Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Billthedrill
"-- we on the individualist side are reduced to Jefferson's somewhat hopeful formulation that certain rights are self-evident (they aren't), or as a gift of God whether one believes in Him or not."

We must 'constitutionally insist' on the principle that our rights to life, liberty, or property are self-evident,
[or, - are a gift of a creator, - whether one believes in one or not], - as part of our constitutional social contract.

They may, in fact, be axiomatic, which leads directly toward the notion of a social contract, which has its own difficulties with respect to mysticism.

Our constitutional contract is not 'mysticism' in any aspect. - We are all required to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution, just as we demand that same oath of all officials, fed, state, or local.

After all, no one is presented, at birth, with a copy of the Constitution and a choice as to whether he or she wishes to accept that as life rules.

We are, in effect, presented with that choice at 18, or at naturalization. - Everyone should read our Oath of Citizenship. - All citizens bound by its provisions.

It isn't a real contract. Anyone can opt out of its requirements and remain a citizen, and many on the radical Left do precisely that.

Yep, we have always allowed many radicals to opt out of its requirements and remain [voting] citizens. - This is a political judgment call. - One that perhaps should be revisited by Amendment.

20 posted on 07/22/2007 12:30:41 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
We are all required to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution...

With the greatest of respect, no, we're not. We would be were it a real contract. Were our ability to vote, say, contingent upon our defense of the Constitution there would be a lot fewer voters (Hollywood, Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor, and Ithica would be practically empty of them).

I would agree with a scheme to present the Constitution to young people as a social contract at the age of majority, although I might point out that up to then they will have been the beneficiaries of that contract anyway without the commensurate demands. That isn't quite what Rousseau had in mind but it seems a perquisite of youth, although why current youth should have that luxury based merely on their being born in the right place is another philosophical discussion altogether.

It'll never really be a complete social contract on those bases, although we can certainly do better than we have been at making it so. Just some thoughts.

22 posted on 07/22/2007 12:44:52 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson