January 20, 2007
“We the People”
The Wait Is Almost Over
Within months, in all probability just before the Easter break, the hot topic of the day in every single law school in America will be the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in our case entitled, We The People v. The U.S. Government.
Given the enormous and far-reaching implications of this decision, either in favor of the People or against them, law school professors everywhere will be anxious to analyze and “mine” the decision, discussing it in their faculty and academic forums and bringing it the attention of the young minds that fill their classrooms. Many will likely rush to further explore the gravity of the ruling and publish articles in Law Review journals.
It will be an exciting time, indeed — especially for the ordinary non-aligned citizen taxpayers of this great Country.
The excitement will permeate Give Me Liberty 2007, our three-day conference scheduled for March 29-31.
Think about it. For the first time in the entire history of our nation — since the adoption of our Bill of Rights in 1791– a Court is about to declare the legal meaning of one of the five individual Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Not just any Right, but the mother of all Rights — the Right that caps all the others, the so-called “Capstone Right.” The First Amendment is, undoubtedly, the most important sentence in the entire Constitution.
It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to Petition the government for a Redress of Grievances.”
Within the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment is the Right of each individual (and the minority) to hold government accountable to each and every provision of the Constitution, including all the other enumerated and un-enumerated Rights. This is why the Petition Clause is called the “Capstone Right.”
What good would it do to design and adopt a Constitution based on popular sovereignty that guaranteed individual, un-alienable Rights, if the individual himself had not the power to prevent the Government from violating those Rights, non-violently?