« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

I Know My Rights—Do You?: Toward a Catalog of Unalienable Rights and Duties

THE CALL

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.

(Albert Einstein)

“I know my rights.” We have all heard it. But what does it mean? What are the rights that are invoked but unlisted in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? You know the ones.

Article the eleventh [9th Amendment] …. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [10th Amendment] … 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.

Right. Those ones.

What might be the rights and duties of a free people that were such common knowledge in the days of the founders that they declined to write them down? They were well-known rights from English history and common law, but were not listed because the founders didn’t want a prescriptive list of rights to deny or disparage other rights: the rights, duties, and powers that were mentioned in passing in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Three of the rights were listed in the most important passage of the Declaration of Independence. This passage which powered the American Revolution and spurred America to greatness goes like this.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The question under consideration is what are the rights I emphasized with bolding and underlines that are mentioned in the Preamble and guaranteed in the 10th Amendment?

Obviously, three of these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The key characteristic of unalienable rights is that, with the exceptions of defense and self-protection, an unalienable right for one person should not trespass on an unalienable right for another person. What are the other rights, hinted at in the Declaration’s Preamble (underlined above)? W. Cleon Skousen lists the following unalienable rights in The 5000 Year Leap.

  • The right of self-government
  • The right to bear arms for self-defense
  • The right to own, develop, obtain, and dispose of property
  • The right to make personal choices
  • The right of free conscience (freedom of religion)
  • The right to choose a profession
  • The right to choose a mate
  • The right to beget one’s kind
  • The right to assemble
  • The right to petition
  • The right to free speech
  • The right to a free press
  • The right to enjoy the fruit of one’s labors
  • The right to improve one’s position through barter and sale
  • The right to contrive and invent
  • The right to explore the natural resources of the earth
  • The right to privacy
  • The right to provide personal security
  • The right to provide nature’s necessities—air, food, water, clothing, and shelter
  • The right to a fair trial
  • The right of free association
  • The right to contract

To which I would add these

  • The right to know the law
  • The right to cooperate with others to mutually provide personal security
  • The right to educate one’s self or others

And as a capstone to these unalienable rights add the big three from the Declaration

  • The right to life (Meaning life and limb. Upon which all the other rights depend)
  • The right to liberty (The right to travel and relocate one’s home. And the right not to be kidnapped, enslaved, or falsely imprisoned. This is also foundational)
  • The right to pursue happiness (as John Adams wrote, this really means property rights. “All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine [i.e. in other words], that of seeking and obtaining their safety [first clause] and happiness [second clause].” Brackets mine.)

This group of three rights (Life, Liberty, and Property) were identified by the great jurist Sir William Blackstone eleven years before the Declaration as the three most fundamental rights from which the others sprang. His Commentaries were widely circulated in the Colonies, for the people were very concerned with the systematic violations of their rights that had been going on for years. To me, the fact that the greatest legal mind of the time had previously identified them as central, in a wildly popular work that was broadly available in the Colonies, explains why they were placed so prominently in the Declaration of Independence.

INDIVIDUAL DUTIES

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

(George Washington, from his Farewell Address)

It is impossible to avoid responsibilities for a person’s own actions. That is the nature of the Creator’s plan. But in addition to responsibilities for one’s own actions, a person can take on obligations. Obligations are like responsibilities, but they are assumed voluntarily rather than involuntarily. And then there are duties, lawful but more basic than laws, that fall on persons who choose to live within the structure of a lawful society, or an ordered liberty. Within the ordered liberty envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, and the other founders, unalienable rights carry with them duties to prevent people from trespassing on the rights of others.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(John Adams)

And so we come to the Duties of lawful free people in a free society under the rule of law. These are voluntary like all obligations, but they are mandatory, like all laws required for the orderly function of a free society. They cannot be passed off to the government, but are individual duties, just like the individual rights. These duties descend from the Divine laws followed by the ancient Anglo-Saxons and the ancient Israelites when they were free peoples, before their representative governments were replaced with kingships. Skousen lists the duties as follows.

  • The duty to honor the supremacy of the Creator and his laws.
  • The duty not to take the life of another except in self-defense (Justified only by being falsely imprisoned, kidnapped, or under threat of loss of life or limb. Assault and battery are not sufficient cause unless there is a reasonable fear of loss of life. Nor is loss of property, though one is able to protect property short of homicide).
  • The duty not to steal or destroy the property of another.
  • The duty to be honest in all transactions with others.
  • The duty of children to honor and obey their parents and elders.
  • The duty of parents and elders to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children.
  • The duty to support law and order and keep the peace.
  • The duty not to contrive through a covetous heart to despoil another.
  • The duty to provide insofar as possible for the needs of the helpless—the sick, the crippled, the injured, the poverty-stricken.
  • The duty to honorably perform contracts and covenants both with God and man.
  • The duty to be temperate [prudent].
  • The duty to become economically self-sufficient.
  • The duty not to trespass on the property or privacy of another.
  • The duty to maintain the integrity of the family structure.
  • The duty to perpetuate the [human] race.
  • The duty not to promote or participate in the vices which destroy personal and community life.
  • The duty to perform civic responsibilities—vote, assist public officials, serve in official capacities when called upon, stay informed on public issues, volunteer where needed.
  • The duty not to aid or abet those involved in criminal or anti-social activities.
  • The duty to follow rules of moral rectitude.

The duties (to be enforced by law) of those who have criminally flouted these duties, wrongly trespassed on the rights of another, and caused damages to the life, liberty, or property of another, or by committing treason, are (from Blackstone):

  • The duty to equally recompense all those whom one has injured or falsely imprisoned or whose property one has damaged or taken with force or fraud, plus pay a penalty.
  • The duty to suffer physical or civil death as the rightful penalty for homicide, treason, or causing loss of limb (or sight) to another. The meaning of physical death is self-evident. Civil death is loss of property and banishment from the country (or to a monastery, in the ancestral English law).

Together this is a good start to a list of unalienable rights and the duties with which the Creator endowed all free humans. It would be useful and clarifying to expand upon each one of them. But it would undoubtedly be the work of many pages to do it.

VIRTUE

I thank God that I have lived to see my country independent and free. She may long enjoy her independence and freedom if she will. It depends on her virtue.

(Sam Adams)

In this time of government-caused crisis it is the virtue of every American that will be called upon. Let us be strong enough to face and overcome the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth,—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate circumstance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Benjamin Franklin, address to the Constitutional Convention on 28th June 1787)

Let us do as the Constitutional Convention did, and before we act, let us pray.

beaglescout-48.jpg

Technorati Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

  • Aaron Gardner
    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      is that, from a standpoint of law, the enumeration of the rights protected by the 9th and 10th were understood to be decided in states, and not the federal courts.

      more later, if any questions

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        What would be the effect on the law if the the people of this country seized these rights back, overthrowing the laws and nullifying the precedents that are responsible for stealing them away? I know it’s impossible in the same way it was impossible to found Fedex. Let’s just find out what might happen if it was possible.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          to put meat on the bones of the current state sovereignty movement by refusing all direct federal dollars to state governments.

          I am writing a column on this as we speak.

          I find it interesting that you use the root of a word identified with John C Calhoun’s main claim to fame!

          my column addresses

          Nullification, secession, race, state’s rights, interstate commerce and the 9th and 10th amendments

  • JadedByPolitics

    and could care less if some of them are gone forever as is evidenced by the election of The One!

    Excellent! Recommended!

    • aesthete

      Considering that our nominee was a proud breaker of the 1st Amendment, and several others, I don’t think that there was much of a choice there, either.

  • nessa

    Duties are NOT allowed, your suggestion that there are RESPONSIBILITIES associated with being an American is terribly regressive. This isn’t 1776 after all. This is the 21st century, if your coffee spills on your lap and burns your stupid *ss it’s someone else’s fault. If you can’t find 11 on the phone buttons it’s the governments fault. Please get “on-board” with today’s society, no responsibilities other than the governments responsibility to provide for it’s citizens.

    Sorry, I’m having a bad, bad day. I am utterly unable to control my rising level of sarcasm…

    Great post! I agree completely but how do we get people to accept their responsibilities? Lord knows the courts refuse to recognize it, the Congress doesn’t want us to have any…

    I need to call a hotline somewhere…

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      if you stick with the red pill there will be cognitive hazards ahead.

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        The rest of the comment doesn’t really fit with the first paragraph.

        Can’t be sure though.

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

          I always pile on with the snark and add more. I guess I should put a /snarkasm tag after or something like that.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C
    • mom2oneson

      I really liked in my son’s coursework this year. With that section where he studied on AP Tureaud it also discussed responsibility even if it wasn’t something you did not do intentionally. I was glad they included that becuase I had a hard time getting the message across. ( If your drink spills please tell me so I can put some stain remover on it, even if you didn’t dump it over on purpose .:) )
      I’ve tried to teach him too when it’s someone vulnerable and someone else drops the ball you still need to do whatever is necessary to make sure their need is met, that it’s part of being a young man too.

  • mom2oneson

    between the older advocates for civil rights and the the fake ones of today. They emphasized the responsibilities that went along with rights. My son studied about AP Tureaud this year and he did so much real advancecment for civil rights. I think we just emphasized responsbility we couldn’t stop people from defending their rights and keeping gov small. It’s a natural instinct when you are responsible.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      until you mentioned him. I read a brief bio on Wikipedia. What are some better sources on it?

      Also, as I expected he was a Republican. Tell me again which party has racism coded into its DNA?

      • mom2oneson

        He was in my son’s school book. :)
        I believe he was Catholic, We can start looking at some Catholic sources? I gotta find the book when I get off work. Hopefully it didn’t make it’s way to the thrift store already.:)

      • mom2oneson

        There are lots of black leaders in my son’s books. Many were religious like nuns or priests and did so much for education and healthcare. I’ll tryt list them out. They are totally ignored during black history months and in the public schools. If I ever have extra money I want to donate it to good publishers that write K-12 books. :)

      • mom2oneson

        I found it! Sorry it was in his reading comprehension book, not history. :) I typed it out below.
        A few pages later there is a story about Mother Mary Elizabeth Lange and how the Oblate Sisters educated black children and freedmen. It’s so upsetting you never hear about these people during black history month.

        One of the most prominent (important and well known) black Catholic laymen in the United States of America was Mr Alexander Pierre Tureaud (pronounced tour-row). He was known as a faithful Catholic and a loyal American who worked for civil and racial equality for all people.
        A T was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the year 1899. Some of his ancestors were Negroes while others were French. Alexander was a “cradle Catholic” because his family was Catholic for many generations. Alexander was taught his catechism from an early age.
        Alexander’s family moved to Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, when he was still a young student. Alexander worked very hard at his studies and was determined to become a lawyer.
        After he grew up and became a lawyer, Alexander discovered that not all young persons were treated equally. Negroes (or black people) often did not have the same educational and civil rights as white people. For example, blacks and mulattos (persons of mixed black and white ancestry) were not permitted to attend the Louisiana State University. Attorney (lawyer) T presented this and many other segregation (seperation) problems to the United States courts. By the grace of God, through prayer and hard work, Alexander won all his cases in court. As a result, many segregation laws were changed. Black and white children would no longer be segregated but could attend the same schools. All were to be treated equally.
        A T also helped black people recieve the same pay as everyone else who worked on the same job. He helped black people obtain the right to equal use of public transportation, such as trains and buses.
        Mr. T was not only concerned about peoples’ rights ut also their responsibilities. He hleped black people to learn to work, to earn money, to pay their bills, and then to share with others. He taught students at Xavier University and helped students at Catholic University.
        To help young black lawyers, Attorney T founded the Martinet Society. The young laywers would meet in his law office, have a snack, discuss the unjust laws and how to peacefully change them with good laws. Mr. R even allowed the young lawyers to use his many books. He would give them advice and they began to call him the “Dean of Lawyers.”
        Even though he was very busy with his good works. Attorney T always found time for God and his family.. AP T reserved Sundays and holy days for God. He attended Mass at Corpus Christi Church in New Orleans. He liked to say aloud the Latin responses during Mass.
        For vacations, Mr T and his family would visit cities where the Catholic organizations, the Knights of Saint Peter Claver, were holding thier annual (once a year) meetings. Mr T, as an officer of the Knights of Saint Peter Claver, would then attend the meetings. Between the meetings, the family would visit the many religious and historical places in the area.
        In the year 1964 the T faily visited Europe. While there, they went to the Vatican and were honored with a meeting with Pope Paul VI.
        Because of Attorney T’s wonderful work helping people to help themselves, he recieved many awards. Just a year before his death in 1971, he recieved the Gold Medal Award from the Knights of Saint Peter Claver. He continued to recieve awards, the last only one week before his death.
        As you can see, Attorney A P T well earned the title “Mr. Civil Rights.” As Catholics, we can be proud of Mr. T and his work for equal rights.

    • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

      …only “Natural Rights.”

      “Civil rights” create a duty between one person and another person beyond that required by the first respsecting the natural rights of the second. This is, by definition, a violation of the natural rights of the first.

      I will never advocate for Jim Crow, government enforced segregation, or any government enforced act of limiting a person’s ability to travel, gain and obtain goods and services, or participate in the political process. I would never knowingly or willingly patronize a business that practiced segregation or was at its core performing actions by motive of exclusion of a class of people.

      I will, however, never condone a law that requires one person to violate his own personal principles, no matter how vile I may find them. So long as the government does not force him to, the shop owner should be allowed to keep anyone out of his store that he chooses. That means a racist in Alabama (or Harlem) can keep someone who is black (or white, or asian, etc) out of his store. I support their right to do so, even if I do not support them and disagree with their reasons for doing so.

      Some may find that despicable, but anything else is a violation of the shopkeeper’s natural rights (that is, to dispose of his property as he sees fit and to associate freely with those he chooses). They are only harming themselves by refusing the business.

      Just because they are stupid doesn’t mean they don’t have rights. After all, we let liberals vote, don’t we?

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        He mostly sued public universities that wouldn’t admit students based on the color of their skin. That’s government segregation flat out.

        That said, I agree that individuals ought to be able to discriminate against customers. But if they form a cartel with the intent of discriminating or get government monopoly protection of their business then that should be prosecuted just like any other cartel or monopoly.

  • Diogenes314

    But I’m glad to see you had voting in the correct category- a duty, not a right.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      by the right to know the law and by the right to a fair trial?

      • Diogenes314

        But so would be not being arrested/searched without warrant, Habeus Corpus and the right to be secure in your property until convictred. And yes, asset forfiture laws are an abomination.

  • Jim

    I was quite disheartened the other night when, in reply to a comment I made espousing natural rights and natural law as a basis for our laws, I saw the following:

    “Yes. I absolutely reject the Declaration of Independence as a basis for law in our Constitutional Republic. I also reject the Bible on the same grounds. I also reject European law on the same grounds.

    Our system of laws is defined in the Constitution. Period. You want to use some other system of laws you better have an army. A big one.”

    I was then accused of colluding with Bill Ayers. ?????

    I am glad to see sanity on this site promoting the true values that made our country the most free and prosperous for so long.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      That sounds like something an anarcho-libertarian would say. Not any here that I know of.

      • Jim

        Yes indeed, right here on Redstate.

        Most anarcho-libertarians I know are very fond of the Declaration of Independence and the Bible.

        It is big-bully, utilitarian statists who hate those pesky things like natural rights that provide a firm moral ground to oppose large, intrusive government.

        • gekster

          don’t some animals,under natural rights, eat thier young?
          what natural rights are you talking about?

          • mom2oneson

            Good to see you son. :)

          • gekster

            glad to see you also mamma, you just made my day…err..night.

          • redstatebluestate123
          • gekster

            good one

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            Natural rights are for humans only. Animals are alive, but they do not have human rights.

          • gekster

            I can’t remember if I put nt or not

          • gekster

            That animals have insticts, and instincts are led to natural law.
            If nothing thinks, and just acts or reacts to what is around it with no feelings for anything, then isn’t that basic natural law
            I am hungry, I must eat?
            I am afraid, I must hide or fight?.
            This senario only works without God.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            I think you’re talking about a science of animal behavior. That is not the same thing as Natural Law, which is meaningful only to those such as humans, endowed with the ability to think freely, who devise their own laws.

            Animals are instinctive in their acts. They do not have free will. They just do what the Creator designed them to do, or what He allowed them to do.

            Natural law comes from Cicero and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is difficult. Look up Cicero on the net. You’ll be glad you did.

          • gekster

            is that laws without the “thought and feeling” would be the natural laws.
            the ones that all animals adhear to in thier natural habitat.
            Since no basic animal, except man, and more and more we are told that we are the unnatural ones, can hold a meeting and vote on laws, then the basic animal instict is pretty much the natural law.
            As soon as you and another chipmonk agree on a distribution of nuts, you enter the unnatural law. just a thought.

            And I’ll look it up.

          • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

            Natural rights are the rights and liberties we have which have always existed, and which can only be taken from us by our conformity to Man’s Law. These rights are the ones which require nothing between two people except to respect and not infringe upon the rights of the other.

            Natural Law is the practice of exercising those rights in our daily interactions with others.

          • mom2oneson

            It has a few meanings
            These rights aren’t given by the state or anyone and the gov should respect them.

          • gekster

            Along with God given laws
            just for nt

          • mbecker908

            I wouldn’t bet on it standing up in a court staffed by Obama jurists. Animal rights advocates are making headway in Europe (and here – see the ESA) and Obama seems to like the idea of using Eurolaw to interpret US law.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            Soon enough speaking ill of an orangutan who ate the face and hands of one’s neighbor will be hate speech.

        • redstatebluestate123

          I’ve been a lurker here for quite a while and I can tell you, that’s absurd.

          I can’t speak for mbecker, but I would imagine that he is very fond of the DoI and the Bible, he simply rejects them as having any legal significance in a constitutional republic. As do I. As does pretty much everyone else.

          You made the ridiculous claim that the DoI “…trumps any legislature, judiciary, etc.” and Becker shot you down because that is simply not backed up by any reasonable interpretation of how the Constitution works.

          • mbecker908

            You nailed it.

            The DoI is one of the founding documents and up until the Constitution was written was the most important political document ever drafted. It is not, however, the document that our system of law is based on. It is simply the document that declared that we would not stand for the tyranny of the mother country.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            And are they the same rights the founders thought they were protecting?

          • mbecker908

            tomorrow on this.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      1. It’s not the law of the land

      2. It was written by a proto-Marxist

      3. It’s poorly reasoned

      It was a fine document to serve as bill of indictment against the Crown, but as a guiding document for a nation? Don’t be absurd.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        I also differ, to state it mildly, on Jefferson.

        Cheers!

      • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

        The man was a follower of John Locke. He was an individualist. Wrote about the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Argued for property rights and believed in the individual ownership of land. Argued against large, powerful central governments.

        None of that is even remotely Marxist. Marx rejects any and all vestiges of capitalism, including individualism and property ownership, and argued for a powerful central government to shape us all into good communists.

        Sorry, I don’t see the connection.

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

          The more I read about his role in the founding the more I wonder why someone didn’t shoot him before Aaron Burr did it.

          • Diogenes314

            First of all, if not for Hamilton, there would be no America. He almost single-handedly restored our economy after our piling on helacious war debt and the incompetance of the Confederation. Jefferson as a ‘proto-madxist? No, just a fool. His embrace of Jacobinism was emotional rather than intellectual, due ro his hatred of Britain and crush on all things French. Besides, he was a disloyal coward as a Vice President. And he sucked as a President, the only positive actions he took were the ones against his own principles.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          He had much more in common with a Che Guevara than anybody who was a true friend of liberty.

          His kind of thinking is what led to disasters like the French Revolution, which of course pioneered the kind of show trial and mass execution that was later put to use by guys like Stalin.

      • Mike gamecock DeVine

        rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence. I have written extensively on this at Redstate over the years. See archives as this will be my only attempt to steer you from your extremist postions, not merely “proto” extreme, on the DOI and Jefferson.

        I am in prayer for you. Truly.

    • mbecker908

      And I stand by it. And I’m about as far from a “big-government statist” as you get.

      In point of fact, our nation of laws is defined by the Constitution, period. We have the makings of a political war starting right now in DC because Obama wants a guy in DoJ who has written extensively and actively promotes foreign law being used to decide issues in the SCOTUS.

      There is exactly no difference between using foreign law and using “natural law” what ever that is. And I know Jimbo that you’ve got a definition. But it’s a pretty open subject and anybody can come up with a definition that suits them. And don’t even try the “widely accepted” trick because it’s a straw argument. When we start basing US law on anything but the US Constitution we are opening ourselves up for a complete disaster. See what’s happening in Europe.

      As far as comparing you to Bill Ayres, the comparison – in context – stands. Ayres wants laws defined by things other than the Constitution too.

      Our adherence to “natural law” didn’t make this country the most free and prosperous country on earth. Our willingness to adhere to Constitutional did that. It’s going away now in a hurry and you’re not helping matters at all.

      • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

        …for the rights enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution does not “grant” rights. Rather, it recognizes that those rights have always existed, and codifies them.

        “Natural rights” are the ones we have which do not take away from the rights of others. A quick reading of the Constitution and the first ten Amendments verifies this: These are the rights we have that do not infringe upon the rights of others, and guarantee a free, open and productive society.

        This does not mean that any old “right” can just be “added,” but the 9th Amendment leaves open the possibility (or rather, probability) that the Founders missed a few.

        As for our system of Law, the Constitution itself states that we shall use Common Law, a system of law by precedent, which extends from well before the Constitution existed. The Founders recognized that the legal decisions of Old England and the 13 colonies would have to be recognized, so long as they did not conflict with the new Constitution itself.

        Since the DoI is essentially a “redress of grievances” issued to the Sovereign Power under Common Law, it can be recognized as a source in areas the Constitution does not cover or does not specifically contradict.

        Is the DoI a governing document? No. The Constitution is a governing document, and supersedes any preceding Common Law concepts or documents. Is the DoI a source of Common Law doctrine? Yes. In areas where the Constitution is silent, using the DoI is perfectly acceptable under our system of Common Law.

      • Achance

        BS as well. We are a nation of positive law framed by the Constitution – period.

        • Jim

          Then, if you take your idea to its logical conclusion, this ultimately gives the government the philosophical grounding to do what ever it wants. Whatever the legislature passes and the judiciary upholds is law.

          Historically, that framework has led countries into some very, very bad places.

      • Jim

        Look, I don’t think your a big government statist. What I was merely pointing out the other day, and what I maintain now, is that human beings have inherent rights by their very being human. As the DOI states, “Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (property).” No government, and especially our federal government as defined by the US Constitution, has any authority or justification of violating those rights.

        There are, first and foremost, places the federal government has no authority due to Constitutional limitations (Congress has no authority under Article 1, Sec 8 or any subsequent amendment). Our Constitution provides for a very, very, very small federal government, with most government being on the state and local levels.

        Secondarily, beyond the explicit limitations of the Constitution, I would argue that ANY government is RESTRAINED by the people’s natural (God given, creator-given, whatever you call it) rights. All I am saying is that if you don’t accept some kind of framework in which man’s rights to life, liberty, and property are inalienable, then you don’t have any basis on which to oppose a repressive regime that wants to make arbitrary, stupid laws (like, say, the Obama administration). In the absence of recognizing man’s natural rights, the state becomes the imposition of raw force on one group by another.

        The US Constitution is a compact amongst the states to establish a framework under which they would operate. It is a brilliant document that has served this nation well over its history. But it was a document that recognized that it is not government that grants us our rights, but that those rights are pre-existing and not “granted” by the government. I would love to see us go back to actually adhering to the Constitution in a manner that our founders intended.

        Trust me, I cannot stand all the crap that the judiciary has been reading into the Constitution (especially since the New Deal). I am not advocating judges looking at foreign law or anything other than what the Constitution SAYS in making judgments.

    • mbecker908

      Note that every one of those bulleted “rights” in the OP is specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution and has nothing whatsoever to do with your spurious little bloggyhorse of “natural rights”.

      • Jim

        As Edmund Burke and so many others have pointed out that so-called “rights” that infringe on the rights of others (like universal healthcare or universal college education, for example) are not true rights. We, as individuals or as a government, don’t have a right to our neighbors property or the fruits of his labor.

        • mbecker908

          As soon as you walk away from defining our system of law ONLY by the US Constitution you open Pandora’s Box. YOU say those “universal” thingys aren’t “true rights”. That is not a statement or a theory based in LAW, it’s based in opinion – yours. The idea that they ARE “rights” can be just as easily based on using other extra-constitutional documents and which set of extra-constitutional documents should be used for interpretation of laws depends on who’s sitting in PA Avenue.

          Like it or not, the reason we are on the verge of being totally screwed up is because for the last 70+ years we’ve had people sitting on SCOTUS who are doing exactly what you want them to do. They’ve been looking at documents other than the Constitution – for starters see the discussion of the “Wall Between Church and State” – and they’ve been creatively finding penumbras in places where only black letters exist.

          The idea that individuals or governments don’t have a right to our neighbor’s property or the fruits of his labor is a concept that is enshrined in the Constitution. That the concept may have come from somewhere else is irrelevant because the Constitution is the ONLY guiding document that defines the structure of our government and our laws. Our laws are supposed to conform to the Constitution and nothing else.

          Again I’ll note that there is nothing different between your approach to defining law that the approach of Bill Ayres. You both want to use something other than the Constitution to define a legal structure you prefer and achieve specific end. That you are using different documents to define that structure and that you have different ends in mind is irrelevant. There is nothing superior about your preferred set of extra-constitutional documents except in your opinion.

          The bottom line is that the second we move away from defining our system of laws by any document or concept other that the written Constitution, we open the door to anarchy. Which we’ve already done and for which we are headed.

  • DONTREADONME

    went it comes to my profession, science, engineering and military, and I never saw that quote from Einstein (having studied much of Einstein i.e. lasers, relativity, etc)…. but when it comes to what you wrote, I am clueless.

    This is not a statement of disagreement, but rather it is all those things you state seem obvious though difficult to catalog (i.e. I always knew but never put into words or throughts).

    That being said, you have written something and put together a great diary that requires a portion of my brain that I must not have used in a while, or it just may be late. Once again (I am complimenting you), to be clear, what is written above is something I would have found difficult to put into words.

    I will have to read it again tomorrow.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      Thank you very much.

      • DONTREADONME

        The right to self governance… This is important, many of the individuals of this country fail to understand that this applies to them, that this is not the Federal, State, County, City, town, township or home owner association governance, it is the individual; therefore, for this means the individual is responsible for himself and the resultant actions and outcomes of the choices the individual makes, and that includes the negative outcomes that are resultant from those choices.

        The idea of self governance for me has been one of those rights you discuss above that I actually think about on a daily basis. When I see families not governing their affairs properly or persons making awful choices or expecting the Government to control their affairs, actions and outcomes. That is the problem in this country, people are refusing to take individual responsibilty (or self governance) and accepting the outcomes of their choices.

        The founders may not have thought that when talking about self governance, but I believe that applies to the smallest part of the American Govenrment that is the individual. So, if all of the upper levels of Government (Fed, State, County, Town, HOA) are supposed to answer to the people, then the people are part of the self govenance. I hope that made sense and if it doesn’t see my comment above, for a great explanation of why it would not make sense.

        Do you see what you made me do? You spurred me to think? How dare you! :) Have a good night I recommend.

  • Karina

    ~a new car (with gov paying for my gas, ins, and AAA)
    ~a new house (with gov paying my mortgage)
    ~a high paying job
    ~free health care
    ~food
    ~Ipod
    ~computer with internet

    I’m calling my senator! We need to change this! I want a new boat!

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      as if we were all crying out for

      • government heroin
      • government needles

      get me hooked, big brobama!