Socialist often try to revise history to suggest that it was the Federal government that decreed the Bill of Rights and what the government giveth the government can taketh away. In reality and of historical and legal significance, it was the 3 million Americans living in America at that time and the states that demanded and dictated the Bill of Rights to the Constitutional convention of 1787. If there was no Bill of Rights, there would be no United States.
before continuing, we will define 3 legal terms:
Strict scrutiny is the most stringient standard of judicial review and is applied when a inalienable or fundamental constitutional right is infringed. to pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly defined, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. It has been applied to the Bill of Rights. I believe wrongfully.
Substantive due process(SDP) is the legal principle that action maybe so repugnamt to the Constitution that there is no way you can get to that conclusion. it allows federal courts to protect certain inalienable fundamental rights from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.
Repugnant - a law repugnant to the Constitution is not a law at all. If repugnant then there is no legal process it can go through to justify it.
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, are a special class of inalienable rights. They are the Guardians of Liberty and as part of the Constitution they protect the Constitutional restrictions upon the government and the inalienable rights of Americans including the right to self-rule.
The First Amentment
... In order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its power, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added...
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion
Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion
Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech
Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of the press
Congress shall make no law
abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition
the Government for redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment
... In order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its power, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state shall not be infringed
The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
All federal and state laws and treaties which seek to regulate any of the inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights are repugnant to the Constitution because they violate Substantive Due Process, Article VI the supremacy clause, and Article V the Constitutional Amendment process. If not so, Congress could use compelling governmental interest to strip the Executive Branch of its powers and move the IRS under control of the House of Representatives along with the Justice Department.