written into the Constitution, and also effected in congressional legislation (1792-1820), that again; was made to limit, constrain, hinder, and finally, altogether end slavery; that liberty may abound to all corners of the land.

At the same time, there was a faction that grew in the sphere and domain of our land of liberty. It was the slavery faction. Many a family in the southern states had the life of kings; with sprawling plantations and palace-like living. Maintaining their way of life was important for them. They understood that they had to have representation in government, and not only Congress, but the Executive Office, and the Supreme Court!

Here our story begins: The story of how the United States of America’s founding strength, its proclamation of natural law; our promissory note called our Declaration of Independence was replaced in spirit and word as the supreme law of the land—it was now at the service of whomever sat in the Supreme Court—the strength of the document, its very core principles of life and liberty were now subject to interpretation. People of black skin color were perhaps not human, not people, but livestock..property without human rights. Later on, these same people were segregated; a form of psychological, economic, 

social, and physical oppression. Then, they were targeted in their communities with eugenics population control, to limit their population growth, and to socially and psychologically make them feel as if their life was not as worthy as those of white skin color. To this day, abortion or human slaughter facilities reside in low income population centers with predominate populations of African-Americans. 

The Interpretation of the Constitution

After all, the founding document of America, the Declaration of Independence, in the shortest route possible, within its opening sentences, declares adherence to ‘natural law,’ proclaims in a sequence of complimentary unalienable assertions: that we are created equal, that we have the right to life; the right to liberty, followed by the right to establish a government ‘of and for the people,’ and to secure those rights to life and liberty, that the end result be that the people be happy. As insurance against a bad government, the Declaration of Independence immediately follows its unequivocal position on the rights of humanity, with the stipulation that the people can alter or abolish a government that is not aligned with these natural laws. Meaning, it is the solemn duty of the American civilian to observe, analyze, and altogether take a critical thinking mind as to the machinations of their government, its relation to the people, and its alignment with the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Is the right to life and liberty too hard a thought to be understood; perhaps so difficult a thought to fathom that it could be misconstrued by the office holders of the U.S. Supreme Court? It would appear that the individual right to life and liberty is a simple thought: the American individual’s life is sacred; is to be protected of themself, and they have the right to have a government and expect its operation to safeguard their physical life. Moreover, the individual has the right to liberty; that is, we take no permission of another person or government to self-govern ourself as long as we respect the peace, physical safety; the liberty of all others to self govern themself as well. The end result being that we all be happy, and to be happy, we must be at liberty; free.

Be that as it may, in the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the Declaration of Independence was quietly placed in iron chains and the people were not made aware as a whole; effectively having conversation on the matter prematurely shut down. In the reading of his opinion, Marshall both addresses the matter of the case, but also begins a tangent wherein he comes up with a new idea to help judges ‘cut to the chase:’ he says that the Constitution is not what the written word says only and supremely, but from heretofore forward it would be what the judges say it is. Chief Justice Marshall created an unconstitutional power that was not written into the Constitution, thus, the people could not study its wording and discuss or analyze its understanding. It is important that the writing, publishing, and distribution of our Constitution has made it a promissory note that can be easily studied, analyzed, and discussed amongst the American constituency. Had there been an additional amendment to the Constitution, it would have to been officially integrated into the written text after it was openly discussed within the government and throughly known as a topic of national discussion with the people of the United States. The abstractness, and unaccountability of assuring originalist statutory interpretation as a benchmark of our judicial process though, allows for an activist, arbitrary, and ideological interpretation of fundamental law, and the laws created from these. This activism of setting precedents based on ideology directly affronts the American democratic processes; namely, because the American constituency; the people; ‘were’ and ‘are’ not included in the conversation on a matter so important: the legal supremacy of the Declaration of Independence being  placed under the personal interpretation of a changing personnel of people who in the office of the U.S.Supreme Court.

As history has proven, Supreme Court justices have practiced ‘judicial aggrandizement,’ furthering the effects of slavery and segregation until outside champion defenders of liberty have brought enough political pressure upon the judiciary to do what is right. 

The wording of these new powers were also written within a Supreme Court opinion with limited physical publishing distribution to the American constituency. There was no express, digital communication network.  Communication was done through word of mouth, newspapers, pamphlets, and books. The U.S. Supreme Court placed no onus to readily publish and proclaim its new power to all the people. No, the information was kept dormant, yet placed into operational function immediately—the legal strength of the Declaration of Independence was weakened; its teeth were extracted, its raw power was sapped and lay a the feet of the office holders of the U.S. Supreme Court. In such a matter so important discussion was constrained, limited, and hindered. 

Did the  American constituency understand that the cause, toils, and sacrifices for individual liberty of the American Revolution that had ended only twenty years before were being maneuvered away on some written opinion that would not be rightly shared with the nation; that the purpose of existence of the United States of America, founded on the natural right to life and liberty, was being quietly placed in a box at the feet of that changing personnel of Supreme Court judges? Judges that could have political inclinations to ignore the central core right to life and liberty’ cloaking their activism of ideological opinions in constitutionalized language, and allowing the enslavement of Americans; the segregation of them, and finally the targeted slaughter of their unborn children? Is this not what has been done to the black-skinned Americans? Was not slavery, segregation, and abortion all finding its beginnings on the targeting of the black populations?

We must have a national conversation on the 1803 Marbury V. Madison opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall inventing statutory interpretation as a method of interpreting the Constitution; especially on the straightforward, clear, word and spirit of the right to life and liberty. Though the abortion industry be a trillion dollar global empire, if understood correctly, the Declaration of Independence is clear: in the United States of America; “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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”