The piece of paper is not what gives us our rights, much less the state which takes this piece of paper as its foundational legal document. The Declaration says explicitly, in it first page- in the first sentence of its fist page,- even by allusion to the terminology of Euclidean geometry, that our rights are abstract self-evident truths granted from out of God and Nature: they are grounded in metaphysical principles. Accordingly, these rights are infinite; they are arbitrary, indefinite: without number. The Constitution tells us that a Right does not need to be explicitly stated or defined, in order to be implicitly protected just the same as rights that are so defined, like our right to free speech. The only reason that some rights are explicitly stated or added via amendment, is as a further act of protection against unforeseen complications between the different branches of government. So in other words: I have a right to be my own doctor and essentially use any drug as I see fit, to just imagine one such “implicit right”. That right is just as protected as my right to free speech. Yet all these institutions have been built up through executive order, over time: all these illegal federal agencies. It is, from my perspective, simply illegal for an agency like the DEA to exist, yet a Tower of Babel kind of skyscraper of legalisms has been covertly and slowly built up over time, through the generations, on this illegitimate understanding (either intentionally or due merely to stupidity) of constitutional philosophy. Do you know what it would take to unravel this tapestry of unjustifiable legalism? 1,000 supreme court trials, that would take nearly the same amount of years to go through. It goes without saying, that such a monumental event is not likely to transpire for the sake of defending any one of these implicitly protected Rights. Now, it is only though the process of amendment, that this horrific legal machinery can be overcome and one of our implicit rights granted what is supposed to be a natural protection, equivalent to that provided for our explicitly stated rights, owed to it from the outset. I will include an excerpt from one of my books on this: I believe this point of constitutional philosophy is one of the most important things to know, at least for a US citizen. It is just sad for me to see this Tower of Babel of legalism and executive order grow taller and taller, year by year, with no end in sight. It is sad for me to see the finer and most significant realities of our foundational system of Law just, forgotten, or dismissed.
Tractatus Metapolitica:
He, [Socrates] for the first time in history, recognized and mobilized
the forces of marginalization that existed unconsciously within the collective demos or populace in their organization as ‘polis’,
(whose realization Aristotle had branded as the very telos of human nature) internalizing within himself these forces through a kind of
philosophic-agon or contest of the latent social stresses and various powers he saw as unjustly limiting the potential of the individual
Athenian citizen for the sake of the needs of the polis in which the given individual was absumpted into his concomitant roles in
society, as regulated by the form of arete which a culture had chosen to idealize and with which it motivated its constituents toward
civic good and conformation to the social ordo, [The example I use is women. Yes, they lacked certain rights, but this state was
balanced by their also lacking the responsibility that came with those rights, which afforded them social powers in exchange for
political powers,- social powers that men did not have. Every single social role was balanced in this way, so that the demos or
collective was organized into a political body, a “polis” that circulated libido or the life-impulse as efficiently as possible: the more
efficiently it did so, the less conscious the individual citizen was of their limitation and fate, in their being subordinated to the needs
of the State to maintain this efficiency. Thus, nobody ever became aware of their social limitation, at least on a deeper philosophical
level necessary for deriving any revolutionary potential- until Socrates.] as what he called his “conscience”,- a inner “daemon” which
manifested itself as a criterion-of-judgement to which he held each of his interlocutors and in fact Athens itself,- or more properly, the
world itself,- in accordance to the needs and desires of the “individual”, contra or independently from the needs (the ens-politica) of
the polis,- that organization of the demos whose perfection Aristotle championed as the supreme end of ethics. This development through
Socrates enabled, after Rome had assimilated and overpowered Greece, Christianity to emerge, which further developed and
eventually realized a true ethical conceptualization of the value of the Individual- a value taken as superior to the value of the demos,
polis, or the State. Finally, Greek political science and metaphysics was incorporated into Christianity by the Gnostics and Alexandrians
who, in turn incorporating the Platonic philosophy grounded upon- but not limited to this essential teaching of Socrates, [Plato’s
Republic, while not reaching a political idea that codified the absolute primacy of the individual, should be read as a kind of
miniaturization of his understanding of anamnesis and reincarnation that succeeds in approximating the ethical value of the
Individual: he identifies the Philosopher-soul as the true and only Individual, and his Republic is set up to essentially shepherd souls
from the lowest position in society up to the heights of Philosophy.] finally laid the groundwork for- the US, essentially,- whose
constitution, at least at present, is the only one to canonize these ethical realizations of the Individual as primary, even at the level of
the super-ethical, ie. metaphysics. [The so called “rights” in European states are merely privileges afforded by the State that can be
modified at any time and to whatever extent the State pleases, whereas the rights of the US are explicitly stated to be “self-evident”,
echoing Euclid’s phrase and indicating that they are not granted to us by the State but by God and Nature, as furthermore grounded
upon true abstractions, that is, metaphysical principles that cannot be modified in anything but their historical presentation, never in
their essence; in fact, the Constitution goes further by stating that man’s rights are infinite in potential and a right need not be
EXPLICITLY stated in the constitution in order to be granted the same protection as rights that are, for these rights are not given to us
by the piece of paper- by the constitution, but by either God or Nature, (the Constitution- in fact Law itself, as understood in the US,-
does not grant us our rights- it PROTECTS them from the tyranny of other men and from the State itself by codifying a system of
checks and balances, a mathematically rigorous coordination and dispensation of political power, in which to further organize their
exceedingly complex interplay and ‘historical presentation’) grounded as they are on principles based on the idea of Natural Law and
the Sphere of Nature in relation to the INDIVIDUAL and of that of the individual in relation to his fellows, ie. all that I can do of my
own power without overstepping the sphere of nature which I occupy and encroaching upon another individual’s sphere, belongs to
me.]