Who defines our liberties?

Should government define them, with the same sincerity of R. Kelly defining pedophilia or Billy Jeff Clinton defining sex or "is"? Or should we, the People define our own liberties with the sole caveat that we MUST respect the same rights in others? If something is OK for US to do (and we can do it without requiring the unwilling participation of another person), then we must expect that it's OK for anyone else to do, with the same stipulation regarding unwilling participants.

And in the same vein, should judges interpret the Constitution when they make rulings or should they READ the Constitution and apply it AS WRITTEN to laws applying to cases before them?

Yassir Arafat's Double Would Never Donate. Will You?

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

Polite comments welcomed.

What are you contemplating here, a Constitutional Republic? Hasn't that been tried? Please note, these are rhetorical question's. Blackbird.

Offered as hypotheses, not statements of belief:

1. People always define their own liberties--without caveats imposed by others. If their definitions differ from those of the society that surrounds them, they are deemed anti-social, or misfits, or perhaps more properly: outlaws. All else aside, to the extent they can conceal their differences with the society that surrounds them, they live in peace, externally if not internally. To the extent that they cannot conceal their differences, they live in conflict with the society that surrounds them.

2. If it is ok for us to fly a 747 (or perform any other technical task) it is not necessarily ok for anyone else to do so. If it is ok for us to have a constitutional republic, it is not necessarily ok for others to establish one. (I am not so sure establishing a constitutional republic in post-Saddam Iraq is "ok," at least right away. I doubt the people have the cultural undepinnings to sustain one and it will deteriorate into tyranny.

3. Judges should read the Constitution, apply it as written when they can, and interpret it only as necessary and consistent with what is written. I would not want to have to rewrite the Constitution just because the printing press has been superceded by other mechanisms.

OK... your reply is reasoned, mostly, and I thank you. In your point one, the one caveat that I stipulated is what makes something a RIGHT... that I do not need the involuntary participation of someone else for its fulfillment. In your point two, you are speaking of skills and talents, which are not the same as rights or liberties. In a free society, one may go where and as far as his skills and abilities take him, but all men are NOT created equal in that respect, only with respect to the rights with which we are born. Point three is fairly right on and I have no doubt that the Founders would have meant to apply the PRINCIPLES behind the Constitution, no matter what technological discoveries came along. The PRINCIPLE that one may speak as one wills is not invalidated no matter the technology, just as the arms one may own are not limited to 18th century technology.

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.