You are browsing the Blog for Dan Hubert, Esq.

The Founder’s Intent for the First Amendment – Pt II

June 20, 2012 in Contributors, Dan Hubert, Esq

By Daniel Hubert PROTECTING THE ROOTS OF REVOLUTION Without the principles of the First Amendment, revolution would be impossible. With the First Amendment, revolution is unnecessary. In our part-one article on this amendment, the case was made that the first amendment was intended not as four independent liberties, but four interdependent liberties that assured the People could be protected from the Government through their own choice in faith, association, speech and protest, and the freedom to file grievances. This was a distinct protection not enjoyed under England’s rule. They assured peaceful revolution would always be possible, and tyranny almost impossible. Any without all would prove toothless in the path of true tyranny. The Founders understood how the revolution dramatically changed the political landscape from King George’s England; if Americans could break off from the Church of England, why not England itself?[i] Politically, the states needed assurances the national government they [...]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments Off

The Founders’ Intent for the First Amendment

June 2, 2012 in Dan Hubert, Esq, Restoring God, Separation of Church and Culture, Uncategorized

By Daniel Hubert PART 1: THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE “Congress shall make no law respecting an 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.” – The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Four distinct liberties appear in the first amendment, protected by the strongest language one could devise. At first glance, it is simply several separate liberties.  But they are, in fact, one singular liberty with four inter-dependent parts.  Likely, a half-drunken clerk, pulling an all-nighter, penned the last draft of the First Amendment.  The author scribbled them down hastily, probably at a tavern, and certainly as his whiskey and candlelight dwindled. To suggest the clerk’s intoxication is by no means a slight on the clerk.  It just demonstrates that a drunken [...]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments Off

The Founders’ Intent for the Tenth Amendment

February 16, 2012 in Dan Hubert, Esq, Restoring Country, Tenth Amendment

By Dan Hubert, Esq. Like other natural rights specifically protected by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment needs intense obfuscation. Otherwise, people might actually believe what it says. The Tenth Amendment reads: “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.” When States began to debate whether to adopt the Constitution, people and politicians were split into two main groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists supported ratifying the Constitution while Anti-Federalists had strong reservations. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay authored a series of articles defending the proposed Constitution. Known as The Federalist Papers, these men explained precisely how the Constitution functioned as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation. Individual Anti-Federalists countered with their own pamphlets, laying out strong arguments against ratification. Anti-Federalists were primarily concerned a strong Federal government would [...]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »