3. _Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "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;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:" thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
Resolution 3 Focuses on the Tenth Amendment. While its application is against issues of other import than those we are currently facing, the character of the issues - past and present - is very much alike. For in both are seen instances of the general government seeking to increase its power by assuming upon itself powers: not delegated to it by the Constitution, and not forbidden by the Constitution to the several states. How hard can this be to understand? Aside from the convolutions in the actual text of the amendment, the intent is clear: if the Constitution does not explicitly spell out a power as granted to the general government (as in Article 1, section 8), it is not delegated to the general government - and is therefore, lacking any subsequent denial to states and/or citizenry, de facto granted/delegated/understood-as-belonging to the states and/or the people.
This can even be made clear to a kindergartner.
A further issue touched on is that of non-interpretive, direct reading of the Constitution. Anyone who has subjected themselves to modern art displays has likely noticed that the random lines and splotches of color require considerable mental gymnastics in order to put the image together with the title of the piece. Interpretive art - as it is called - is little more than a technicolor Rorschach test; it has no more truth to it than the mind imbues it with. Rather insidiously, though, it has no true purpose other than to force one to think like another - requiring a person to reorder their thought patterns so that they can see what the "artist" sees. This is little more than training the mind to accept what others - perceived as superior in intellect, perception, or wisdom - wish to put into it. Is it any wonder, then, that the most pious progressives are those who think of themselves as educated in the arts and "humanities"?
The simple and straight-forward reading of the Constitution is sufficient. Provided one has a working knowledge of the English language and can read, they can understand the Constitution and what it means. This was, no doubt, the intention of the framers of the Constitution, knowing that they would have not only lawyers and doctors and philosophers to rule with it, but farmers and millers and soldiers and such - the salt AND the earth - who deserved to benefit as much from the law and its understanding, the one as the next.Comment