"Nothing in our constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights." - Walter Williams
Quote for the day.
Reminder: Save 40% on the Atlas Shrugged box sets for a limited time: http://bit.ly/ASBoxSets
Reminder: Save 40% on the Atlas Shrugged box sets for a limited time: http://bit.ly/ASBoxSets
A democracy where everything is decided by popular vote (as many people naively believe is what we have) is as dangerous and absolute threat to the individual as a dictator or king.
Well said, Mr. Williams
"that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
To these ends are to the ends of protecting the natural rights provided by our creator.
The fact that our government seems to believe they grant rights makes me wonder how far we are from the next section of the declaration?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
http://chapin.williams.edu/exhibits/foun...
Elsewhere, Dean has raised the interesting point that it wasn't written into the Constitution exactly how the citizens were to go about replacing a government gone bad. The Declaration clearly states that the citizens have that right, as yet another right inherent to the People, but how to go about it? How does that jive with enemies "domestic"? I would suggest that the definition of enemies "domestic" are those that threaten the inherent rights of the People. And this then leaves the enemies "domestic" as those playing a role in the government gone bad.
Those 56 men who later wrote up the Constitution didn't do that! Kinda sad that Thomas Jefferson wasn't there to make that point!. After that convention it required 2 more years to ratify the thing, and even then Rhode Island had not so ratified. Never have I seen any reports of the various States getting the consent of their citizens, have you?
Nothing of all that good stuff on your provided link is part of the "Supreme Law". So while all the talk talk talk about all that is indeed interesting, it is not even relevant to this matter. The Constitution became effective in 1789, and has bit by bit been trashed by the very GOVERNment it created. There's no sign that somehow we're going to ever even get "back to the Constitution". The people were not given any role in the Balance of Powers, so here we sit helpless to do anything about any of this. Citizens have been ruled to not have "standing, right?
And as far as the future States getting the consent of their citizens, is not that inherent in the process of the People electing representatives to, gee whiz folks, guess what, represent the citizens?
Having recognized your basic disdain for anything approaching an achievable "rule of law", all the talk, talk, talk, you provide does not nothing to help the matter at hand. The statement that the people were not given any role in the Balance of Powers is simply - wrong. The problem is that not enough are participating.
And the role and meaning of participating should be another whole post.
However, I agree that there is little sign that we are going to get "back to the Constitution." Because there is - deliberately - not enough education going on about the Constitution. And some of your blanket statements are in evidence of that.
Furthermore, "Talk, talk talk," about the founding documents is absolutely relevant to the matters at hand. If one is to refuse to acknowledge the basis of the eternal rationality of the founding documents of the American "experiment", then we are truly lost. When this is accepted by an individual, that individual is truly lost.
As to Citizens having been ruled to have no standing..... huh? What? When? Where? Can we be a little more specific/realistic i.e. rational, here?
On "Standing", hopefully you'll recall that we saw much of government courts so "ruling" against the efforts to bring Obama's ineligibility. I ought not have to explain that further.
Yes indeed, the history is indeed relevant, but most of us have BTDT. The problem with all that is tilting all the windmills over and over which it's impossible to fix them in the rush of the Rulers making even more.
Bad laws are a multitude, such that mankind cannot survive while also worshiping the "rule of law". The People have NO role in the so-called Balance of Powers, which are entirely the province of our Rulers in the legislative, administrative and judical branches of government.
Why else would we feel a compelling need for "illegal" resistance? Why else would GaltGulchOnline, DumpDC, The 10th Amendment Center, nullification and secession movements need to exist?
The People certainly do have standing, they just need to stand up and show it. Apparently that won't happen until the refrigerators are empty, the gas tanks are empty, and the banks have closed their doors. Then watch what happens.
Those impulses to limit our freedom and liberty are precisely why the framers wrote the document in that way. The Bill of Rights was enacted because several of the State refused to ratify until these rights were included.
At the moment I don't feel like I have squat for rights.
So why do so many people not believe that is the case or, alternatively, why are we in these shitty situations if that's true...?
I think the statement is fine but it's not leading to the right questions or answers/comments.
"A country's constitution is not an act of its government. It is an act of the people in constituting a government."
But it seems that if that grant lasts too long, the bureaucrats forget that we have the power to take it away. The next time we write one, let's put in a sunset clause.
Section 4 was interesting. It's one sentence long. It covers the reasons a President and cohorts can be removed.
There were no provisions for Czars, Executive Orders, and political arm twisting...so I'm guessing these are all power grabs that Presidents have exploited over the years. Our current President was a Constitutional professor. I'm guessing that means he studied carefully all of the things not specifically ruled out by the Constitution and determined that if he moved quickly he could get away with those things. I deduce this because he certainly couldn't be reading the same straight forward and humble document that I study a couple of times a week.
I would like to get back to the original document, this living breathing version is about to strangle me.
If you look at The 10th amendment, the last of the bill of rights, it is also succinct. Any powers not given directly to the federal government nor specifically removed from the States, are to be left to the separate States, or to the people themselves. When you consider that, and then make a short list of the alphabet soup entities of federal government agencies, one has to ask if they are even Constitutional on the face of it. IRS, FBI, CIA, HUD, DEA, HSA, etc... None of that is enumerated in the Constitution. Which begs, why do we have them? Probably the same reason the Executive branch has so much power, congress is delegating their power to these agencies.
The Constitution was written to limit the powers of a central government, not to allow us our rights. We, meaning the voting public over the generations, have allowed our government to do more and more for us. To quote Dr. Williams, "...because we are too damned dumb to take care of our own problems."
I'm in favor of an article 5 convention, to reign in these guys in Washington and repeal the 17th amendment; allowing the Senators to be chosen by the State legislature. This leaves each Senator beholding to his home State, rather than the lobbyists. And term limits and some sort of balanced budget amendment should be looked at too.
It's similar to tax revolt. The Boston Tea party was over a small use tax, 3% I think. Today, with the withholding system they take magnitudes more than the Tea Stamps of the 1700s. There is no way to revolt. You have no choice if you get a paycheck. The boss has no choice but to turn over the "trusted funds" that are your taxes. The company could lose all the assets by refusing to forward the money to the IRS. It seems to me everywhere we look our not so benevolent government has boxed us in. That was not the founder's view of freedom.