Are civil rights pseudo constitutional rights?

I never thought of it this way.

Thanks Jim, for posting this.

I really don’t like the term “civil rights”

The correct term is "inherent rights".

America’s Declaration of Independence tells us the source of our rights with these words… that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many Americans are familiar with those words but many other Americans are not as familiar with the words that follow.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

This explains several important aspects of America’s governance.
It explains that the only reason for a Constitution is to protect inherent rights.
It explains why the Bill of Rights did not grant rights but instead protected inherent rights from government interference.
It also explains why the Constitution only granted government specific enumerated powers of legislation.

Only a socialist government could lobby for a moral wrong to become a civil right.

You may be correct, but again I don’t like the term “Civil rights” or “Constitutional rights” for that matter as both of them imply government origin or dependency.

As you pointed out this was never the case in the United States.
This is a very dangerous idea, an idea that is antithetical to American Republicanism, and a free self-governing people.

People are not free by the grace of Government but rather by the grace of their creator.

People are not free by the grace of Government but rather by the grace of their creator

What you have so wisely pointed out is the basis for the socialist agenda for America. If a majority of people can be persuaded that their rights are not from the creator then the question of where rigths did come from is open.

Obama recently recited word for word from the Declaration of Independence carefully pausing to avoid the words "by their Creator" after saying the word "endowed". Obama has done this on more than this one occassion.

“” People are not free by the grace of Government but rather by the grace of their creator”

What you have so wisely pointed out is the basis for the socialist agenda for America. If a majority of people can be persuaded that their rights are not from the creator then the question of where rights did come from is open.”

I’m afraid the question is not only open but one that is settled on the left. Remember their words about granting rights to the American people with the passage of the Obamacare law, just to name a few examples?

The left already regards and openly speaks of rights as if they are services provided by the Government. This is nothing new this is something they have been doing for quite some time.

What we are doing is trying to not only open that back up to critical reexamination but slam the liberals with the basic fact that Government IS NOT the origin of rights.

We are doing this for precisely the reason you said, it is essential to the preservation of our liberty.

“Obama recently recited word for word from the Declaration of Independence carefully pausing to avoid the words “by their Creator” after saying the word “endowed”. Obama has done this on more than this one occassion. “

This is true the left very much wants to reinforce the idea that government is the origin of rights, because that idea empowers their socialist/stateist agenda. In typical Orwellian fashion they convene people to over look the very real liberty the government is usurping from them in the form of mandates, high taxes, and restrictions in favor of the imaginary government controlled services which they now label rights.

This is the jail master using the carrot as well as the stick to make the people do his/her bidding. The people are told they are free simply because they can do what the Jail master wants them to do, and get what the Jail master chooses to give them.

Excellent piece of thoughtful prose but for the life of me I can't figure out this point:

1. To preserve slavery Democrats insisted that "property" not be included as an unalienable right in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence as Jefferson originally intended

It would seem to me the slave owning Dims would have desired just the opposite; that is, their RIGHT to codify and own slaves as property. Have I missed something?

btt

Just caught this...

We live in a country that politically could not organize a black market bake sale... The legal ones were outlawed in most states.

I am thinking that you are thinking too much about inconsequentionality.

You may be right but I have no other politically viable way to restore and maintain freedom.

We must either find a way to do this or we must find anther way to stop the endless encroachments of the Federal Government. A way that doesn’t involve using the easily power corrupted politicians we send to Washington D.C.

It’s true we could probably go a long way in pushing em back with bluffs but at the end of the day they like the tyrant Lincoln will go to the sword the minute their access to the people’s check books becomes threatened.

We need some kind of viable competing system to stop them, a competing system that is strong enough to force the Federal government to respect our rights even thou that Governments leaders very much don’t want to.

We need to either revive the existing one that was spoken of in the Federalist papers(but has apparently failed or been killed) or we need to build a new one and leave it in place for our posterity in-order to restore and maintain some kind of balance.