Posted on 01/11/2020 9:20:05 AM PST by rktman
Many people believe the Founding Fathers left many "rights" out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Stuff like the right to food. The right to housing. The right to a college education. The right to health care (particularly for illegal aliens). Heck, even the right to abortions, the right to be called by a preferred pronoun and the right to free feminine hygiene products, even in men's restrooms. If these dead white men were so brilliant, why didn't they include these "rights" when they wrote those documents?
But you'll notice one common theme among every Right listed in the Bill of Rights: They don't cost anything. This is the litmus test whenever anyone claims they have a new and creative "right." If it costs someone something such as time, money or labor, it's not a Right.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“Rights” don’t involve government—they involve the absence of government. Liberals have it the exact opposite way around, however. They think rights are government privileges.
A right is the sovereignty to act without permission of others. However, the Bill of Rights isn’t perfectly consistent, because the “right to a jury trial” does place obligations on others, namely, the jurors and other court personnel (and on taxpayers to pay them).
The interesting thing is that, if you really look at it closely, the constitution and bill of rights says only what rights the GOVERNMENT can’t take away from you. It says nothing about private citizens not being able to take away rights.
And I have the same rights if I earn my living running a business as I do if I am someone’s employee (indentured slave). That includes property rights. That means that, when someone enters my property - even if it is a business - I have the right to tell them what they can and cannot do. IF they don’t like it, they can leave my business. This includes my employees.
A few minutes imagining scenarios tells you where you can go with this. For starters, it means OF COURSE you don’t have to bake the cake. But it also means you can kick someone out of your business for any reason whatsoever - including their race.
What made Jim Crow unconstituional was that it was LAW. It was the government TELLING business owners who they could and could not do business with, and under what conditions.
I’m not suggesting companies should discriminate based on race (or sex or hair color or anything else). Rather, I’m saying the constitution protects their right to do so.
But abortion pertains ONLY to pregnant women. So there is a reason that no such right existed in the bill of rights.
Not entirely true. This right pre-supposes government action. The government will prosecute crimes. They will pay court personnel for the prosecution. In this pre-supposed process, the government will not have the final say. You have a right to a trial by your peers rather than government officials. Another way to read this one is, "when government takes action, it will not impose itself on the citizenry." The citizenry have the final say in a jury trial.
That's my take. YMMV.
Civics 101:
A Right doesn’t require somebody else to do anything.
A Right ends where the rights of other begins.
Ten uninvited bums are living in your house.
Do you have a right to have government remove them?
A right is simply a legal concept the government will respect/defend.
Commonly respected international law:
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Note: I’m just providing it for information purposes.
Note: A “right” might not always be right.
I would put that as, when are are arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, “you are entitled to be judged by your peers, rather than by government”, but, it’s still an entitlement, as it does place obligations on others.
“The right to a college education.”
Can there be a right to a third grade education?
I’ve said for years that no one has the right to something that another has labored for. The sole exception is that a minor child has the right to the care of their parents.
Doesn’t matter anyway as only the Treaty Tribes have Constitutionally enshrined Rights’ all of us have mere privileges which can be revoked at any given time - SCOTUS ruling three times in Treaty cases.
If you have a right
To the service I provide
I must be your slave
“Back in 1959, schools spent only $2,101 per student. In the 2007-08 school year, by comparison, schools will have spent nearly $10,000 per student.”
https://people.howstuffworks.com/public-schools2.htm
I assume the 1959 figure is adjusted for inflation.
In 1967, my public school system spent about $1,000 [1967 money] per student.
I believe that statement to be incorrect, because there are "obligations" stated in the 6th Amendment of our Constitution. It stipulates a "trial by jury". Who is the jury if not the citizens of the Republic? Who pays for such enforcement if not the tax-payers?
In general, an individual's rights stop at the point of abridging another person's rights. However, some rights like life, liberty, justice supersede others.
If you read the Constitutional Debates, the FF's diaries/quotes, their correspondence, publications, a reasonable person will understand what they believed to be a hierarchy of God-given rights.
Unfortunately, the FF's couldn't imagine a society as we have today, when basic rights like the 1st Amendment could be so oppressed on our campuses and media as to quell the right to free speech of others. They did their best, but couldn't foresee the future and the loss of commonsense, reason, logic, and basic reading skills.
According to Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary
Right. n.
3. Just claim.
According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
RIGHT, noun
10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.
Seems like I read somewhere "that to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men"
Noting that the various parts of the Constitution were drafted by committee (OUCH!), some delegates signing the final draft of the Constitution regardless that they weren’t entirely satisfied with it, please consider the following inevitable problems with it. (The Constitution is generously C- quality writing imo, not A+.)
A “technical” problem with the Bill of Rights, for example, that has led to lots of misunderstandings about the fed’s constitutional powers is this imo.
Since the 1st Amendment (1A) begins with “Congress shall make no law,” for example, the politically correct implication now is not only that Congress originally automatically had the power to make the laws that 1A prohibits Congress from having, but that 1A was necessary to repeal such powers.
In other words, as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught that the only powers that the federal government has are those that the states expressly give the feds in the Constitution, low-information citizens never question that a given federal law or regulation may be constitutionally indefensible.
Making sure that a given federal law is reasonably justifiable under some clause in the Constitution should be a civic duty of every citizen as much as jury duty is. (The Constitution is arguably little more complicated than a driver’s test imo. So questioning the constitutional integrity of a federal law should not be a major effort.)
State sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had put it this way about the importance of constitutionally enumerated federal government powers.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November!
MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” —Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"13th Amendment, Section 1:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment not only effectively politically repealed the 3/4 state supermajority requirement of the Constitution’s Article V for ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution now prevailing under Democratic judicial tyranny, but also consider this. It also effectively nullified Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers along with the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes. Belonging to a political party means that you are a subject, not a member.” —me
"Patriots need to support PDJT in demanding that Congress moves "April 15" tax day to the day before election day." —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
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.