/
The Concord Principles
/
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
/
Foundation of the United States
/
Liberalism
/"This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose. The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal" - "government by consent of the governed" - "give me liberty or give me death."
Well, those are not just clever words, or those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries, and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty, risking their lives.
Those words are a promise to every citizen that he (sic) shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions; it cannot be found in his power, or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom, he shall choose his leaders , educate his children, and provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.
To apply any other test - to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race, his religion or the place of his birth - is not only to do injustice, it is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom."
from "We Shall Overcome",
a speech by President Lyndon Johnson.
March 15, 1965
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner,
nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,
or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War
or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any
Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"On 2 October 1999, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility presented the Norbert Weiner Award to the open-source movement. Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Richard M. Stallman, and myself were invited to accept. I was unable to attend because my wife was recovering from surgery at the time, but Harry Hochheiser delivered these remarks on my behalf."
"The founders of the United States knew better than to believe that liberty could be traded away by inches to any good end. To foster social responsibility, they wrote a Constitution and a Bill of Rights designed to protect individual liberty against the natural expansionist tendency of governments.-- My links -- ed.
My challenge to everyone here tonight is to remember that, and to express it in action. If we want to be socially responsible programmers, our first duty is to defend and expand liberty - - to defend, in particular, the individual freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. ...
It is the duty of every citizen -- and of every socially responsible programmer -- not merely to passively resist the erosion of liberty, but to actively promote and extend liberty; to enlarge the private sphere; to take power away from government so that individuals and voluntary groups may peacefully work out their destinies.
The founders of the U.S. expected us to exercise social responsibility with the ballot and the bullet -- to defend liberty with the vote, and with citizen arms if the vote ever failed us."
"News, commentary, analysis and other information on the First Amendment — the cornerstone of democracy, the amendment that keeps us free. Note: The New York office of the First Amendment Center is closed. First Amendment Center activities continue at the Nashville and Arlington offices."
"12 years of increasingly panicky decisions... most of them in support of somehow winning the War on Some Drugs... have resulted in a profound revision of the of the First 10 Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. This has been accomplished with quiet judicial efficiency, sparing us the untidy political melee of a constitutional convention.-- Elipsis in original.
The result, based on current case law, looks something like what follows, to which I strongly recommend comparison with the original."
"Read 'em and weep for what America might have been, if only your Congresscritters, Senators, Judges, and other elected officials hadn't been lying through their teeth as they took their oaths of office swearing to uphold the Constitution."
"The USA Patriot Act's renewal is now almost a fait accompli -- accepted by all but the most steadfast civil libertarians in Congress. The House and Senate have separately voted to approve the law with only minor changes, and the final conference committee action and vote is expected within the next week or so. None of the provisions of the law that were slated to sunset now appear likely to do so.
This law, enacted during a "state of emergency" declared by President Bush and intended to be revisited in calmer times, is now effectively being made permanent. ...
The Patriot Act has been and will continue to be used mainly against ordinary Americans accused of crimes unrelated to terrorism, or those who disagree with government policies or happen to be immigrants or of the Muslim faith.
The result is likely to be an enduring shift of power from the legislative and judicial branches to the executive branch -- and less privacy and liberty for all. ...
New Mexico Republican Representative Heather Wilson assured Americans that they need not fear the law, since it is only directed against foreigners and because law enforcement needs 'a court order in order to get any business records or library records or anything else.'
Neither point is true. The law can be and has been used overwhelmingly against Americans."
"In recent times, it has been argued that the Ninth Amendment, particularly when read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment, emphasizes that the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights from the government to the people. Indeed, if the Declaration of Independence is a guide, the Framers did not understand rights as being conferred by governments or legal documents, but arising ex deo, independently of the laws of man. Instead, it is argued that the Ninth Amendment is an enumeration of some of the most important powers not granted by the people to the Federal government (it is important to keep at the forefront of one's mind, when discussing the history of the bill of rights, that it applied only to the Federal government prior to the Fourteenth Amendment; see Barron v. Baltimore), and that the Ninth Amendment should be interpreted as addressing Federalist fears that enumerating rights might lead some to conclude that only those rights listed can be protected, just as the Tenth Amendment addresses anti-Federalist fears that the general government would swallow the states.
Another interpretation holds that the Ninth Amendment recognizes that certain natural rights are retained by the people and cannot be abridged by any government. This interpretation argues that Ninth Amendment, in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, permits the judiciary to strike down state laws which abridge certain rights. The difficulty with this interpretation is that, because the Ninth Amendment does not specify which rights it protects, and since almost any law that has any practical effect will limit someone's freedom of action, which they might term a "right" - such a power would create an almost unlimited ability of the Federal Judiciary to strike down laws that a given judge or group of judges disliked."