Rights vs. Benefits

Rights vs. Benefits – By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Some Americans seem to be confused about the difference between Rights and Benefits.  Influenced in part by manipulative politicians and pundits, this confusion has clouded the minds of the unsuspecting.  Here is a typical example of this confusion on Twitter:


How many people have you heard proclaim that there exists a right to healthcare, birth control, abortion, or some other government granted thing? Do they truly not understand what a right is? Are they being deceptive or are they deceived? Those Americans caught up in this deception are chasing after benefits, not rights.

A Right is something that you possess inherently by the nature of your creation, (although it may cost to protect it it) it is not confiscated from another on your behalf.  A benefit is payment or privilege given to you at the cost of another’s property. Money must be confiscated from another citizen in order to pay for a benefit.


Samuel Adams, designer of our Constitutional Republic described rights as being “evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

Another political philosopher, Frederic Bastiat writes with great clarity on the meaning of Rights and how government relates to those Rights:

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Rights aren’t created by legislation. Rights are not granted by government. Rights precede government. Government is created to protect rights. Artful political leaders deny our Right to keep and bear arms, while at the same time asserting that the benefit of healthcare is a right.  Yet, not only does life, the production from that life (property) and the right to that production (liberty) exist prior to governmental organs, but the right to protect those things from forceful taking is inseparable from the rights themselves.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” – Samuel Adams.

“Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”  Frederic Bastiat

If you must wait for government to protect your life, liberty, or property and are not free to do that yourself, then those items do not belong to you, they belong solely to whomever you have relinquished that right of protection.  For if those in government choose not to protect you, or unable to protect you when you could otherwise protect yourself then you are in essence a slave, a ward of the state – you are not free. Your rights are forfeited to those upon whom you depend.


Benefits on the other hand are not inherent and must be taken rather than protected. The gifts of God are rights.  The gifts of government, are benefits.  Those benefits may fall into the categories of healthcare, subsidies, or any assistances bestowed upon people using money collected from other people, otherwise known as taxes.  A person does not have a right to healthcare paid for by others, that is a benefit.  A person does not have a right to welfare or monetary assistance, those are benefits.  Rights belong to all people, benefits are only available to those who are a part of a defined group, subject to the terms decided upon by others.  Rights are not given by government, so they should not be taken by government.  Benefits can be given and taken based upon transitory terms. Benefits have to be agreed to, legislated into existence, and supported by transfer of property. Rights are inherent and must only be recognized and defended. Their existence does not depend on taxes or any other property transfer.

People have a right to life.  People have a right to defend life.  You do not have a right to birth control, any more than you have a right for someone to buy you a car, pay for your vacation or buy your groceries. Other citizens paying for your birth control is a benefit, not a right.  Abortion is taking life from another, and that is contrary to Natural Law and the natural right to life. One cannot be said to have a right to take another life or cause another life to cease.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were incorporated to serve as reminders to the American people of the rights that belong to all people as a matter of Natural Law.  These first ten amendments do not contain clauses about healthcare, welfare, or prosperity; because if they did, they would be called the Bill of Benefits instead of the Bill of Rights.


You Have No Rights Here

Listen as a federal agent says to an American Citizen, “I am sick of hearing about your rights, you have no rights here.”  Learn why he is told he is correct.  Learn what we need to do to prove him wrong.  Your right to property is essential to all other rights.

Listen to “You Have No Rights Here” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

America: Are We Now a Guilty Until Proven Innocent Society?

America: Are We Now a Guilty Until Proven Innocent Society?

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


US AG Jeff Sessions has vowed to exceed the Obama Administration’s level violations on American property and due process rights through the draconian use of the “guilty until proven innocent” process of federal civil asset forfeitures.  Sessions, in doing so is not only turning his back on the Constitution, but is also denying the States’ authority to protect the rights of their own citizens.

The Fourth Amendment should bring to Sessions, his federal agents, and the American people as whole, to the proper perspective on the limits of government power over the superior authority of the rights of the people over their property.  The Fourth Amendment is a very plainly written and self-defining text.  The meaning and application of the fourth amendment should be easily understood and applied.  Yet decades of academic deception combined with an ever expanding federal power base has driven the American people to doubt the plainness of the text and adopt the error thrust upon them by those who profit from government power.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment is plainly written to force the government to recognize the inherent right of the people to be secure in their property and creates only one exception to that inherent right; a reasonable search and seizure.  It is self-defining because it explains the exact parameters of a reasonable search an seizure.  By the text, the only exception to an American’s right to be secure from federal searches and seizures is when the government can completely fulfill the following requirements:

  1. A warrant
  2. Based upon probable cause
  3. Supported by oath or affirmation (due process)
  4. Particularly describing the place to be searched
  5. Particularly describing the things to be seized

We know that all five elements are required to be present at the same time for a search and seizure to be lawful because within the list of the text, the elements are connected by the word “and” not “or.”  Therefore, any search or seizure that does not meet all five elements simultaneously is NOT a reasonable search and seizure and is precisely the “unreasonable” search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment puts the government on notice they are prohibited from exercising.

Civil asset forfeiture, along with the seizure of persons and property authorized by Congress under the Patriot Act, are complete violations of the required elements of the Fourth Amendment and clear attack on the rights and Liberties of the people.  The Fourth Amendment was ratified as a part of the Bill of Rights to remind the people to never allow their government to exercise an arbitrary power over the property of the people.  But that is exactly what our federal government has been doing for decades.  James Madison, father of our Constitution warned us about kind of government that exercises this arbitrary power:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures…” Essay on Property, 1792

Madison calls this exercise of arbitrary power, “the most compleat despotism.”

If you would like to have a deeper study into these principles please read my article: “Government Exceptions to the 4th Amendment; Where are they?

What we must recognize is that every “exception” to the federal government’s search and seizure restrictions established by the Fourth Amendment are exceptions created BY the federal government to increase the power OF the federal government OVER the inherent rights of the people.  There has been no amendment to the Constitution to expand federal search and seizure power because of the “necessities” of national security, drug prosecution, or IRS debt collection.  All exceptions come through either congressional act, executive order, or supreme Court Opinion.  However, without an amendment to authorize this expansion of power, these political mechanism are contrary to the Constitution and therefore invalid.

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No…act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78

And, our current government’s pledge to engage in this arbitrary deprivation of the rights of the people classifies themselves under the category of “most complete despotism” and their unlawful searches and seizures are declared by the Constitution and those who wrote it to be invalid.

There are ways to fight terrorism and criminals without trampling the rights of the people.  Constitution demands the government operate within those parameters.  I am reminded of the words of William Pitt, in 1783:


“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

If we allow the claim of necessity to justify these proven infringements upon the rights of the people, that would classify our government as tyrants and Americans as slaves.  I am certain that this is not the kind of legacy that President Donald Trump is endeavoring to secure for himself or his administration.  Americans must remind him and Jeff Sessions that it is their duty to secure our rights, not trample upon them.  Our States must guard the people’s rights and refuse jurisdiction to the federal agencies attempting to enforce these unlawful and unconstitutional searches and seizures.


Removing Trump From Office

Reviewing the allegations against Trump and comparing them with the duties of the Office of the President may provide you with information needed to make are real educated argument.  We will also discuss a new twist in the movement to remove Trump from Office.  Every fact delivered, will be Constitutionally speaking, of course!

Listen to, “Removing Trump from Office” by Constitutional Educator KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

America: A President Or A King?

America: A President Or A King?

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Great study and deliberation was conducted in designing the office of the president.  What was the designers of our Constitutional Republic chief concern? That the president would become a king.

“The safety of the people in a republic depends on the share or proportion they have in the government; but experience ought to teach you, that when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers, and interested in his re-election, in what circle appointments will be made; by which means an imperfect aristocracy bordering on monarchy may be established.” Anti-Federalist #67

When creating the office of the president our founders had many things to consider.  The first consideration was, would this executive purpose be best fulfilled with a committee, a tribunal, or one person.  In the current climate, it was concluded that the power of the executive should be vested in one person, as an ambassador behalf of the States, to other nations.  But having just thrown off the bonds of kingly rule, how could the designers of our Constitution ensure that this one person, over time, would not accumulate power and become the king they never wanted?  The answer, limited and concurrent authority.

Article 2 of the Constitution enumerates the limited authority delegated to the executive.  The student of the Constitution will have to admit that the power delegated to the executive is considerably less than the power delegated to congress.  As a matter of fact, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison describe the power of the president of being less than the power of most Governors of the States.

The president is intended to have very few powers and practically no autonomous power.  The primary purpose of the executive is the be an ambassador on behalf of the States to foreign affairs.   Therefore, the majority of the power exercised by the president must be approved by the Senate (the representative body of the States) before it becomes binding.  In that limited capacity, the president is authorized to negotiate treaties with foreign governments.  However, the president cannot make any treaties autonomously.  Before a treaty becomes law, it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and be found to be consistent with the delegation of the authority in the Constitution.

“The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description.” Federalist #69

The president is the commander in chief of the military, but only under a declaration of war by congress.  The president is denied the power to declare war specifically because of this desire to prevent him from becoming a king and so America could avoid the kingly consequence of frequent wars.  James Madison explained;

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl.” James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 2 Apr. 1798

The president is authorized to nominate members of the supreme Court and cabinet, but the official appointments are a power reserved to the Senate.

“The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices …The one (the President) would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other (the King) is the sole author of all appointments.” Federalist #69

The president is tasked with making suggestions to the Congress, he is not empowered to make demands or circumvent the legislative authority.  The president is able to veto a law, but his veto can be overturned by Congress. The president is not authorized to write laws, make laws, or overturn laws that are constitutionally valid.

“The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law, if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament.” Federalist #69

Executive orders of a president are not equivalent to law, nor can they change or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress.  Executive orders were created so the president, as the leader of the executive branch, could send orders and instructions to agencies and agents within the executive branch.  Any executive order that attempts to alter or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress; any executive order that attempts to exercise authority over a person or a State outside the executive agency, is an unlawful executive order, contrary to the Constitution, and is therefore invalid.

The president cannot create a tax, eliminate a tax, or even raise or lower a tax, that power is reserved to the House of Representatives alone.

“The one (President) can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other (a King) is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin.” Federalist #69

The president is only authorized to spend the money Congress apportions to the executive branch, therefore any debt incurred by the federal government is not the product of the president, but due to the spending of Congress.

Even the autonomous powers of the president are limited.  The president is authorized to issue pardons but only for federal offenses and not in the case impeachment.

“…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Article 2 section 2 clause 1

Finally, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist #69, the president is not authorized to make citizens out of aliens and he is not authorized to confer the benefits of citizenship on any person.  These, again, are powers reserved to Congress.

“The one (the President) can confer no privileges whatever; the other (the King) can make denizens (citizens) of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.” Federalist #69

The American colonists didn’t simply separate themselves from Great Britain, they declared independence from kings forever.  Their purpose was to ensure the Blessings of Liberty not just to themselves, but to all future generations.  They knew the only way to do that would be to keep the president very limited in power. Their purpose was that America would never again have a king.

A Lesson On Gun Control

A Lesson On Gun Control

By KrisAnne Hall, JD


What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm.  The entire argument for gun control is built upon a false premise. The second amendment is not about self-defense from criminals.

As unpleasant as it may be for this modern society to say outloud, historically and constitutionally speaking, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has always been a right to protect yourself from those in power who want to enslave you. If America wants to engage in a real factual debate on the right to keep and bear arms, then it must be approached from the proper perspective.

The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this.  Here is a little 2nd Amendment history lesson so we can defend our Rights from becoming government bestowed privileges.

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers.

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and this is contrary to what most politicians profess.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations.

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

There is no interpretation need.  These instructions are written in plain English.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

  • To prevent rule by a standing army;
  • To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;
  • To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;
  • The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  Mr. Lee explains,

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, an historical and truthful education on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  The education is easy to find and easy to read.  Why are our politicians and media talking heads bent on disseminating miseducation and lies?  Perhaps they repeat the lies because they intent on disarming the people, because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

A proper debate on one’s right to keep and bear arms is NOT one that is framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked and depraved people, full of hate and mallice, who want to hurt you. You will NEVER feel safe from those people and those people will not cease to exist just because YOU are not allowed to legally own a gun. Why? Because those people do not care about laws and they will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or without gun laws.

If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is,

“Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”

If the answer to that question is “no,” the gun control debate is over.