I am prevelant on Facebook, which proves I really have no life. Actually I am very active in other things. One of those things is studying the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights and the true history of the United States. I mention this only because these two things have recently connected.

While purusing Facebook, I cam across this graphic.

The real job before us is not cleaning up the mess Obama created. The real one is cleaning the mess that created Obama.
Truer words were never spoken and, quite frankly, I can say the same about Trump. Only time will tell about the Trump legacy, but he would not have been my first choice. He was the only choice of the choices given, however. Yes, I voted for him and would do the same under similar circumstances.

The mess that created Obama is voter fraud. The fraud was prevelant, clearly evidenced and in your face. That is because the Republicans got into a court battle and promised not to say anything about voter fraud because they were being meanies. So I shall pinpoint the problems that caused this “mess.” In this article I will cover political labels that may hurt your feelings.

The main problem is that almost everyone allows others to think for them. They do not catch on when even Fox news is laughing in their face.

LABELS

When the term “Deplorables” was recently used against Trump supporters, they responded in an amazingly quick and devious manner. They took on the new name with pride and waved it like a flag. Even to the point of attempting to get a new U.S. Navy ship named “The Deplorables.” Unlike the progressives when called snowflakes.

I thought it interesting because the “liberals,” as you call them, are not liberal at all. They have stuck it to you with that label since the 1960s. The left-wing Wikipedia actually makes a distinction between the so-called liberalism of today with what they call “Classic liberalism.” The difference?

Classic liberals are those who believe in freedom. The free market economy. Natural rights. The left-wing Wikipedia uses the term “civil rights” instead of natural rights. They do not even want you to have that term in your lexicon because natural rights are those that the God of the Holy Bible gave you. What you might call instinct. For example you know you have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you. In fact the “classic liberal” John Locke calls this war. War is just not for the elites to play. John Locke goes so far as to say that if a person comes on your property with the intent to do you harm, he has committed an act of war. An act of war which you may prosecute to its logical conclusion; whether that be a peace treaty or the elimination of your enemy. The point being that you have the natural right to choose your own destiny.

The caveat, of course, is that you cannot interfere with the rights of another in their pursuits, so long as those pursuits are legal. You can build a three-story house even if that house blocks your neighbors view of Mount Shasta. You CANNOT, however, dump toxic chemicals and waste in a waterway which runs through the property of others who might use that water, nor can you dam it up to prevent the flow.

The so-called “liberals” of today are properly called “progressives.” That is the term which Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe their methods of circumventing the Constitution of the United States of America.

ARE YOU WAVING THE RED FLAG?

The same system of labels applies during every election. The Republicans eagerly await the posting of red colored States across the map without even realizing what they are doing. They wave red flags and post on sites called “Redstate” and wear red shirts when they should ONLY wear a red shirt on Friday for Remember Everyone Deployed (RED) Friday.

Does anyone remember what a red flag represents? There are two States in the world with red flags. Communist Russia and Communist China. Even the word Communist is incorrect for these States because they do not practice Communism as outlined by Friedrich Engels. You might not know that name, but he did most of the work accredited to Karl Marx. That’s okay though. Engels was a good communist and let Marx take the credit. What current communist governments should be called are tyrannical. That is the term used by the so-called founding fathers.

What the left-wing media has done is to get well-meaning Republicans to cheer the spread of Communism across the United States. And to cheer their own demise. Remember the old phrase, “Better dead than red?”

If we were to actually have a truth in labeling law, why would the red States not represent the Democrats since they represent tyranny? Why are they given the color of the “true blue” American? And if FOX news is the “conservative” alternative, why are they doing the exact same thing?

I am writing this article as a bit of therapy. I will not include dates or details of the trial at hand, because they are not within the scope of this article. This is about my embarrassment as a potential juror. Hopefully this will assist you in the future.

I was called to jury duty, but was unfamiliar with the process. I was upset about the way the summons was issued because I was not even informed that I was in a period when I could be called. I will say that the court staff was extremely kind and understanding. That settled me quite a bit.

As potential jurors were dismissed, I eventually wound up in the jury pool. I had several problems. I provide health care assistance for another person and their family. I do not have transportation. Yes, in this day and age, I can afford neither a vehicle nor the insurance to cover it. Much less the gas.

I was offered a hotel room and was okay with that. As a reporter I was not sure if I reported on this particular case, but I found out I did not. So that was okay. I had to arrange for a care taker for my friend, however. The judge was kind enough to grant a short recess to arrange for a possible replacement. The transportation to get to the court house (about 35 miles away) was borrowed. I had to return it because it was used to transport my friend. Yet, if selected, I would not have that opportunity. One thing after another conspired against me.

As I was speaking—with the bailiff watching—I realized that I had no place to keep my dog. This fact was insurmountable. My dog would only stay with one other person for any length of time with comfort. That person was out of my life.

I believe that the bailiff saw the stress was just too much for me and informed the judge who eventually excused me.

You might be thinking Good job. You got out of jury duty. I see web sites with braggarts about their ducking their Constitutional responsibility.

You might also find it curious to find that I wanted jury duty. You see, I am a veteran. Over 17-years of my life was spent protecting and defending the very right to trial by a jury of my peers. To defend a person against unconstitutional incarceration—To prevent a person from being railroaded into jail—would be the epitome of my service in the Navy. Of course if guilty, getting a criminal off of the streets would also be important to me.

I am the guy Janet Napalitano warned you about. I am a veteran with a copy of the Constitution (usually) who knows how to use it. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine in 1789:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

You may not be able to pick up a gun and kill an enemy. You may not be able to spend days on end under the sea. Not everyone can bring themselves to go into battle. Jury duty, however, is one area in which you can serve your country and preserve the Constitution without having to duck.

WHY IS TRIAL BY JURY IMPORTANT?

Imagine you come home from the graveyard shift. You are tired and you feel it is all right to leave the windows of your car open because you have another job to go to tomorrow and the summer days heat up quick. You hope that the interior of your car might just be cooler in the morning. You crawl off to bed for a restful night sleep.

At about 5 a.m., you are wakened by an incessant knocking at your door. You open it to find two police officers at your door. They inform you that there was a robbery and the alleged firearm was found in your backseat.

Who would you want as a juror? Someone who wants to serve? Or someone who is there simply because they could not come up with the right excuse?

At this point I would encourage you to find the movie Twelve Angry Men and watch it. Or read the play. [1] It is not only an entertaining film, but watch it for the lesson of what might transpire in the jury deliberation room.

Benjamin Franklin is oft quoted as writing: [2]

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

The “Maxim” was derived from an earlier quote by Voltaire:

that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.

In Commentaries on the Laws of England 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), Sir William Blackstone wrote:

“For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

Whatever “X” factor you wish to choose, the point is that trial by a jury of your peers has been guaranteed as a right since the Magna Carta of 2015; over 800-years ago.

So you would let a rapist or murderer go free? you might ask. I would not like to, no. Nor would I want to send a man to death row for thirty-years for murders he did not commit. If the prosecution cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to vote not guilty.

During the term of someone claiming to be governor of Arizona, the State created a guilty until proven innocent law. That law was used on Harold Fish [3] who was found guilty of defending his life. The law was reversed and grandfathered to his case. He was exonerated at a re-trial. The appellate court reversed the decision because:

In July 2009, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed Fish’s conviction because the trial judge failed to give necessary jury instructions, and because the judge improperly excluded evidence of Kuenzli’s past acts of violence which Fish attempted to present to support his claim that Kuenzli was the aggressor.[4]

Now do you see the importance of your place on a jury? More importantly, do you see why it is important for you to understand your authority as a juror? Even though Arizona passed a guilty until proven innocent provision, you know that is unconstitutional. It flies in the very face of the basis of our justice system. You can vote to acquit. That includes courts at the local and, so-called, federal level. It only takes one.

In the case of Harold Fish, I would have been that one.

MY PROBLEMS WITH THE JURY PROCESS

I do have problems with the jury process as it is practiced today.  The Supreme Court has decided that it is not required that the courts instruct you on the power you actually have. Thus you will probably have to research the jury duty process for yourself.

During my research I found the Fully Informed Jury Association site. There is a lot of good information including a PDF on how to survive the Voir Dire process. The Voir Dire process is the process in which defense and prosecuting attorneys can eliminate potential jurors. Saying the least is the best.

The prosecutor in this case asked if our family or friends would call me a “conspiracy theorists.” Did anyone believe, for example, that we did not land on the moon. I raised my hand and the prosecutor asked if I really believed we did not land on the moon. I explained that I had seen the evidence and it was not conclusive. To set the record straight, I believe we landed on the moon because I neither have the time or inclination to examine the evidence.

My “conspiracy theories” are more along the lines of the erosion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The fact that windmills are more dangerous than good to our environment and wildlife. The fact that global warming has nothing to do with anthropomorphic C02, but simply the natural wobble of the earth on its axis. United Nations treaties targeted at destroying our Constitution and sovereignty as a nation. Things I can prove. Or disprove.

I have a problem with the courts not following the Seventh Amendment [5] which reads:

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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

It does not say, …where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars to be increased 6% per annum allowing for cost overrides and etc. ad nauseum, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. It says twenty dollars. Admittedly you are probably not very bright if you are demanding a jury trial for a parking ticket.  After all you are likely in line for a warning or maybe a fine of less than $100. If you persist, you may wind up with much more. Especially since you will upset the people that had to be pulled in for jury duty.

The point is that if you demand a jury trial, you are due one. Especially in the case of the employees you hire called the government are trying to take your property that might be well over $20. It should be twelve of your peers.

I was concerned about a jury of less than eight of my peers. I have found evidence in my studies, however, that there were juries of less than twelve in the past. If there is the possibility of you spending more than a year in prison or a hefty fine that you obviously cannot afford (and, thus, have to make it up in prison), you need a jury of twelve of your peers.

PLAN AHEAD

So my advice is that if you are ever summoned for jury duty, plan ahead. Plan on being picked. In fact, call the clerk and tell them you want to be in the first venire or panel. Remember that if you serve, you will not be required to serve again for a certain number of years. In Arizona it’s two. Otherwise they can keep summoning you.

In my case, I did not understand that—if chosen—I would have to stay there for the duration. Or find away to travel the 70 miles back and forth each day. For the courts part, they offered me a hotel room which I immediately accepted.  I thought that I would be able to take the borrowed car home. I found out that I would not. Next time I will see if a person is going to, or can take me to, the city of the court in question and pick me up if I do not get selected.

As for my friend, there are free services to caretakers—even if you are not a family member. In other words, if I need a vacation or, say, need to do jury duty, the county would have provided a free substitute for the duration. I did not realize this until after I was excused.

As for my dog, I have a problem. There is only one person that he would stay overnight with comfortably and that person is no longer in my life.  It would be a stress on him to stay overnight with anyone else, much less three days (four including the day for jury selection). I would, however, arrange to have him stay with the closest person I know and he will have to suffer through. Have a trusted friend collect your mail daily and feed your cat or fish.

If you get summoned, just plan on getting selected. Especially if you are trying hard enough. Arrange for transportation if needed. Call the court and see if a taxi service is available. In my rural area this might not be an option.

Call the county or local offices and see if services are available to help you serve on jury duty. Aid in transportation or taking care of sick relatives. If you might be late for a bill payment, call the creditor or utility company and explain that you might be late because of jury duty.

Make your employer aware of your summons right away so that he can arrange to have that time frame covered. Employers are not required to pay for the time you spend at jury duty in most states, but they cannot fire you. It will be less stress on your employer if you arrange for a cover just in case.

The point is that you should want to serve on a jury. A Grand Jury might be a little more of a problem, but it is an important part of our jury process. In fact the Grand Jury has to pass the case onto trial. You might be able to stop a politically motivated case from even going to trial.

Fifth Amendment case in Denver causes concerns

by Glen C. Davis

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that GPS tracking devises violated the Constitutional Fourth Amendment guarantees because people have a reasonable right to privacy in their cars. As I understand the ruling, however, if you have OnStar® or one of the other government tracking devices already in your car, they can track you through that system.

On January 4th, the Denver Post reported on another example of the courts grappling with the Bill of Rights in the digital age. And the case is shaking up civil liberties groups.

The case involves Ramona Fricosu who was allegedly involved in a fraud scheme along with her husband. One of the items seized by the prosecutors was her laptop computer. The laptop, however, was encrypted and the prosecutor could not retrieve the contents. Fricosu refused to give the password citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

John Ingold of the Denver Post reported on the 24th, “In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn said requiring Ramona Fricosu to provide an unencrypted version of her laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors does not violate her rights against self-incrimination. Instead, Blackburn ruled that providing the unlocked laptop wouldn’t be self-incriminatory because it wouldn’t prove anything that the government doesn’t already know.”

Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, still thinks the Fifth Amendment applies in this case, according to the article. The case is going to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is actually a compelling case and one likely to make it to the Supreme Court. On the one hand, you do have a right not to provide incriminating evidence in the Fifth Amendment. That is why signing anything “under penalty of perjury” is quite frankly unconstitutional. You cannot be compelled to sign away your rights.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,…” While the police today have pretty much the same power that the “Redcoats” had prior to the revolution—which was among the chief complaints of the colonists—they still must obtain a warrant from a judge. In this case, they did that and the seized computer was among the evidence for their case. Whether or not the computer and the location of the computer was specified on the warrant as is REQUIRED by the Fourth Amendment is another topic.

In this case, I would have to agree with District Judge Blackburn. Apparently the laptop was just another piece of evidence in the pieces of evidence that they already had.

Let us set another scenario, however. Let us say that a person is sitting and using a wireless laptop at a coffee shop. A police officer wanders over and the person presses a button and locks the computer. Does the officer have a “probable cause” to order the person to unlock the laptop? No. This would violate both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. If the officer “sees” something that the person is doing and knows that it is illegal, he may then have probable cause to arrest and cause the person to unlock the computer. He already sees it and knows it is there. If the coffee shop owner, however, sees actual evidence that the person is using the computer for illegal purposes and reports it, then the police have enough for a warrant and to cause the person to unlock.

Granted, in the case of Fricosu, the prosecutors and police have not “seen” the contents so they do not “know” there is anything related to the case on the computer at all. That may be an “out” in this case. Still, I believe there is enough “probable cause” that this does not represent a violation of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Does the lock on your front door, for example, give you a Fifth Amendment right to keep officers from performing their duty after they have complied with the Fourth Amendment?

One question that might come up, however, is what about online storage sites? If a person stores the data at an online site that is not listed on the search warrant, can the police access it or use it as evidence? I would think not until they obtained another warrant for the evidence. Of course, that would be served to the provider of the service, not the defendant.

Rather than rehash the difference in democratic principles between the founding fathers and those of the democratic party today, I would like to begin this article by referring you to my previous article on the subject. It is a long-winded way of saying that when I refer to Marxist democrats, I am referring to the democrats today rather than the Locke democrats of our history. This seems, to my mind, the best way to preface this article. Certainly I do not mean to imply that all democrats are Marxists. The article, however, explains itself.

I preface it in this fashion because I find Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) an interesting First Amendment case in light of what is happening today. It is important for more than just the fact that it coined two phrases.

In this case, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.”

In paragraph 5 he writes further,

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

This is the coining of the phrases, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” and “clear and present danger.”

That begs the question of what is a “clear and present danger?” John McCain and 92 of his cohorts seem to feel that they have answered that question with the passage of S. 1867 and the infamous Section 1301 of the National Defense Authorization Act. Diane Feinstein even wrote an amendment to ensure that there was a provision in this section that it did not apply to American citizens. She voted on it even though her amendment failed. The gist of this, as you may have read, is that the military now has the authority to round up “dissidents” and place them in Gitmo and other foreign prisons to silence them.

Apparently our own gulags are too full of those damn pot smokers!

So what constitutes a “clear and present danger?” Is it the gal with the peace sticker on her car? Certainly a person with a pocket Constitution and a Ron Paul sticker is suspect. Are you “supporting terror” and “not supporting our troops” or aiding the enemy if you speak out against the war? I suppose that you can add me to that list because I speak out against the war precisely because I support the troops. I object to dumping a trillion dollars into a war which killed and dismembered thousands of our dedicated young people with no clear objective to achieve. It is the same process we used on our Vietnam veterans who served their country and returned to be spat upon and to be told that they are really not sick.

Even Discover Magazine used space—best served to teach us the grandeur of evolutionary science—to comment on the horrors of S. 1867. Salon is one of the few that are using the Marxists clarion call of, “It’s not that bad.” You may find the opposing view there.

What is interesting is that the case concerns Comrade Schenck—the general secretary of the Socialist Party—who was convicted on three counts of conspiracy. He was distributing pamphlets to drafted men to avoid the draft and stay out of World War I. I suppose, now, we know where the Marxist of the sixties got the idea to “burn their draft cards.”

Now those Marxists form the core of the usurped “Democratic Party” and the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are now using this “clear and present danger” theory to attack anyone who mentions the Constitution and that they have rights under the Bill of Rights. They attack anyone who speak out against the intrusion on our rights. Especially anyone who knows the truth about the Second Amendment. They have attacked the “TEA party” movement as terrorists and the Oathkeepers who do not advocate violence or that people stay out of the military or police—only that they remember their oath to the Constitution.

It seems strange that this decision seems to have come full circle. From applying these principles to those who were advocating violations of the Constitution to those who are defending it.

As these Marxist often do, they do not use quotes except those that serve their needs. They do not quote Abraham Lincoln who said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” There probably is no text book in school that quotes Thomas Jefferson who said, “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first objective should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”

As the Anti-Federalist Brutus observed, “But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.”

Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

I have published two white papers on an Arizona State Guard at the Constitutional Republic Party web site. They are PDFs requiring Adobe Reader. I am working on more.

Essays on the Constitution of the United States
Purchase Essays on the Constitution of the United States with 15% off of the cover price of $15.95 with coupon code AUGUST305.

6×9 Paperback
8×10 Large Print Edition
Check out all of my titles!

Offer ends September 15, 2011.

---

Disclaimer: Use coupon code AUGUST305 at checkout and receive 15% off Essays on the Constitution of the United States. Maximum savings with this promotion is $100. You can only use the code once per account, and you can’t use this coupon in combination with other coupon codes. This great offer ends on September 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM so try not to procrastinate! While very unlikely we do reserve the right to change or revoke this offer at anytime, and of course we cannot offer this coupon where it is against the law to do so. Finally, Lulu incurs the cost of this discount, so it does not impact the Author’s proceeds of the book.

After the War for Independence, the country had to form a more perfect union. The question was, what kind.

The States were used to autonomy. Many were so satisfied with this arrangement that the preferred to remain under the Articles of Confederation. There were many opponents to the new Constitution of the United States known as Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were those in favor of the new Constitution and its “limited” form of government. They never anticipated their posterity twisting of the words of the Constitution to eliminate the freedoms they had fought for.

But the Anti-Federalists did. “It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty,” a writer who wrote as Brutus complained.

Essays on the Constitution was edited by Paul Leicester Ford and published in 1842. It is an intriguing look at the arguments in the newspapers of the time on the subject.

It seems that Rhode Island was not favored among the several States. Mr. Ford added a letter from a writer for Rhode Island.

I edited the work further giving it a new index and adding the works of Brutus which were referred to in the original work, but never added. I added, also, the objections by Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry and Colonel George Mason—All of which refused to sign the Constitution.

This book is an interesting view of the battle for ratification of the Constitution and a good read for anyone studying the history of the United States from those who lived it.

SEE ALSO: Anti-federalist are “Political Jesuits” under Satanick influence

The January sales contest is on at LULU.com. You can enter READ2011 at checkout to receive 10%* off of your order and help me win a contest.

One of my recommendations is the fictional thriller A Shroud of Evidence. One review states, “This book is intense. So like what it may be like someday. It has a lot of action, suspense and even love. A good read. I recommend it highly. My compliments to the author.” If you have an Amazon, Barnes and Nobles or other online book store account, you can purchase through those sites, but you cannot use the coupon code. 6×9 paperback.

Another pick is Concerning the Militia. This book started out as a research project during the Clinton administration and grew into a reference book. I would guess much of it you already knew or may have seen. Can be purchased in hardcover or paperback through LULU.com only.

The Patriotic Observances Handbook is a guide to the latest patriotic observances and legal Federal Holidays plus a perpetual calendar. This one came about as I searched for information on the LEGAL HOLIDAY National Prayer Day.

2011 Patriot Journal contains some of the information from the Patriotic Observance Handbook. Contains spaces for monthly appointments and journal pages.

My latest work, A Clause for Concern is an examination of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution by a non-lawyer. Just how far does this Constitutional Power of Congress extend? What of other Constitutional authorities that the Congress has delegated or ignored? I must admit that this one may contain some mistakes, but I reference source material for you to look up.

I also have some reprints of older books such as A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. American Documents Volume II contain the Federalist Papers and American Documents Volume III contain some of the Anti-Federalist Papers. You can see all of the books I have available at my online store.

Please remember, a portion of the proceeds from the sale of these books goes toward buying houses, cars, food, etc.

---

* Disclaimer: Enter coupon code ‘ READ2011 ‘ during checkout and save 10% off the purchase price. Discount cannot be used to pay for, nor shall be applied to, applicable taxes or shipping and handling charges. Maximum amount that can be applied to discount is $10.00 per account. Promotional codes cannot be applied to any previous orders. No exchanges or substitutions allowed. Only one valid promotional code can be used per order. Offer expires January 31, 2011 at 11:59 PM EDT. Lulu.com reserves the right to change or revoke this offer at any time. Void where prohibited.

---

This is an examination of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution by a non-lawyer. Just how far does this Constitutional Power of Congress extend? What of other Constitutional authorities that the Congress has delegated or ignored?

The Congress has, for example, turned over control of the wealth of the nation to a cabal of private bankers collectively known as the Federal Reserve. Since 1913 this group has caused the Great Depression and has been directly linked to our current economic turmoil.

Does Congress have the right to order you to purchase health insurance? The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution should destroy that myth.

This is an attempt by a non-lawyer to make sense of it all, but I have dug down into some of the Supreme Court cases and evaluated them next to the Constitution.