There are no such things as "Constitutional Rights."
The Constitution does not and, indeed by nature, cannot grant or create a single right. What it can and does do is enumerate some of our most essential rights.
However, all the rights that we as individuals enjoy are not listed in the constitution. The rights that are listed are understood to be simply protected by, and not granted by, the Constitution. Every one of our rights comes from God and the eternal laws that govern the universe. These rights were in existence before the Constitution was ever conceived. These rights are unalienable and endowed upon us by God. If you don’t agree, read the Declaration of Independence. It states:
Carefully read the Bill of Rights. It is written in a way that suggests these rights are simply not to be “infringed” upon or are to be “preserved.” The Bill of Rights does not state that these rights are granted or given by the government to the people.
What about the rights “delegated to the United States by the Constitution?” (10th Amendment) These are community or group rights that we gain by the fact that some people will infringe on the rights of others and by the fact that nations will do the same to other nations. These rights are very few and are defined in the Constitution. Such things as a military and being able to raise money to support that military are necessary to protect the group from other groups. These rights, though, are derived from our personal, unalienable rights. In the case of the specifically mentioned group rights, they are derived from the right to self-defense. I posit that a similar parallel exists for each of the rights delegated to the national government. (“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”)
Thus even the rights of the community come from the rights of the individual. Which are unalienable, endowed rights from God.
There are no Constitutional rights only eternal Rights.
However, all the rights that we as individuals enjoy are not listed in the constitution. The rights that are listed are understood to be simply protected by, and not granted by, the Constitution. Every one of our rights comes from God and the eternal laws that govern the universe. These rights were in existence before the Constitution was ever conceived. These rights are unalienable and endowed upon us by God. If you don’t agree, read the Declaration of Independence. It states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”The Constitution was written only to secure those rights that already existed by providing a government that would not control, define, or deny those rights.
Carefully read the Bill of Rights. It is written in a way that suggests these rights are simply not to be “infringed” upon or are to be “preserved.” The Bill of Rights does not state that these rights are granted or given by the government to the people.
What about the rights “delegated to the United States by the Constitution?” (10th Amendment) These are community or group rights that we gain by the fact that some people will infringe on the rights of others and by the fact that nations will do the same to other nations. These rights are very few and are defined in the Constitution. Such things as a military and being able to raise money to support that military are necessary to protect the group from other groups. These rights, though, are derived from our personal, unalienable rights. In the case of the specifically mentioned group rights, they are derived from the right to self-defense. I posit that a similar parallel exists for each of the rights delegated to the national government. (“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”)
Thus even the rights of the community come from the rights of the individual. Which are unalienable, endowed rights from God.
There are no Constitutional rights only eternal Rights.
This is the copy I used to start a discussion on campus.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first comment in that discussion:
ReplyDeleteYour argument is strong but you miss the point that while the constitution and declaration of independence clearly state that there are certain unalienable rights, neither document says that this is an end to the rights of people. Each only clearly state that certain rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property) are given by God. I would challenge you on the argument that all of our rights come from God and are eternal. In certain parts of America it is my right to carry a concealed weapon as long as I have the proper documentation. This is a right that is given to me by a law. However, in other parts of the country (New York City) you cannot have a loaded weapon on your person at all (Plaxico Burress). Please explain to me the logical/moral reasoning behind God giving us the right to bear arms at all? It is good for our self-defense, but (not to be overly simplistic) bows and arrows do the same thing - defend us with lethal force. It is the idea that is the right not the object.
This was my response:
ReplyDeleteIf my words conveyed that our unalienable rights are an "end" to our rights then I did not get my point across correctly. I meant to show that our unalienable rights are a foundation for all rights that we enjoy and that there is no right that is not founded on our unalienable rights. This provides a deal of flexibility in our rights.
The rights to life, liberty, and property are worth nothing if you do not have the power to retain the same. It is thus our unalienable right to protect ourselves. Whether or not we need to exercise this right to protection depends on the circumstances surrounding us.
As to weapon rights, government can establish reasonable restrictions to reduce accident or (as some claim) crime. Reasonable restrictions, though, would still allow you to have and use a firearm that you could use to protect yourself. For example, you do not need a fully automatic machine gun on your person when a pistol would do the job perfectly. Reasonable restrictions may also include registration and licensing. Registration would provide a way to track your gun if it were used in a crime or stolen. Licensing shows that you know how to safely handle a gun and can be trusted to avoid accidents. Both of these provide an asset to the community, where not requiring these could amount in a great detriment.
As far as bows and arrows go, there are certainly other weapons or methods that would work but are either less reliable, more time intensive, or less practical; or simply undesirable to the person seeking a way to protect himself. If you know a martial art and can confidently defend yourself, great! Otherwise, it might just be simpler to get a gun and training.
The idea is the core of the right, but without the object that right is useless and may as well not exist.
And it went further, but I didn't feel like bothering with copying more of it to here.
ReplyDelete