My Problem w/ The 2022 Dobbs Decision - Overturns Roe v. Wade - No Right To Abortion In US Constitut

the 2022 dos decision is going to overrule precedent the 2022 dobs decision overturned roow V weight and there's a big problem with this not only are there other Supreme Court created freedoms but there's also freedoms that we have not been upholding that's constitutional so let's presume that the Supreme Court Justices the majority are correct that there is originalism that there is strict constructionism which means that the constitution is as it says it says what it means and it means what it says and if the Constitution is as it says then that means we would get all the Constitutional freedoms that are listed within the Constitution so I've listed 18 Fiat freedoms and I've also listed 19 constitutional freedoms that have not been Incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment now this is important because the 18 Fiat freedoms since we're going to overrule 2022 dos since we're going to overrule Ro v Wade and they're right the Supreme Court Justices are correct in this they are right that there is no literal right to an abortion written in the Constitution and then the right to abortion is predicated on the right to privacy which also is not in the Constitution now you could say you can infer it you can imply it you could build one off the other you have a right to your effects your persons the search and seizure implies that you have a right to your home and then so does the Third Amendment says that you can keep soldiers out of your home during peace time so they are infernum and then maybe you believe their construction but there's a major problem with this we'll just start off with the 18 fre Fiat freedoms what's the problem with the 18 Fiat freedoms there's other freedoms that Supreme Court cases throughout the years have said that we have As Americans that they haven't ruled on and so since we're going to go ahead and throw out dos we're going to throw out precedent well what other precedent are they going to throw out and in their opinions they are saying that there are other problems they got other problems with other precedent so I'm going to read off these Fiat freedoms and then I'll talk about it some more so here in America because of the 1977 more versus East Cleveland decision we have a right to reside with one's relatives that had to do with a grandson living with a grandmother you have a right to live with your family you have a right to marry this comes from loving V Virginia obber gel V Hodes and Turner V sapply 1965 2015 1987 respectively we have a right to use contraception in s sacred marital bedrooms 1965 griswell V Connecticut we have a right to decide one's child's education 1925 Pierce V Society of sisters and 1923 Meer V Nebraska we have a right to not be sterilized without our consent 1942 Skinner V Oklahoma we have a right for two consenting adult ads to have sex in the privacy of their own home that's 2003 Lawrence V Texas we have a right to self-defense that's 2008 dcv H we have a right the exclusionary rule the fruit is poisoned if it's got by illegal means evidence gathered illegally can't be admitted in the evidence that comes from the 1961 map V Ohio decision and the 1914 weeks decision in the map decision this woman they said that she had done something she being accused of something they went through her house and they searched her house and then they found porn pornography and then they say well you're not allowed to have that but it had nothing to do with why they walked into her house to begin with there's a unanimous jury notes you have a right to a unanimous jury note meaning when you have a jury trial you have a right for all 12 of 12 to render a verdict that's the 2020 Ramos V Louisiana decision that's the current court right now the right to bodily Integrity comes from the 1952 Rin V California case the right to security of one's home is the 1886 boy V us decision the right to expressive Association comes from 1958 NAACP versus Alabama 1984 Roberts V us JC's the right to refuse surgery or forced administration of drugs 1985 Winston B Lee the right to reject life saving medical treatment 1990 Cruisin V director the right to have children 1942 Skinner V Oklahoma the right to the privacies of Life 1886 Boyd vus the right to a Miranda warning 1966 Miranda v Arizona and the right to privacy 1961 map V Ohio so we have all these freedoms Fiat freedoms because scotus created them they're constructed they're socially constructed they believe in a living Constitution so they didn't look at the Constitution and the Constitution didn't specifically say that you have a right to a Miranda warning or that you got a right to privacy or the privacies of life or the right to have children the Constitution doesn't say that you have a right to reside with one's relatives the Constitution specifically just like in dobs there is no right to abortion nor is there a right to privacy and the right to abortion built off the right to privacy so I think that the American people people would love the right to privacy I think we could get an amendment to the right to privacy and then that would get Ro v Wade would have a firm foundation the right to marry the right to use contraception I like all these freedoms the right to to decide one's child's education the right to not be sterilized without your consent is that even do we actually have to say that out loud hey don't sterilize me not without my consent of course we have these freedoms the right for two consenting adults to have sex in the privacy of their own home the right to self-defense the exclusionary rule so the right to the exclusionary rule the right to unanimous jury notes the right to bodily autonomy the right to security of one's home the right to expressive Association the right to refuse surgery or Force administration of drugs and the right to reject life-saving medical treatment now the Supreme Court's also being very lazy they're saying unless you bring these cases to them which How can any regular person bring a case to the Supreme Court it seems like it's almost physically impossible you'd have to have some learned citizenry and you'd have to have people that are talking about these things instead there's a lot of hand ring in about roie Wade KLA says she's going to codify roie Wade how's she going to do that with an amendment because that seems to be the only way that you're going to be able to codify the right to an abortion is with an amendment or a constitutional convention because if you try to pass a law through Congress well it'll go back to the same Supreme Court and then they may if you wrote it correctly they may agree with the argument or they may disagree with the argument if they even listen to it now I'm going to compare the Fiat freedoms to the Constitutional freedoms that we don't have okay so there's 19 constitutional freedoms which I'll just say it this way it's not that we don't have it it's that it hasn't been brought to the Court's attention or it was out right rejected in some other cases so again the court needs you to present the case and we have a freedom from bills of attainer we have a right to contract that comes not only from I think the lockner decision 1905 but also Article 1 Section 10 so because I read Article 1 Section 10 it says well we got a right to contract and I read Hobbs and he says the second law of nature is a right to contract meaning if you're a reasonable person you say well of course we have a right to self-defense of course we have a right to a contract and if we have a right to a contract we can enter into contract with our fellow man and then we also have a right to have that contract enforced upon it you know to have that contract enforced but me being an average American who read the Constitution I don't even know if the Constitution means what it says or says what it means I'm going to carry on and read these and then I'm going to compare and contrast these two because they're important the right to a post office box the right to a jury trial in all criminal cases the right to habus Corpus freedom from ex poost facto laws the the right to travel between the states article 4 section 2 Clause one says that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states that comes from Scalia he says that's a constitutional Freedom here's Federalist 80 it may be esteemed the it may be esteemed the basis of the Union that citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States the right to rights not mentioned through the Ninth Amendment so even though there are freedoms that specifically enumerated explicitly said spelled out to the letter you have a right to speak you have a right to peacefully assemble you have a right to a grand jury indictment these are Bill of Rights that say that you have a right to but there's also the Ninth Amendment and so to me it seems like if you're going to create any more freedoms you would go through the Ninth Amendment the right to Powers the federal government doesn't have 10th Amendment women's right to vote black men's right to vote 18-year-olds right to vote freedom from pole taxes all these imply a general all citizens have a right to vote these come from the Constitution but they're past the first Bill of Rights the eight the first eight of the Bill of Rights Freedom From Slavery or involuntary servitude freedom of due process and equal protection in life and immunities and property the right to Birthright citizenship the right to alcohol freedom from two-term presidencies freedom from Congress giving themselves a raise the grand jury indictment Clause the first Clause of the Fifth Amendment the Third Amendment which is freedom from quartering soldiers and the Seventh Amendment the right to a jury trial for civil matters over $20 now a lot of people want to talk about the first amendment the Second Amendment we never get to the third amendment these are rules and of course you don't have absolute anything you don't have absolute power you don't have absolute freedom to every rule there's an exception but it is the rule and since it's the rule then that means we need to uphold it so if we talk about the third amendment okay a soldier let's say the Air Force comes up to your house and says I get to live in your house I get to sleep in your bed I get to eat your food steal your candles I get to live in your house because I am a military man of this country and we are occupying this land because the king the president has told us to is that okay I think it's not I read the Constitution and it says I have a freedom from soldiers quartering in my home during peace time and the exceptions to that rule is during war time during public emergency and during the militia when there's actual public danger so none of those are the cases this is peace time and since it's peace time and we're not I'm not in the militia I'm not in the military not in the Army and the Navy then the exceptions to the rule that was already spelled out you have the rule you have a right to keep soldiers out of your home now there's exceptions that they specifically enumerated so there's nullifying Clauses if it was part of the militia during times of war or public danger then we don't have to listen to the third amendment but do you believe that we have the third amendment or not do I have to get a lawyer and then I have to assert it in this court that Court every other Court spend a million dollars just to say that what the Third Amendment says what it means and means what it says cuz there's a problem with that why even read the damn Constitution if it's not going to get us any closer to the truth so now I'm going to compare and contrast the two you have these 18 Fiat freedoms right since you have these madeup freedoms and then you have these constitutional freedoms that have not been literally they have not been technically Incorporated to the state they haven't been made into law yet but they're all in the Constitution every single one of these freedoms are in the Constitution so I am a progressive so people might say hey this question is going to lead the Fiat freedoms they're going to get rid of all these freedoms that we like don't you like freedom and yes I wish that not only does the court keep the freedoms that we have in the Constitution but that they would also give us the freedoms that precedent St decisis judge Alita went on and and on about how he believes in precedent the courts prior to them he respects their decisions well with roie Wade that wasn't the case so he's not respecting a 1973 decision so does that invalidate all the ones after 1973 or before where are we at it would be nice to hear the Supreme Court go through each one of these freedoms that throughout history we it says that the court has said that is this is the case so I would love to get both set of freedoms I would like to get the scotus created the Fiat freedoms the ones that are not enumerated specifically in the Constitution and the ones that's in the Constitution because to me they say they're originalist they say they're constitutionalists they say they're strict constructionists which means that the constitution says what they mean and means what they say now the court could go one way or another they could say the Fiat freedoms are all a bunch of [ __ ] none of them were actually from the Constitution they constructed they elaborately constructed they liberally constructed and they made it up now my guess is they'll say some of the Fiat freedoms are right and some of the Constitutional freedoms are right well why would they disagree with the Constitutional freedoms let's presume that the Supreme Court means what they say and says what they mean so they say that they're strict constructionist that's John Roberts that's John Roberts and then it's also AO so that's at the very least it's also Clarence Thomas so if they're strict constructionists then that means the Fiat freedoms are going to go the way of Ro v Wade they're going to say no you don't have all these madeup freedoms you don't have a right to reside with one's relatives where is that in the Constitution you have a right to marry that's not in the Constitution at all the right to use contraception the right to decide one's child's education the right to not be sterilized without your consent the right for two consenting adults to have sex in the privacy their home the right to self-defense the right to the exclusionary rule the right to unanimous jury notes where are these written in the Constitution they're not the right to bodily Integrity the right to security of one's home so they may look at all these freedoms that these Scot created Fiat freedoms that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and throw them out but how in the world can they throw away our constitutional freedoms how in the world can they just throw our constitutional freedoms away because we haven't brought a case to their attention when I read the Constitution Scalia had said that you get to read the Constitution and you get to understand it because the Constitution was written in a plain language for plain ordinary average Americans average citizens and so when you read the Constitution these freedoms are self executing they're self executing so therefore they are the law you have a right to speak you have a right to peacefully assemble you have a right to petition you have a right to bear arms in defense of Home person property you have a right to bear arms in the militia you know the Second Amendment the third amendment you have a right to kick soldiers out of your home if they want a quarter in your home it's not during a war we're not being invaded by North Korea we're not being invaded by China or Russia or South Africa or Germany if we're not being invaded then that means the third amendment is still in play and then if they're going to make an exception to the third amendment well they might make exceptions to all the Amendments if we're being invaded they might just throw out all the freedoms hius Corpus was very was a big freedom that was suspended during the Civil War so we're not being invaded it's not during war time it's very much during a peace time technically speaking I guess there is a war on terror but are we even listening to the war on terror since we're arming the al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria anyways the 19 constitutional freedoms how do we not have the rights that are in the Constitution when they say that the 14th Amendment they do this weird thing where they say well we can't incorporate the freedoms to the states directly because of you know this reason and that reason but the 14th Amendment says that to the states they have to protect your rights to property your rights to life your right to Liberty your right to due process and your right to equal protection that's the 14th Amendment and so by using the 14th Amendment they say well heck then that means the states should guarantee all the freedoms that's in the Bill of Rights because of the 14th Amendment so freedom from bills of attainer the right to contract that's in the bottom so they said that they're only protecting the freedoms in the Bill of Rights which is the first 10 amendments since they're only protecting the first 10 amendments and actually they said with the first 10 amendments they're going to throw nine and 10 out they're just going to protect the first eight amendments so we're just going to protect the first eight amendments I got a major problem with that because we got freedoms past the first eight amendments you got the 11th Amendment the 12th Amendment and I'm pretty sure it goes all the way to the 27th Amendment how many amendments do we have say 27 Amendments I'm pretty sure we just make sure how many amendments do we have and so there's 27 Amendments so if we're just going to protect the first eight bill of right the first eight amendments we are not only ignoring amendment number nine number 10 number 11 number 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 we're also ignoring all the freedoms that's in the body of the Constitution Hamilton himself had said that we shouldn't enumerate any of these freedoms because right at the very beginning of the Preamble we said we're protecting Liberty and so therefore you're protected of all the natural natural rights that man can come up with you're protected of all your freedoms from the very first sentence the Preamble says we're going to protect Justice we're going to protect domestic tranquility we're going to protect the general welfare to provide for the common defense to try to perfect the union and we're going to protect Freedom we're going to protect freedom for ourselves and for posterity and because of that first sentence well your rights have already been guaranteed you already have a right to speak and a right to petition and a right to peacefully assemble you already have those freedoms so if we're going to ignore the body we're going to ignore the Preamble we're going to ignore the entire body of the Constitution and we're going to ignore the Amendments 9 through 27 well they're cutting a lot of freedoms out so that's where all these freedoms come from the right to a contract the right to a post office box the powers of congress says that they can provide post office post roads and post offices who are they providing all these things for the American people therefore we have a right to a post office box now I would say that there's some obviously implied freedoms and then there's some very distantly implied freedoms well you have a right to this and that and this and that and then you have this crazy construction this house of cards and then it all comes crashing down that's what Ro V weade is so as a progressive I believe that by going to the Constitution we are actually gaining a lot of freedoms we're going to get people to read the Constitution the Constitution is going to start to mean what it says and says what it means it's not going to be out of the reach of ordinary Americans by actually reading the Constitution we're going to see that we have a right to contract we don't need the lock their decision we don't need to go to the Supreme Court I'll read it to you right here right now so Article 1 Section 10 here's what Article 1 Section 10 says Article 1 Section 10 no State shall enter into any treaty Alliance or Confederation Grant letters of Marquee or reprisal coin money Emmit bills of credit make anything but gold and silver coin ATT tender and payment of debts pass any bill of attender no expost facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts or Grant any title of nobility so if somebody in the states want to call themselves a prince you could call yourself whatever you want to call yourself in terms of freedom of speech but if you want to say that the title of Prince entitles you to some Powers then you would be mistaken no state is allowed to do that in section Article 1 Section 10 specifically says no none of the states can enter into the treaty and this and that and they can't pass the Bill of intender that the states can't pass any exp poost facto laws nor can they pass any law which impairs the obligation of contracts or Grant any title of nobility if a state cannot pass a law that would impair the obligation of contracts has the feds has the general government has the US government government passed the law saying that we can't honor contracts because the lner decision was pretty incredible they said there was a law that was passed that said Bakers could only work so many hours they can't work I don't know 13 hours or something so you can't require Bakers to work more than 13 hours but they threw that law down because you have a right to contract if you throw away the right to contract then that means there is no work that's going to get done the worker needs to contract with the employer and the employer needs to contract workers so the right to contract came above the right to legislate how many hours The Bakers Bakers like bread Bakers cake bakers how many hours they're allowed to work and so the right to contract isn't even they didn't even point out the Constitutional argument they use some weird construction they didn't strictly say Article 1 Section 10 says we have a right to contract they just kind of said we hey we have a right to contract you know it kind of it's don't we it's important and the Supreme Court Justices said yes but they didn't have to do that because the right to contract is specifically in the body of the Constitution so by going to the Constitution this is Progressive because we are expanding our freedoms from not just the first to eight Bill of Rights the first to eight amendments amendments 1 through eight we're not just using the freedoms that are in Amendment 1-8 we're using all the freedoms that the entire document has and that's a good way to get us back to the Constitution we all need to be on the same page and in America we literally are on the same page it's the oldest living Constitution this America has been here for a long ass time I think the Supreme Court Justices might be afraid that people might start reading the Constitution and realize that there's 19 more freedoms that we have that they haven't even it's like they got to put their stamp of approval on it when I read the Constitution and soldiers cannot quarter inside my home soldiers cannot quarter inside my home so this is Progressive this is Progressive the Seventh Amendment says you have a right to a jury trial for civil matters over 20 bucks if it's over $20 you have a right to a jury trial is that what we're doing I mean you have to go to small claims pay this money that money Vince goes here goes there does it ever go anywhere the seventh am says we have a right to a jury trial even with matters controversies disputes with just $20 the Third Amendment says we have freedom from quartering soldiers if an Air Force comes in right now the way things are if a soldier want to live in your home and say that they're doing it for whatever the war on terrorism then you would be put in a position to say huh do I actually have the freedom to throw him out of course you do of course you have a right to your own home you have a right to decide who comes in your home and who doesn't come in your home you have that freedom that's common sense that's natural law and it's also constitutional law but if you have to get a lawyer to go to a court in order to enforce your freedom no no absolutely not somebody is trying to stay in your home they're saying the war on terrorism it's a soldier okay that means you go overseas and you fight on our behalf overseas that doesn't mean you get to oppress us the whole point to the Constitution is to prevent tyranny we don't stand for standing armies we don't stand for tyranny we don't stand for we're for the Bill of Rights we're for the Constitution we're for the three branches of government we're for federalism we for the rule of law so it is Progressive because we get so much more freedoms the right to travel between the states freedom from expost facto laws the right to habius Corpus the right to a jury trial in all criminal cases the right to a jury trial for civil matters over 20 bucks we get freedom from Soldier quartering soldiers there's a grand jury indictment Clause you have a right to a grand jury indictment before anybody could smack a felony upon you you have freedom from Congress giving themselves AR raise these are well they're not individual freedoms but they come from this is the 27th Amendment the 25th Amendment says you have freedom from two ter presidencies the 21st Amendment says you got a right to drink alcohol you got a right to you know legislate that but if you're over 21 years of age which if you can fight and die why can't you drink alcohol the Constitution says you have a right they try to do prohibition with the 18th Amendment the 21st amendment undid the 18th amendment that means you got a right to drink alcohol you have a right to make it you got the right to pass it around you got a right to alcohol the right to Birthright citizenship that's the 14th Amendment the freedom of due process the 14th Amendment is incredible the right to due process and equal protection also life liberty and property you have those rights you have a right to be free from slavery or involuntary servitude you also have a right to vote you have a right to the rights not mentioned I will say Common Sense rights or natural rights so not only do we have all the freedoms that are specifically strictly constructed and then we got to read The Federalist Papers to see what they're talking about here I got a quote from Alexander Hamilton so we have a right to hius Corpus and we have a freedom from Expos facto laws what's habius Corpus jaus Corpus is they have the body and if you're arrested then they have to tell you why they arrested you there's a lot of times with these auditing cases or a lot of problems with cops you'll say specifically I want you to say what is the reason you are arresting me you don't have probable cause for the first thing you can't go on and say obstru Injustice or disorderly or the resisting if you don't have an original reason I saw you rob a bank there that's probable cause I saw you rob a bank that's why I'm chasing you that's why I'm interrogating you and that's why I'm holding you against your will but if you don't have that first initial reason to chase the person to suspect them they're even doing anything of a crime you're just going to harass and then you're not going to like that they're kissing your ass and then you're going to escalate this [ __ ] Hamilton says this when it comes to exp poost facto laws the creation of crimes after the commission of the factor in other words the subjection of men to punishment for things which when they were done were breaches of no law in the practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been in all ages the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny the observations of the judicious Blackstone in reference to the latter are well worthy of recital to B a man of life would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation but confinement of a person by secretly hurrying him to jail where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten is a less public a less striking and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government so by just arresting a person and then thrown him into a hole nobody knows what's happening to you and if you didn't even articulate the first thing there was a case where the guy apparently that he was accused of having a hostage he's armed and dangerous and he's got a hostage there's going to be a shootout and then after the end there is no hostage so if you didn't have a reason to chase the guy to begin with you know if they're speeding right that's a a probable cause if you see the thing yourself maybe the person is lying to you typically I don't think 911 people are lying to you maybe they're deceived maybe they're seeing stuff that they're not seeing but if you don't know the person you can't prove that they're P pathological Liars I think you have to at least presume that what the non one1 call is the charge is probably right and that's also an eyewitness testimony so that's evidence you have one piece of evidence that the thing that they're saying had happened did in fact actually happen I've seen it in court where a police officer would just say a thing happened and then he's just believed just automatically well he said it happened and you're telling me well people lie even if if you have a 99% record you still could be susceptible to the same eyewitness problems that everybody else is it's a human thing so to just accept whatever the cops say pretty much 99% of the time and then when it comes to the people you're not going to accept them 99% of the times so if the cop himself sees the thing you got to have habus Corpus because if you didn't initially see the thing and then your entire testimony is upon one Li Li's lie oh I heard a liar lie about the thing and so therefore I'm going to [ __ ] you up and then we're going to shove that Liar's lie down the the throats of the people there's this other case here Masters V something else and it all begins with a lie Masters V the Commonwealth of Kentucky and it begins with a lie it says something about come outside so I can kick your ass that is not what Master said John Master said do you want to take a step outside now he had know ified a contract he said he was going to do some of these surveys all you're doing is just asking the students a couple questions are you learning the three branches of government are you learning all the things that you're supposed to be learning in Civics and then there's also the question is there democracy here do you have freedom and democracy in this school we know it's totalitarian so the guy gets pissed off he didn't try to do the thing so he broke a contract and if the chaplinsky decision is right all you have to do is just call someone a fascist and that's fighting words well breaking a contract would be fighting words too that would be Hobs also you're breaking one of the natural rights you're breaking one of the laws of nature you're breaking the second law of nature if I was to go there's contracts all over the place when a person goes and put a Snickers bar and then the person says a dollar and I give you a dollar that was a contract that's a quick contract here's this the product that I want okay it costs this much okay here's the money since I gave you money I get get the product that's a contract and that's good that we honor those contracts but if I put the Snickers up there and you say okay give me a dollar and I say nope and I take the Snickers and I run off well I just broke the contract so would you like to take a step outside is hey I'm G to kick your ass if you take a step outside those are different things but we're going to take a liar's lie and we're going to sh it down the people's thr why are we taking a liar's lie and showing it down the people's throat because they know they're on some [ __ ] they know it's a police state a totalitarian police state and they got [ __ ] Egos and people lie you can't establish justice you can't have perfect Justice you can't have equal and exact Justice if you don't have a solid foundation of Truth you got to get the facts right Mark Twain says Get the facts correct first and then distort them at your leisure once you can establish the facts then you can try to manipulate it to this or to that or how ever but if we're just going to say we get to create whatever the [ __ ] truth is out a whole cloth we get to just make up this [ __ ] so he's saying that the habus Corpus Act which is common law is actually a ball workk of the British constitution so this is Hamilton quoting Blackstone but he's essentially saying you have freedom to habius Corpus and since you got a right to habius Corpus that police officer needs to articulate why he is arresting you what is the crime that he witnessed what is the probable cause of him thinking that a crime had been committed if he just wants to harass a person for the [ __ ] of it there is a guy that flip the cops off and then he is going to get harassed by the cops but that young gentleman was right he's got freedom of speech and if he wants to flip off a police officer then he's allowed to flip off a police officer I don't know if chaplinsky is used or not and then that's just you know an exception the freedom the rule is you have freedom of speech you have freedom of speech so you get to gesture with your hand you get to say you know [ __ ] you to the police the right to freedom of speech is to protect the speech that you don't like now I would like to think that we're trying to do in nice orderly society and so the freedoms that we're protecting are speeches pamphlets written material we are going to protect speech that is you know Tastefully done so if you're at a lecture and a lot of times un ities won't allow a person to come speak and yeah they might say some live stuff but you're allowed to say some live stuff you're allowed to write you're allowed to pass out pamphlets you're allowed to post on the internet you're allowed to you have the right to publish you have a right to speak you have a right to write the freedom is the rule there's exceptions to the rules but we have freedom of speech and we have the right to petition and we have a right to peacefully Assemble and we have a right to kick soldiers out of our homes if they're trying to stay in our house we have a right to kick anybody out of our damn house this is my house you don't have a right to be here now is that specifically enumerated it's not but there is the kicking soldiers out of their houses is specifically numerated so you might have a problem with just kicking Jo blow some random ass stranger out of your house but if you're kicking a soldier out of your house it is specifically in the Constitution there is no F or butts there is no doubt in my mind that that is a freedom that we have but they've never taken the Third Amendment to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court hasn't put their stamp of approval on it do they need to I'm a regular average citizen and I read the third amendment to the Constitution here let's read it out loud together the Third Amendment says that no Soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house which means live in and use without the consent of the owner nor in time of War but in a manner to be prescribed by law so you can kick out a damn Soldier who's trying to stay in your [ __ ] house why because of the third amendment so I think this is Progressive what I am doing is essentially pointing out the contradictions of the Supreme Court so if you want to say that this is some kind of legal Molotov cocktail or some technical legal metaphorical Molotov cocktail then you would be correct cuz in a way I am mocking their ideas they say they're strict constructionist but they're ignoring even freedoms that's imp posted up in our own Constitution they say that they're originalist so you want people reading the Constitution you want people reading The Federalist Papers you want them to love the Constitution know who they are I know there's there are people out here that say that the law don't even apply to them they act like the law is above them they get absolute immunity and these are regular citizens by their very well by superficial reasons the law doesn't even apply to you what's the First Freedom what's the first sentence of the Constitution do you even know what the reason why we're all here why are we all here John Adams had this test where he would test virtues and at the end of the night he would see if he was a virtuous person he said he hated that exercise but if we read the first sentence of the Constitution I think this is a good homework assignment for everybody in America at the end of the day what did you do for domestic tranquility yeah you can make up some [ __ ] but the virtue leads the behavior so what I want for Americans to do and I want the judges to do the same [ __ ] because if we're all on the same page when you walk out of the house and you say today I am going to promote the general welfare you're being a good American you're going to go out and you're going to protect Freedom you're going to protect domestic tranquility you're going to provide for the common defense you're going to try to perfect the union hey I'm walk outside today I'm going to try to perfect the union you walk outside and you say you're going to establish justice then you're being a good American those are the end objects that's the whole point for the entire Constitution so there's people that haven't even read the first sentence does the Constitution say what it means and mean what it says does the Constitution say what it means and mean what it says if so if so facto then we have a right to the Ninth Amendment we have a right to the 10th Amendment we have a right to vote we have a right to travel between the states we have freedom from expose Factor laws we got a right to havest Corpus we have a right to a jury trial in all criminal cases we have a right to a jury trial for any case civil case over $20 we have freedom from bills of attainer we have the right to contract the right to a post office box the right to a jury trial in all criminal cases we have all these freedoms because they are specifically enumerated I have to take it to the Supreme Court why don't the Supreme Court just go ahead and rule on my list are my 19 constitutional freedoms do we have them as Americans can we go to the federal court and if someone deprives us of our civil liberties our constitutional Liberties will they uphold my right to kick that Soldier out of his home they'll kick the soldier out of my home the solders got a right to live in his home but he don't have a right to live in my home and while I am socialist which means we're all this together and I would like to have Ubi payments mil Freeman said Ubi actually protects the capitalist system but MLK says it lifts everybody up out of poverty so I like the idea of everybody being taken care of we all got you know a paycheck to go ahead and protect our life we don't have Liberty in the pursuit of happiness if we don't have life so I like the idea of Ubi but if we get put the welfare state on the side for a second I think that civil liberty speaks to in a very specific kind of man by saying that we have civil liberties I think that by studying these things we learn that it's better to petition and to pray and to use our courts it's better to speak and to use press and to peacefully assemble than it is to use your imagination or even worse to commit crimes to solve your problems I would rather people look at the con Constitution see what freedoms and rights that they have that way they can say okay I got problem you know this problem here how am I going to solve this problem well I'm going to use the constitution in order to solve it but right now since we have a big old pile of scotus created Fiat freedoms which doesn't come straight out of the Constitution it's kind of a house of cards it's like Ro v Wade there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution now you can infer a right to privacy and then from a right to privacy you can infer that a woman has a right to privacy with between her and her doctor and so therefore she is allowed to have an abortion but specifically speaking the Supreme Court Justices are right there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution there is a right to be to have hius Corpus to be free from ex poost facto laws and to have the right to contract upheld the obligation of contracts we have a right to contract it's the second law of nature according to Hops his first law is a right to self-defense so that's common sense too that fits in the Ninth Amendment the ninth amendment is the obvious vehicle but there's been some stupid ass arguments where they're like no we don't have to do it that way so they have to use the 14th Amendment to get you back to page one and page one this is America these are American freedoms and a lot of times they just let the state courts do their thing if the state courts aren't protecting our rights then we're not even listen to the Preamble and therefore the US government is doing is not doing what they're supposed to be doing they're supposed to be protecting our freedoms if they don't protect our freedoms and they're not protecting our natural rights you can't act surprised when people are acting criminal because you're not doing your damn jobs you're not doing your damn jobs that's why it's important for people to learn Constitution George Washington The Poon