Briefly: MAKING SENSE OF PERSONAL "RIGHTS"
Briefly:?MAKING SENSE OF PERSONAL “RIGHTS”!
? Stephen H. Farra, PhD, LP, 2022.? All rights reserved.
?On the 4th of July, 2022, I believed it might be a good time to address the issue of "personal "rights"!
In the very contentious atmosphere related to this issue, I recently read through the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution, and all the Amendments to the Constitution on the National Archives website – to see what these documents actually do and do not say about personal “rights.”? This is what I discovered:
Real rights are not made by governments, they are recognized by governments.?Real rights are natural, God-given rights, not government-created-or-given rights.?There are a very limited number of these God-given rights recognized in the Constitution and its amendments. ?Two of the very few references to individual rights in the text of the Constitution itself are in Article 1, where it states that the principle/privilege of habeas corpus (prohibitions against unlawful detention) shall not be suspended, except in cases of social rebellion or invasion, and in Article 6 where it says that there will be “no religious Test” to hold public office. ?Individual rights are mostly dealt with in the Amendments to the Constitution.?Below is a very condensed list of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) that recognize these very specific rights/freedoms:
Amendments 1-2 have to do with specific rights to:?the free exercise of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.?Amendments 3-4 have to do with property rights.?Amendments 5-8 list out our rights to open/public and speedy trials, chosen witnesses, legal counsel, and prohibitions against “cruel and unusual punishments.” Amendments 9-10 say there can be rights other than those in this list.?BUT – they will be recognized and guaranteed by the States, not the Federal Government.?“Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”?
领英推荐
The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) are not the only Amendments to the Constitution that have to do with individual “rights.”?The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution prohibit involuntary servitude, promise equal protection under the law, and say that the Bill of Rights applies to all adults in the United States, not just to those who worked with or for the Federal Government, or those of a certain race, ethnicity, or level of privilege.??These rights apply to all adults of both sexes (the 19th Amendment) and to all adults eighteen years of age and older (the 26th Amendment). ?
But – folks – that’s it! ??These are the recognized rights that are Constitutionally protected!? Other “rights” can be recognized and guaranteed by the states, localities, or communities – but not the Federal Government!
There are no Federal/Constitutional “rights” related to abortion – or any of the other items on the Progressive Left’s “wish list” that they periodically try to “drop into” the Constitution.?If the Progressive Left wants their “wish list of rights” in the Constitution, the only way they can legitimately do that is for them to pass a bunch of other (new) Constitutional Amendments – a long, arduous process for each amendment, requiring a 2/3 super-majority of the votes of the representatives in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification of 3/4 of all the State Legislatures.?Progressives do NOT have the patience or the representatives/votes for all that.?
So, for the last 50 years or so, the Progressive Left has attempted to “short-cut” the legitimate legislative process by having Progressive judges/justices do their bidding for them, by declaring the Constitution a “living” (always changing) document, where they can insert and then “find” new “rights.” ?Progressives are now infuriated that the Supreme Court has insisted that we return to the founding documents, and work from there.?If we want to make any real sense of personal “rights”, we must recognize this as a very good move – very long overdue!
So, let’s just all stop pretending – and get real about “rights” in this nation – while we still can!???
Executive VP at Fletcher Monuments
2 年Strong start, Dr. Farra! I appreciate your diligence in going back to read through the original documentation, a practice not exercised nearly enough by commentators on constitutional proceedings. And I don't disagree that the amendment process, as laid out in the Constitution, is foundational to changing the law of the land. But you lost me when you fell into us/them language. Much like in Bible study, there are various interpretational paradigms one might align oneself to. When it comes to the US Constitution, "strict constructionism", "originalism", and "Living Constitution(ism?)" are all valid interpretational paradigms. By calling out the so-called "Progressive Left" and their belief in a "Living Constitution" you elevate your own "originalist" position and rob this piece from being a non-partisan, educational piece and relegate it to being yet another partisan editorial, which limits your audience and sets those who disagree with you at odds with you. Which may be your goal in writing such a piece. I don't know.