Preface – On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the various state legislatures twelve proposed amendments but only ten (10) were adopted and inappropriately given the moniker “The Bill of Rights.” Now, at first blush this may not seem to be any big deal and probably really isn’t except for the fact that many jurists, including the respected Judge Bork, have stated that the only federal rights are those which are set out in the “Bill of Rights” in the federal Constitution.

Only Serfs are granted a Bill of Rights by the Sovereign King. We have NO Bill of Rights and thus NO constitutional Rights. We have, instead, unalienable Rights Declared by the Declaration of Independence. Hence, the First 10 Amendments are a Bill of Prohibition. Read them and intellectually observe the semantics of each of them and you will discover that they are, in fact relly, a Bill of Provisions against the Federal Government.


Many people have been lead to believe and thus understand that the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution are a “Bill of Rights” and refer to them as such. But are they really a “Bill of Rights”?

The original Bill of Rights originated in England and was a demand by the English subjects placed upon their monarchs requiring them (the monarchs) to grant their subjects certain rights before they would be accepted as their ruler.

The document pre-eminently known by that name was the English Stature, 1W, and M., Sess2, c. 2 (1689).

What was known as the Declaration of Right was delivered to the Prince and Prin¬cess of Orange (afterwards William III. and Mary) by the English lords and com¬mons, and In December, 1689 (at the second session of the Convention Parliament, which had reassembled October 21st, 1689). It was, with some amendments, few but important, enacted into a statute known as the Bill of Rights. The Declaration was presented to the new monarchs as embodying the condi¬tions of their election, and only after their acceptance of its terms was proclamation of their accession made, on February 13, 1689; 2 Gneist, Hist. Eng. Const. 316, note.

The Bill of Rights contained 13 clauses or guaranties, suggested by the illegal and ar¬bitrary acts previously committed by the Crown, These ‘were a declaration of the il¬legality of (1) the pretended power of the suspension of laws or their execution, by regal authority, without consent of Parlia¬ment; (2) the recent assumption and exercise of the same power; (3) the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for ecclesiastical causes and other similar com¬missions and courts; (4) levying money for the use of the Crown by pretense of prerogative without grant of Parliament; (6) rais¬ing or keeping a standing army in time of peace, without consent of Parliament. There were also declarations in favor of (5) the right of petition; (7) the right of Protestants to bear arms; (8) free elections of members of Parliament; (9) freedom of speech and debates In Parliament, which should not be I questioned elsewhere; (10) that excessive .bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted; (11) the due impaneling and return of jurors, and that those in treason trials should be freeholders; (12) that the grants and promises of fines and forfeiture before conviction are illegal and void; (13) that parliament ought to be held frequently. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 Ed, pg 362

Here we see the monarch rendering to his subjects a bill containing a certain set of rights heretofore politically not possessed by them. Since a “bill” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. as “A formal declaration, complaint, or statement of particular things in writing,” the question is, in this country, does a “bill of rights” serve any particular purpose?

In an opinion written by Chief Justice (John) Jay, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 (US) Dall 419, 457, 1 LEd 440, 456, summarized the status of individuals in this country as thus:

“The revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time, providing for more domestic concerns, by states conventions, and other temporary arrangements. From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it: and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the un-appropriated lands, which belonged to the crown, passed, not to the people of the colony or states within those limits they were situated, but to the whole people… ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country: and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution by which it was their will that the state governments should be bound, and to which constitutions should be made to conform…
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereign¬ties of Europe, and particularly in England, existed on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant, derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges; it is easy to perceive, that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint… The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people; there the sov¬ereign actually administers the government; here never in a single instance; our governors are agents of the people; and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which the regents of Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their princes have personal powers, dignities and preeminence; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.” Chisholm, supra at 454. (emphasis added)

From this we observe that having declared our rights by the bill titled “The Declaration of Independence,” we set out to form a constitutional agent to protect them. This combined with the fact that “we the people” are the sovereigns and that our governors are our agents and thus must stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents of Europe stood to their sovereigns. Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that our “bill of rights” was established by the “Declaration of Independence,” there exists no sovereign in this country with sufficient stature to bestow upon the individual sovereigns of We the People a formal “Bill of Rights.”

Furthermore, the preamble to the first ten Amendments to our federal Constitution dispels any notion that they were ever intended to represent a bill of rights. On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the various state legislatures twelve proposed amendments but only ten (10) were adopted and sometime thereafter inappropriately given the moniker “The Bill of Rights.” Now, at first blush this may not seem to be any big deal and probably really isn’t except for the fact that many jurists, including the respected Judge Bork, have stated that the only federal rights are those which are set out in the “Bill of Rights” in the federal Constitution.
Notwithstanding the fact that the first ten (10) Amendments have been given the title of the “Bill of Rights,” nothing in the language/semantics of anyone of them even suggests that there is a granting of any rights whatsoever; nor could there be. Since We the People are the sovereigns of the country, as stated above from Chief Justice John Jay, the United States (Federal Government) as our Agent has no authority to declare any Rights whatsoever to us. Furthermore, Congress even made it abundantly clear in the preamble lead in to the first 10 Amendments that “The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” The following was excerpted from the Congressional record, established by the Congress of the United States, begun and held at the City of New York on Wednesday, the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. (Emphasis added)
So how can one conclude that there was any intent by Congress to grant any rights, either to the people or to the United States?! By talking particular note of each Amendment, we find that each of the first 10 Amendments contain only mandated restroctions or declarations. Even a review of the language of each Amendment runs counter to any idea of a granting of rights, to wit:
I “Congress shall make no law …. ” (Mandated Restriction)
II ” ..• The right of the people ••. shall not be infringed.” (Mandated Restriction)
III “No soldier shall •… ” (Mandated Restriction)
IV “The right of the people ••. shall not be violated …• ” (Mandated Restriction)
V “No person shall be held to answer ..• ; nor shall any person
be subject for .•• ; nor shall private property be taken …. ” (Mandated Restriction)
VI ” … the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” (Mandated Declaration)
VII ” ..• the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, …. ” (Mandated Declaration)
VIII “Excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” (Mandatory Restriction)
IX “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Mandatory Restriction)
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.” (Mandatory Restriction)

Except for the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, each and every one of the first ten Amendments is an imposed restriction as a Mandamus on the newly created governing body created by We The People by and through the Constitution for the United States, also known today as the federal government. While the Sixth and Seventh Amendments made a declaration of rights, they are in no way a granting of rights. They may, in fact, take on the tenor of a mandamus protecting each of them, but they in no way are a granting of rights. Notice how this fits exactly with Congress’ original statement “that further declaratory and restric¬tive clauses should be added.” (emphasis added)

Furthermore, as set out above, We the People were declared to be the ultimate Sovereigns of our society. Consequently, there are no sovereigns in our society with enough power to trump the power of the People of the United States of America. Therefore, since the People hold the the ultimate power of Sovereignty there exists no sovereign King or Queen capable of passing down a Bill of Rights to We the Sovereign People of the United States of America. But as we can see the from the discussion above a better title for the first 10 amendments of the Federal Constitution is a Bill of Prohibitions. After all, we the People are the ones who instigated the first10 Amendments and we most certainly were interested in the preserving of the Constitution and a Bill of Prohibitions is certainly more apropos than a Bill of Rights as demonstrated above.

Consequently, there are no Constitutional Rights, either State or Federal so it’s time we quit talking about “our Constitutional Rights.” How the first ten (10) Amendments came to be referred to as the “Bill of Rights” is not known by this author, but the first ten (10) Amendments to the Constitution for the United States should more aptly carry the designation of the “Bill of Prohibitions.” Not only does this moniker dispel any notion that the Constitution granted rights to the already sovereign people or the sovereign states (which should be self-evident from the simple fact that a creation cannot grant rights or powers to its creator), it very accurately conveys the tenor of the first ten (10) Amendments themselves. Since our rights preceded the organs of government, the State and federal Constitutions are simply a detailed architecture for said organs whose sole purpose is to protect rights of the People and exist within the powers we gave them to do so. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the “Bill of Prohibitions,” was an effort to emphatically mandate the federal government to stay within the powers so specified in the foregoing body of the instrument.

So, when someone speaks of the “Bill of Rights” it should now seem quite natural and justifiable in the interest of linguistically accurate communication, to say “don’t you really mean the Bill of Prohibitions?” All of our rights were politically declared and recognized by the Declaration of Independence. If we are not able to discern who has rights and who has prohibitions, how can we expect our fellow sovereigns to discern whether an act of the legislature is an act to preserve rights or an act to prohibit or infringe upon them? In our Constitutional Republics (all 51 of them) all rights are retained by the people who then delegated certain powers to constitutional organs of government in an effort to maintain an orderly peaceful society.
When rights are granted to the people, the people, by definition, are in a society of subject class citizens. No such idea attains here, for the people in our Constitutional Republics are the sovereigns, sovereigns without subjects, and the notion that any of the sovereign’s rights could have been granted by the Constitution for the United States, a creation of We the [Sovereign] People, is a semantic and linguistic absurdity.
Words have meaning and their semantic content is our only form of honest communication. Let us learn to use the right ones and correct those among us which are wrong, paying no mind to habits, customs, or age.
The first 10 Amendments to the federal Constitution are a Bill of Prohibitions. No other moniker is semantically possible. It’s time we started acting as the sovereign citizens we are by labeling the first 10 Amendments as a the Bill of Prohibitions and cease acting as subject class citizens by labeling and believing the first 10 Amendments are a “Bill of Rights.”
Technically speaking, we have no constitutional rights only our (unabridged) unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, which Trumps any and all Bills of Rights.
M. Kenneth Creamer
2003 Revised 2008

Leave a Reply