8 Comments
User's avatar
Sean Dennison's avatar

Loved the further clarity gained from this

Expand full comment
Mark Iverson's avatar

Thanks for reading and commenting… spread the learning!

The way it was intended to work is you were a citizen of one of the states and with that came the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. You don’t need any other kind of rights, eg civil rights. If gov attempts to restrict your rights, you shove the constitution in their face and say, ‘This constitution limits YOU’.

Expand full comment
Sean Dennison's avatar

Indeed! 🙌

Expand full comment
iconX's avatar

From my understanding of this, it seems like a challenge and reversal of the Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935) decision might be a worthwhile path to fixing things. Has it ever been challenged? What sort of cases might be good candidates for such a tactic? I'm not a lawyer so hopefully these aren't stupid questions!

Expand full comment
Mark Iverson's avatar

iconX, there are no stoopid Qs. A most sincere thanks for engaging me in a discussion.

Expand full comment
Mark Iverson's avatar

My letter to all governors lays out the best strategy, which is to get back to a single citizenship status like before the 14th Amendment.

The 14th was a bandaid. Due to the racism there was no way the freed slaves were going to be granted the same citizenship status. Now, in today’s world it would be a no brainer; it would sail thru congress. Thus my letter to governors, it lays out the strategy.

This has been very difficult to convey in few words. i need to work on a reader’s digest article! if you read several of my articles i think it will begin to come into focus.

Expand full comment
Adele Trebil's avatar

Thank you for the precise distinction between civil rights (Federal) and unalienable rights (State)! Do you plan to open a discussion on how we reclaim our unalienable rights transferring our legal status back to "State" citizens?

Stimulating and informative.

Expand full comment
Mark Iverson's avatar

Hi Adele,

I appreciate you taking time to read the article and then provide comments... I read and reply to all comments.

The first ten amendments get the notoriety of being 'unalienable' rights, but the reality is that those amendments are only a partial listing, the ones the Founders felt they wanted to make explicitly clear. I don't think its possible to 'enumerate' or list a complete set of unalienable rights. Basically, under common law, so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights, you can do pretty much what you want. Since we're also subject to positive law (statutes), 'doing pretty much what you want' would also have to not violate statutes.

RE: "... a discussion on how we reclaim our unalienable rights transferring our legal status back to "State" citizens?"

As a matter of fact I am working on an article on just that... I'll send out an email when its posted.

Expand full comment