| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Our Rights Are Unalienable and Unrestricted
Home Owner Associations (HOAs) have long had a reputation for being abusive and using powers not ascribed to them. Because of this an effort recently began to re-charter them, forcing them to follow Constitutional principles which protect the rights of residents by explicitly restricting their powers based on the original intent of our Founding Fathers; explicitly identifying when, how and why the HOA may take actions such that those actions protect and defend the rights of residents.
During a recent Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting of the Ashburn Farm HOA in Ashburn, Virginia, a discussion took place about why HOAs should be re-chartered under a more constitutional Declaration of Covenants (see http://recharterhoas.wordpress.com/resources/ for an example of this new charter). During this conversation two important statements troubled the resident: the first was that our rights are unalienable and cannot be surrendered or taken from us, the second was that we have unlimited freedom within our protected rights thus those freedoms cannot be restricted by laws. The resident with whom this discussion took place then made the following request (paraphrased):
Can you please provide evidence that our freedoms are truly unlimited? Don’t use vague references but be specific. Identify where in the Constitution you find that our freedoms are to be unrestricted and cannot be taken away. Provide as much evidence as possible to make your case.
The gentleman asking this question is quite intelligent and was not asking because of some nefarious scheme. He was honestly inquiring but holds a common misperception. It is a classic case of someone being unable to see the forest because of all of the trees, where the trees include the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and laws derived thereof and the forest which also includes the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Pilgrims, and every event throughout history that influenced the creation of this great country.
INTRODUCTION
The proper response to this inquiry is multi-faceted; it contains several parts all of which contribute evidence to fully support the claims. The major parts include:
- Religious Liberty (leaving England for religious freedom)
- Religious Doctrine (the belief that we were made by God to be free)
- Religious Supremacy (the belief that we are to have no other Gods before Him)
- Religious Equality (the belief that all men are created equal)
- The purpose for our U.S. Constitution and laws derived thereof
- The purpose for the Amendments (the Bill of Rights)
Individually these parts contribute to the whole body of evidence (the forest) but no part can be looked at alone (the trees) since the Christian perspective of the Founders ties all of them together and is the fundamental reason our nation exists.
EVIDENCE
This examination will illustrate that the Founders intended our freedoms to be unrestricted and that those freedoms cannot be surrendered or taken away for any reason (though they can be lost to us at least for a time because of our behavior). It will also show that laws do not define the limits of our freedoms; instead, it will show that laws define locations where the rights of one person interfere with the rights of another and only there is power granted to government to intervene (EX: noise ordinances).
FOUNDATION
The fundamental evidence that proves our freedoms are both unalienable and unrestricted and the foundation of every law and purpose is that our founders established “We the People” as the highest authorities over even government. “We the People” established this nation and its government; therefore, government cannot be superior to those who created it. It is a servant and nothing more. In addition, the Founders acknowledged that “All men are created equal” as stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. In this simple phrase the Founders acknowledge God’s presence and sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the individual. And since all men are equal and sovereign no man has supremacy over another. Also, this was a phrase they did not have to write into the Constitution because it was a “self-evident” truth.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This, therefore, is the first proof that our freedoms are both unalienable and unrestricted. The quote directly states that our rights are unalienable, and since these rights are granted by God and man is sovereign save for God then there is no authority who can interfere with, claim or revoke a man’s rights; not even the owner of those rights. Thus, government has no legitimate authority to interfere with, restrict or control an individual exercising his rights.
This is clearly enough evidence to prove the case that our freedoms are unalienable and unrestricted but to fully address the question according to how it was asked this response will continue…
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
Evidence that our freedoms are unalienable and unrestricted is also derived from the U.S. Constitution; however, the question about where in the Constitution such evidence exists is flawed. It assumes that the Constitution enumerates our freedoms even though the numbers of freedoms we have are innumerable. The simple act of asking such a question is evidence of losing sight of the forest because of the trees. The Constitution does not define our freedoms it defines (A) the fundamental reason the Founders created the constitution (the Preamble) and (B) the purpose, parts and limitations of our government (the Articles). In the midst of defining these it illuminates certain relevant rights that have been “endowed” to us. Therefore, it contains no direct “evidence that our freedoms are truly unlimited”; however, it does provide a great deal of indirect evidence to this fact. One must simply look at the laws (Articles) and the purpose of those laws.
The U.S. Constitution was written to, among other things, “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” and every law within it was written for these purposes. Every law serves, extends and defends the freedoms of the people – none in any way interfering with them without warrant. For example:
- Articles I, II and III define the three branches of government, their powers, how they operate, how they serve the states and the powers denied to the states. The closest they come to limiting the people’s rights is in laws regulating commerce with foreign powers. Congress has the power to place sanctions on trade with other nations not for the purpose of limiting or controlling the American people and their rights but to influence those foreign powers so that they would create systems favorable to fair trade. Such fair trade practices would ultimately expand our freedoms, not reduce them. So long as the federal government uses these commerce powers for this purpose they are legitimate and expand our freedoms.
- Article IV defines that which constitutes equitable agreements between states. For example, it identifies each as sovereign with respect to the others (section 1), that they will treat citizens fairly and equally (section 2), how common property is managed (section 3), their function as a representative democracy (section 4) and how they defend citizens from invasion (section 4). This article does not provide or limit the powers of the states; in short it simply defines the behavior states will adhere to in order to act as good members of the union of states. It also does not and could not define the federal government as superior to the sovereign states though it does allow them the authority to arbitrate disputes. In short, this article illuminates the rules by which states that join into these United States would act as good and worthy neighbors. Reminder: States voluntarily joined this union of states and did so not to accept a king or monarch above them but because they believed in the American ideals of freedom and self-government.
- Article V describes how the Constitution itself may be amended. It protects the people from an out of control government by providing methods to modify that government and to force it to behave when its officers abuse their powers and refuse to listen.
- Article VI defines these United States as a whole body of states, establishes the Constitution and all laws derived from it to be the supreme law of the land, and it requires all political officers to swear an oath of allegiance before taking office.
- Article VII defines how the Constitution would be ratified by the original 13 colonies.
As you can see, all of the articles within the Constitution serve, defend or extend our freedoms and only a limited few even interact with them such as the laws regulating commerce with foreign powers which ultimately extends our freedoms when used correctly. Thus, all laws control government and limit their authority leaving the freedoms of the people unalienable and unrestricted.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION (THE BILL OF RIGHTS)
Just as the Constitution provides evidence that our freedoms are unalienable and unrestricted so too do the amendments. And just like the core of the Constitution, amendments do not enumerate our rights; rather they identify limits on governmental powers by illuminating where the powers of government and our rights intersect; and closer observation will prove that government is only allowed to interact with our freedoms when the rights of two or more individuals come into conflict. Thus again, illustrating that our freedoms are unalienable and to be unrestricted. For example:
- The 1st Amendment protects the practice of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, to petition government and of the press. It does not create these freedoms it simply recognizes their existence and guarantees that they will not be infringed. This is evidence that other freedoms exist that have not been identified such as those later identified within other amendments.
- The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own firearms. Liberty loving people recognize this as protecting the right to carry weapons without infringement whereas those who prefer power in the hands of government see this as a right guaranteed to the state (which almost totally eliminates an individual’s right to self-defense).
Those seeking to be more honest about the Founders’ intent reject the idea that the debate is about limiting our freedoms; instead, they recognize the debate to be about where one person’s freedoms end and another person’s freedoms begin. For example, one person’s right to own a tank for self-defense, to defend against an out of control government, intersects with another person’s right to self-defense which guarantees they may protect their families and feel threatened by the presence of a weapon-capable tank in their neighborhood. The rights of both individuals are legitimate even if one is a bit extreme and both are guaranteed their freedoms by God. The solution therefore is for honest individuals to decide how much discomfort must be tolerated before the interference with the rights of others becomes unacceptable. The same argument can be made about noise pollution where the quantity of noise allowed during the day, or at all, is much greater than the quantity of noise allowed at night. In both cases people must be allowed to make noise but there is a limit to how much and when because of the rights of others. The common thread is that rights cannot be interfered with until a significant violation of another person’s rights occurs, and it is not up to government to decide when interference is allowed, that is up to the local community. - The 3rd Amendment guarantees that the army cannot force homeowners to provide room and board. Since it is clear a homeowner cannot be forced to provide room and board what evidence suggests that HOAs have legitimate authority to tell homeowners what height their sheds can be or the allowed color of stones within their yards? The simple assumption that such authority is possible for an HOA is offensive and for good reason.
- The 4th Amendment protects people from government inappropriately taking property, papers, or people. This amendment reiterates the constitutional guarantee of Liberty (the improper taking or restricting of people) clarifying that the rights of people over themselves and their possessions are to be unalienable and unrestricted. The mere existence of this amendment shows that our freedoms have been incorrectly assumed alienable by those in power.
- The 10th Amendment states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. There is debate about the division of this authority but the debate is much clearer than many would suggest since many creating the debate have ulterior motives. This entire Constitution and all legitimate laws derived from it protect, defend and expand our rights, and all authority of government is granted to it by the people who were “created” and who are “equal” to one another and who are therefore “sovereign” towards one another and over the states. Therefore, it is the people of a state who define how the state (government) operates and the powers it has, with special consideration to the fact that sovereign created individuals cannot legitimately confer to the state powers they do not have. “We the People” have sovereign authority over our own freedoms and states are created by us to serve us. States are not to serve the majority or to rule over the people they are to serve every individual within it justly. God created man to serve Him and man created government to serve Him. Those seeking the truth will acknowledge that all of government was created to serve the people; protecting, defending and expanding their rights. They do this by managing public lands and property in ways that make them most useful to the people (commerce, transportation and enjoyment) while also building new relationships with foreign nations thus providing new trading partners and friends to the American people (in cooperation with the federal government’s trade policies). Those seeking the truth would also recognize that since people are sovereign over all government entities it is those government entities which are closest to the people that are the most powerful; thus, homeowners associations (HOAs) being closest have the most legitimate authority to protect, defend and expand the rights and freedoms of local residents using local resources. By contrast, state governments are actually quite far removed from the people and therefore do not carry the strong authority commonly ascribed to them.
To clarify: The powers a state has which are not powers an individual carries relate only to the running of the state as it serves the people. Each state is sovereign with regard to the other states and has more authority than the federal government within its area of effect (AoE), its territory. This means that the state and not individuals may enter the state into contracts with other states; that the state and not individuals will govern state money collected; that the state and not individuals will govern state controlled militias; that the state and not individuals will define the state’s monetary policy, transportation policy, waste management policy, etc.; and that the state and not individuals will define what is fair and equitable regarding trade and commerce (again, such rules are only legitimate where the rights of one trading partner conflict with the rights of another). In short, the state has no power to over-ride a person’s individual sovereignty their purpose is to protect and defend it. Officers of the state are servants of the people not rulers above them – they arbitrate disputes but do not pass judgments or punishments. - The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. As with the other amendments this one did not make slavery wrong it simply acknowledged that slavery had always been wrong and formally declared that these United States will not tolerate any future such abridgements of a person’s rights.
All other amendments continue in this same fashion: illuminating our freedoms which have been “endowed by God” and clarifying the limits of government power. To reiterate, our Constitution and laws derived from it do not grant freedoms to the people they define and limit the powers of government. Our freedoms are defined by our Creator in the Holy Bible through the Judeo-Christian ethos, and it is only when government powers usurp or attempt to usurp those freedoms that amendments are made to our constitution which then illuminates freedoms we already possess.
LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
To provide a full accounting of evidence that proves our freedoms to be unalienable and unrestricted we must also look at that which limits government to see how and why such limits exist. To do this we must first remember that our freedoms are not enumerated within our Constitution; they have been granted to us by God and the constitution simply identifies a few of them as it illustrates various limits on government powers. And just as our freedoms are not fully enumerated neither are the limits on the powers of government – nor could they be.
It is necessary to understand that limits on government powers exist before they are written into laws but it is only the humble and selfless public officer who adheres to such un-written limits. It is called self-control. The only reason many laws become written is because lawmakers and those in power fail or refuse to be self-controlled. For example: Before the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) presidency there were no presidential term limits since all previous presidents were either voted out or limited themselves. There was a general understanding that two terms was the most any president should serve. FDR ignored this social custom. If the same philosophy of self-control held true for trustees of home owner associations (HOAs) then this entire effort to re-charter HOAs would have been unnecessary.
SUMMARY
The following evidence was presented that proves our rights to be both unalienable and unrestricted:
- Our rights come from God and therefore are both unalienable and to be unrestricted by men (government). Evidence supporting this was that “We the People” established this nation and its government and that the “self-evident” truth that “All men are created equal” identifies that no man has supremacy over another (making them sovereign) and thus man cannot empower government with powers over the individual or an individual’s rights.
- The events surrounding America’s birth when many left England for religious freedom is evidence that our freedoms and the Judeo-Christian heritage from which they were born were of paramount concern to the Founders.
- It is found in the Christian doctrine spoken of continually by our founders identifying that we were made by God to be free.
- It is found in the belief in the 10 Commandments, especially the one stating that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
- It is found in the purpose for our U.S. Constitution and laws derived thereof.
- It is found in the purpose for the Amendments (the Bill of Rights).
- And, it is found in the limits established for government and the reasons new amendments are included within the Constitution and new laws are added.
What is the point of knowing all this?
Why Does This Matter? The point is to correct bad behavior by government officers. In this case it is bad behavior by trustees of the Ashburn Farm Home Owner’s Association. Residents of this community did not ordain trustees to be kings over the happy land of Ashburn Farm. They were not given scepters and crowns or the authority to tell residents where stones can be placed on private property and no government entity has or can have such authority. Trustees were elected as community representatives under the authority and limitations set forth by our Founding Fathers thus the powers of the HOA are no greater than that of a sovereign individual with no authority over his neighbor or his neighbor’s possessions. Within our nation the authority of a single individual is the same as that of one hundred million. We are not a majority rule country as others are we are a Republic and we protect and defend the right of an individual to be an idiot with his freedoms just as aggressively as we defend actions of which we approve. Our rights are both unalienable and to be unrestricted.
HOA Trustees are obligated to be self-controlled and to know, protect and defend the rights of residents. To do so this they themselves must know and understand their responsibilities and their legal and moral limitations (take special note of this moral limitations comment). They have an obligation to “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” but without self-control and a willingness to openly and honestly seek to know the Founders, the Constitution and the original intent they will be unable to meet those obligations. Trustees need to accept the following truths and to openly declare them:
- Our rights are given by God not by men.
- There are legal laws (laws defined by men) and moral laws (laws defined by God) and legal laws can never override moral laws.
- All men are created by God as equal and therefore are sovereign within their freedoms (moral authority) and legal laws have no authority to override, control, demand or otherwise affect those freedoms.
- The first obligation of all citizens is a moral one which is to protect and defend the rights of others as they would for themselves. It is an obligation that is present in every action. It is therefore the highest moral imperative (a moral responsibility not a moral authority).
- Not spoken of earlier in this text but appropriate to the discussion is that the authority to become angry is a moral one and it is self-control that is most necessary in all activities; however, government has no moral authority as the people who work for it have. Therefore, when acting on behalf of government officers must restrain their moral authority to be demanding, overbearing and self-righteous. They must be appropriately self-controlled. Thus, government officers are to keep their moral authority out of all communications, documents, laws, rules, commands and edicts so that all actions of government remain inferior to those who empower government. In other words, all actions taken on behalf of government must show that it submits itself to the people it serves, always acting with a servant’s heart. It retains its strength but restrains its words.
- Lastly, proximity does not affect our unalienable rights. We have the same rights whether we live 300 miles apart or 3 feet. The only change is how often our actions intersect with the actions of others and thus we are to be more self-controlled and conscious of them.
Typically, when HOA officers are approached to discuss their unconstitutional behavior they declare they are not lawyers and push the resident to take such issues up in court which is another way of saying “go away.” Our Founders, however, were much wiser. They recognized our rights as “common sense,” a common knowledge derived from the Christian Bible which they openly discussed at length. They did not need to enumerate our rights within documents made by men our rights were understood within common parlance because they were derived from a common faith. Thus, modern government officers cannot openly or honestly discuss their legitimate authority or their limits without discussing the Holy Bible and its intent. Let this be the takeaway from this discussion.
Additional information about the effort to re-charter home owner associations (HOAs) is available at: http://recharterhoas.wordpress.com. This site hosts a number of downloadable resources one of which is a new and constitutional Declaration of Covenants. Sign the re-charter petition and get involved.
