deBLICK: Founder’s Goal: Individual Sovereignty

LETTER from GARRETT deBLIECK

Founder’s Goal:

Individual Sovereignty

To the Editor:

Recent discourse has revealed an alarming ignorance concerning the Bill of Rights. It seems a prudent reminder that the origin of these listed Rights was, in fact, part and parcel to how America became a nation.

The foundation of our Bill of Rights comes directly from the Declaration of Independence. For the Declaration itself listed “certain unalienable rights,” which were transgressed by Great Britain. The Bill of Rights echoes some of those 27 listed within the Declaration.

Point being, such Rights are deemed “unalienable,” meaning that they cannot be taken away, but either embraced or transgressed.

Before adoption of the Constitution, championed by the Federalists, Anti-Federalists insisted the inclusion of these essential Rights to ensure Individual Sovereignty of the new American Republic.

Hence, the Bill of Rights had then become the expressed fabric of sovereignty of the individual, not any government.

It only makes sense. For years Britain transgressed the sovereignty of individual colonists; much as today in New York State, where the narcotic of gun control has been nonstop for decades. As stated within the Declaration:

“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 provide new Guards for their future security.”

Likewise, in New York State, the lust for ever more gun control for decades has been unrelenting. The Safe Act, as constitutionally repugnant as it is, still does not satisfy Albany, which desires even more stringent controls.

A despot’s “Never-ending Story” if you will.

We of Otsego 2AS will say again and again: Enough is enough!

Yet, the lesson of the Bill of Rights does not stop there. The first few words of that historic document begin: “When in the course of human events…” This is a generalized phrase meaning human existence. We, now today, are living, still, “in the course of human events”.

So, within this “human existence”, to what authority do those stand when they put their chosen reverence to New York State law in knowing conflict of the Rights listed in our Bill of Rights?

It has been a curiosity where one pledges their oath upon the U.S. and state Constitutions when they are manifestly in conflict with one another.

Perhaps a politician’s dream to pledge an oath to both, placating a façade of dual reverence. This is
precisely where Constitutional Law breaks down to become, quite literally, a Banana Republic.

In essence, what value is our Bill of Rights, when each state maintains its own unbridled rejection of such? Each establishing their own esteemed preferences, Bill of Rights be damned?

Case in point is, if a politician feels it no issue to restrain and be accountable upon the fabric of Individual Sovereignty to which our country is founded, what trust that they too will adhere to anything?

That is exactly why our Otsego County representatives must be held accountable to their sworn oaths.

For no republic bearing Constitutional authority can exist when that very foundation is chosen to be rejected.

GARRETT deBLIECK
Unadilla


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Prove you're not a robot: *