Terry Holcomb Sr. Stands Up for Himself (and other Constitutional Commentary)
Take a good listen to the details of this event. The actions of this judge are despicable. Here is KrisAnne Hall’s plea for you to listen to this broadcast and take action:
“What is Liberty worth to you? To Terry Holcomb, Sr. it is worth going to jail. Mr. Holcomb refused to allow his voice to be silenced by tyrannical government and that tyrannical government put him in jail. He stood his ground peacefully, while others watched on in submission to tyranny. Mr. Holcomb defended Liberty for YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. Will YOU stand with him NOW?”
Just three days ago, a judge in a Texas county decided to adjourn a meeting which was held for the purpose of hearing public redress of an issue to which there was public opposition.
The County didn’t want to hear any opposition. So what did the judge do? He adjourned the meeting before anyone had a chance to speak contrary to the intentions of the County……. and of course that was the designated reason for the meeting in the first place.
One man, Terry Honcomb, Sr., protested and demanded that he be allowed to speak. . Inspite of the fact that the meeting was already formally adjourned when Mr. Holcomb spoke up, he was arrested and jailed on a bogus charge because he had refused to be denied the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Holcomb broke no law, and only stood up for his right to be hear and not to be run over by a judge’s abuse of authority.
Why there even is a Bill of Rights
Why would I take the position that the Constitution was written to protect the people against the unjust actions of a tyrannical government? Maybe it’s because the history of the activities of the Continental Congress in 1789 verifies that position. The Federalists actually argued against the creation of the Bill of Rights, but not because they disagreed with its proposed contents.
Alexander Hamilton, representing the Federalist point of view, argued against the creation of a Bill of Rights, and it was a hotly contested issue in the Constitutional debates. His motivations for taking that position were also quite reasonable. Hamilton contended that as soon as you spell out a defined set of individual rights, those specific words would be used to rule in favor of the allowance or prohibition of anything that was not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights as prohibited or allowed. Hamilton was quite perceptive.
The Bill of Rights WAS created, and now we can see exactly that happening today. Liberals. in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights, take exactly the same position that Hamilton feared would be taken.
For instance, in the modern liberal view, you can outlaw certain kinds of weapons, because their allowance was not specifically spelled out when the Constitution was penned in 1789. After all, automatic rifles did not exist back then. Therefore, by their argument, we can outlaw them without ever infringing on the rights that existed in 1789.
Likewise, in the liberal view, we can define what comprises “the press” to exclude bloggers and Facebook particpants because the press was nothing more than newspapers back in 1789. The internet did not exist yet. Therefore, by their argument, bloggers and people who do not fit a government definition of “press” can be excluded from the freedom of press rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Those are only two examples and both pf them typify exactly the kind of Constitutional abuse that Hamilton warned against. On the other hand, although that’s why Hamilton didn’t favor adopting a Bill of Rights, where would we be without it to lean on today? Hamilton lost that argument, and the Bill of Rights DOES exist. So now, we have this resulting interpretation debate to deal with, just as Hamilton predicted would happen.
What is the only logical answer to this Constitutional interpretation debate?
In my mind, original intent is the only argument behind which anyone can stand with any sort of logical validity. Original intent is easy enough to understand on the basis of the history that transpired in the debates of the Continental Congress, resulting in the penning of the final documents. If we can establish what the Framers intended, that is, what the absolute meaning behind their words was, that must certainly take precedence over any sort of opinion about it. Rulings about whatever the Constitution DIDN’T ever say, can logically be nothing but baseless and personally biased opinions. Such opinions are easy to spot, because they without exception walk on someone’s inalienable rights.
The narrator, KrisAnne Hall, in the piece linked above well explains the debate in 1789 over whether or not there even should have been a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. If you really read and dig into history, you will learn that the party which believed that the purpose of the Constitution was to give the people power over potential tyrannical government, was the same party that WON the debate over the issue of whether or not there should even BE be an enumerated Bill of Rights. Because they won that argument, the Bill of Rights was created and ratified.
I have been told by liberal minded friends that I need to read the Constitution because I am supposedly misinterpreting it.
Well, I did. I carry a copy in my briefcase. I also read history, and I also considered the tyrannical actions of King George, who inspired the Colonists to revolt and to declare independence from his tyrannical government.
What I have not done, and which makes me incapable of Constitutional interpretation, according to one of my esteemed well meaning liberal friends, is to take a course from a liberal arts college law department which teaches students to interpret the Constitution in exactly the manner against which Alexander Hamilton warned it is not to be interpreted.
Be sure to listen to the audio and take action.