“Dr. David Martin has been celebrated as a constitutional advocate and truth-teller…and in this interview he goes on record claiming that the only property right granted by the U.S. Constitution to every citizen is the right to creativity, innovation, inventions, and copyrights under Article I, Section 8. In his own words: “I started my company as a means of looking at the way in which intangible assets, which are the only rights granted... property rights granted by the Constitution... under Article I Section 8 is the right to your creativity, the right to your innovation, the right to your inventions, your copyrights; it's the only property right granted to every citizen and ironically it's the only right that no bank has ever been able to recognize." (quote from DM, interview with Shannon Joy).
This statement is not only factually incorrect, it is a serious misrepresentation of the Constitution’s structure and purpose. Whether this error stems from misunderstanding or intentional rhetoric, it raises significant concerns about the integrity of Dr. Martin’s claims and his actual ideological alignment.
Let us be unequivocally clear: The U.S. Constitution does not grant rights to the people. Rather, it recognizes and protects our inherent rights which are our birthright; endowed by our Creator (or, Natural Law).
This foundational principle is explicitly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which remind us that rights do not originate with government, nor are they limited to those enumerated in the document.
Dr. Martin refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which gives Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” But let us be clear: this is not a right granted to citizens in the sense of an individual constitutional liberty. It is a power granted to Congress to create a statutory system of copyright and patent protections, a legislative tool to promote innovation and commerce, not a natural or civil right.
Why This Is a Serious Misrepresentation
Dr. Martin is not a layperson making a casual mis-statement. He is:
The founder of a firm allegedly built to "protect Americans’ constitutional rights,"
A public intellectual with considerable influence in the fields of finance, biotechnology, and legal reform,
And someone who frequently invokes legal, historical, and ethical language to build credibility.
For him to conflate intellectual property law with constitutional rights is either a glaring ignorance of constitutional law (which would disqualify him from being a serious defender of liberty) or a deliberate distortion meant to reframe the Constitution as an innovation policy rather than a document of liberty and restraint on government power.
This framing conveniently aligns with Dr. Martin’s professional interests, such as:
Structuring global finance systems around innovation,
Collaborating with institutions like the World Bank and U.N.,
And benefiting from indices tied to multinational corporate performance.
In other words, he’s not upholding the Constitution in its original form, he’s redefining it in terms that elevate creativity and innovation as the supreme value, above natural rights, civil liberties, or limited government.
This matters, because this kind of rhetorical sleight of hand, wrapped in constitutional language, is not just misleading. It’s malfeasance. When a public figure cloaks transnational or technocratic objectives in the language of liberty, it constitutes a betrayal of public trust. It manipulates well-meaning people who believe they are supporting someone fighting for their rights, when in fact, they may be supporting someone redefining those rights altogether.”
“Dr. David Martin has been celebrated as a constitutional advocate and truth-teller…and in this interview he goes on record claiming that the only property right granted by the U.S. Constitution to every citizen is the right to creativity, innovation, inventions, and copyrights under Article I, Section 8. In his own words: “I started my company as a means of looking at the way in which intangible assets, which are the only rights granted... property rights granted by the Constitution... under Article I Section 8 is the right to your creativity, the right to your innovation, the right to your inventions, your copyrights; it's the only property right granted to every citizen and ironically it's the only right that no bank has ever been able to recognize." (quote from DM, interview with Shannon Joy).
This statement is not only factually incorrect, it is a serious misrepresentation of the Constitution’s structure and purpose. Whether this error stems from misunderstanding or intentional rhetoric, it raises significant concerns about the integrity of Dr. Martin’s claims and his actual ideological alignment.
Let us be unequivocally clear: The U.S. Constitution does not grant rights to the people. Rather, it recognizes and protects our inherent rights which are our birthright; endowed by our Creator (or, Natural Law).
This foundational principle is explicitly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which remind us that rights do not originate with government, nor are they limited to those enumerated in the document.
Dr. Martin refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which gives Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” But let us be clear: this is not a right granted to citizens in the sense of an individual constitutional liberty. It is a power granted to Congress to create a statutory system of copyright and patent protections, a legislative tool to promote innovation and commerce, not a natural or civil right.
Why This Is a Serious Misrepresentation
Dr. Martin is not a layperson making a casual mis-statement. He is:
The founder of a firm allegedly built to "protect Americans’ constitutional rights,"
A public intellectual with considerable influence in the fields of finance, biotechnology, and legal reform,
And someone who frequently invokes legal, historical, and ethical language to build credibility.
For him to conflate intellectual property law with constitutional rights is either a glaring ignorance of constitutional law (which would disqualify him from being a serious defender of liberty) or a deliberate distortion meant to reframe the Constitution as an innovation policy rather than a document of liberty and restraint on government power.
This framing conveniently aligns with Dr. Martin’s professional interests, such as:
Structuring global finance systems around innovation,
Collaborating with institutions like the World Bank and U.N.,
And benefiting from indices tied to multinational corporate performance.
In other words, he’s not upholding the Constitution in its original form, he’s redefining it in terms that elevate creativity and innovation as the supreme value, above natural rights, civil liberties, or limited government.
This matters, because this kind of rhetorical sleight of hand, wrapped in constitutional language, is not just misleading. It’s malfeasance. When a public figure cloaks transnational or technocratic objectives in the language of liberty, it constitutes a betrayal of public trust. It manipulates well-meaning people who believe they are supporting someone fighting for their rights, when in fact, they may be supporting someone redefining those rights altogether.”
These are not my words; they came from ChatGPT!
Check this out: https://gregwyatt.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Who_is_David_Martin.pdf
Something is not adding up.