When NO means Maybe - Conservative Politics

american conervative news opinion politics the land of the fre

U.S. Government Links	Info on the FairTax	Historic Quotes	Right Wing Thoughts	Book Store	Truth Alerts	Conservative News & Opinion Archive
Read: American Conservative Daily Blog Contact Information

When “NO” Means Maybe By Jeff Jackson (5/12/04 and Originally Wiritten July, 1996)
The Land of the Free - A Conservative Politics Web Site

Lots of people claim that the first amendment saying “Congress shall make NO law … abridging the freedom of speech” or that the second amendment saying “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is not a use of the word “no” or “not” in its absolute sense. They instead try and say that “no” has the equivalent meaning of “no ... unless we deem it so necessary” or “no unless we say so”.

So let’s take a look at what changing the meaning of the word “no” does to our Constitutional privileges shall we?

Amendment I in its actual form reads:

“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.”

Replacing “no” with “no … unless we deem it so necessary” takes away the absolute privilege and turns it into:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless we deem it so necessary, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless we deem it so necessary; or abridging the freedom of speech unless we deem it so necessary, or of the press unless we deem it so necessary; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless we deem it so necessary, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless we deem it so necessary.”

That’s not too comforting is it. Not too comforting at all that some bureaucrat could simply say oops, sorry we deemed it unnecessary to enforce these privileges.

How about the Second Amendment? That says:

“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.”

Replacing “no” with “no … unless we deem it so necessary” takes away the absolute privilege and turns it into:

“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 unless we deem it so necessary.”

Boy, that really puts a dent in the words of the founding fathers who often were quoted as saying things like “And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." said by Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950). How can oneconceivably justify the meaning of “no” to mean that government has the right to take away arms for any reason when we have such prominent examples of what our founders believed.

Moving on to Amendment III which traditional (and correctly says):
“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.”

Becomes:
“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 unless we deem it so necessary.”

Wow, another privilege that can be turned away with the stroke of a pen when we make “no” mean not “no”.

Further, the fourth amendment that keeps us free from unreasonable government invasions into our privacy becomes:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless we deem it so necessary, 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 unless we deem it so necessary.”

The rest of the Bill of Rights is similarly shredded as with the NEW definition of "no" amendments V through X now are read to say:

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 unless we deem it so necessary; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb unless we deem it so necessary; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself unless we deem it so necessary, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law unless we deem it so necessary; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation unless we deem it so necessary.”

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 unless we deem it so necessary, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him unless we deem it so necessary; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence unless we deem it so necessary.”

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 unless we deem it so necessary.”

Amendment VIII: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted unless we deem it so necessary.”

Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people unless we deem it so necessary.”

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 unless we deem it so necessary.”

Boy, that sure puts a new look on our privileges doesn’t it. Sure am glad that according to some "intellectuals" government can just do whatever it damn well pleases. Thank GOD that the founders really meant “no … unless we deem it so necessary” instead of simply “no” to allow government to suspend my rights when they think they know better than I what I want and how to “pursue happiness”.

God BLESS the founding fathers for being so smart as to say what they meant without actually saying it!

The lesson of this exercise? Intellectuals, aren’t always all that smart and sometimes they think so hard that they break their brains. So use your own brain and discover the truth for yourself. "No" does mean no.