Posted on 10/06/2013 6:17:33 AM PDT by sten
When written, the United States Constitution took a step beyond other constitutions in how it defined the rights of the people. Most countries bestow rights onto its citizens and inevitably would take them away.
The US Constitution went further to define liberty and its source. As such, the founders RECOGNIZED our Rights as preexisting naturally having been bestowed upon us by our Creator. This was a significant break from the established governing mindset. All of a sudden, people had Rights that the government could not control... as they didn't bestow them. The brilliance of the Constitution was to take the credit from man and put it in the hands of God. As such, all your Rights are available to you on a deserted island without the aid of government.
So there we have it. You have Rights as RECOGNIZED by the Constitution. But what are the limits of those Rights? Simply put, your Rights end where another's begin.
Then the question becomes, when do I receive these Rights? Do I receive them when I turn 18? Of course not. Even children have Rights, though overseen by their guardians / parents. Do I receive these Rights when I'm born? That seems odd, as the Creator didn't bless doctors with the rubber stamp of approval just for slapping you on the ass. If not when I'm born... then when would my Creator bestow these Rights on me?
To answer that question, one only has to understand when the Creator would have bestowed upon you the gift of life. That can only have been at Conception. At that point, your Rights have been bestowed and you start working on exercising your first Right
The Right to be born
Abortion would obviously infringe this Right and is therefore unConstitutional
The Creator sent the Satan to test the people of US to see if they can defend and preserve His blessings and right.
I’ve long held that our God-given rights to us, documented in the US Constitution were not merely ‘recognized,’ but affirmed.
I view the Constitution as a firewall. It was written in such a manner to protect the freedoms of each and every person, regardless of age, from the government, or the government granting someone else the “right” to infringe on one’s rights. This is the real “separation of church and state” in that the state has NO right to infringe.
If I could change one thing about the writing of the Constitution, I would use much simpler language, that even a third grader could read it and interpret it correctly.
A simple understanding of FREEDOM might have prevented the 16th Amendment. That was a serious arrow to the chest.
The Framers thought they had done that. Two factors have made it seem not so. First, a deliberate effort by Progressives to 'evolve' the plain meaning of the Constitution to convince people that it means whatever the progressives want. They have done this by sophistry and deceit, willfully obfuscating what everyone knew up 'til the Progressive Era. They have been at this for a century or more. They've found it easier to achieve their goals this way than trying to actually amend the Constitution. Second, a deliberate effort to degrade education so that the first avenue of attack falls on the fertile ground of ignorance thus making it more effective.
But wherever that origin is specified, it is a certainty that this country was founded on the notion that RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM GOVERNMENT! Rather, the power of government comes from the consent of the governed. That is the only philosophical bulwark that keeps this government from devolving into just another tyranny.
sorry, my bad... you’re right (it was quite early)
i’d change it if i could edit the post... which i can’t
my overall point was that we as people exercise our first Right by being born
keeping someone from being born is to deny them their basic Rights, by definition
The 16th Amendment was an appeal to human vice, that it would only apply to the rich and be a very small tax. It fed envy and the notion of something for nothing, that the burden of government could be placed on a select few. It was a lie then but enough to get it ratified. It was freedom from the burden of taxes for the many at the expense of freedom for the few. The Devil is a crafty fellow indeed.
“The US Constitution went further to define liberty and its source. “
What part of the US Constitution does that?
“As such, the founders RECOGNIZED our Rights as preexisting naturally having been bestowed upon us by our Creator.”
Somehow I can’t see that is so for “...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained...” nor “The right of citizens of the United States to vote”.
“At that point, your Rights have been bestowed and you start working on exercising your first Right
The Right to be born”
Arguably the first right is the right to life. Without life, how can any other right be held? If there is not life in the body of the unborn, wherein does the right to be born reside?
The whole post discusses “rights” without defining the term.
Philosophically speaking, the Preamble of the Constitution sets an even higher bar.
The Preamble explains the entire raison d'être and specifically includes, among its purposes to, "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
If one defines 'posterity' as those generations to come, or those yet unborn, it would appear the Constitution's declared intent was to recognize and protect the rights of Americans not yet conceived, much less those unborn :-) To deny that, one would have to come up with a pretty twisted and tortured definition of "posterity.'
and your post goes on about something without reading the followup posts.
it was indeed the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. terribly sorry if my early morning post didn’t qualify for submittal to the supreme court. i would have edited it... but alas, that’s not a capability of FR (afaik)
Life... Liberty... and the pursuit of Happiness
Life being the first Right we exercise.
how can abortion be Constitutional if it denies the Right to Life for the unborn?
The right to Life is listed as one of those “inalienable” rights endowed on us by our Creator. So you are absolutely right.
the framers mindset is that the constitution is set up to protect and preserve rights people inherently have, that these rights exist outside of government, predate government, preclude government, exist independently of government.
-PJ
Here's another question: do you lose those rights when you leave the country?
I'm amused when people go to foreign countries and behave as if they still have 1st amendment protections of free speech and a free press. Other countries don't have to recognize our rights on their soil.
I guess you could say that we still have them, but that their protections are unenforceable.
Then the corrolary to this is that citizens of other countries also have these unalienable rights, too, because the Creator didn't endow them to just Americans. Again, protections of these unalienable rights are unenforceable in governments that don't accept the premise.
-PJ
actually, you are correct
as Americans, if you actually believe in the founding documents and the sentiment on which they were written, then you do see yourself as having your Rights curtailed/denied while in other countries... as those countries do not respect those Rights.
similarly, you would also see citizens of those countries as having their Rights denied... though we normally don’t push too hard on that one
as an American that believes in our principals, you must see others having the same Rights regardless when they were born. (this does not mean they should be in the country... that’s an immigration issue and separate from human Rights)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.