Constitution 'gives' us Rights....

iso1

New member
I read an article, found here:

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=LIBERTYDOLLAR-12-27-00&cat=AN

and wrote this in reply to the author, because it really irks me that some people think that without the governments acknowledgement, we wouldn't have any Rights. We all know that's exactly what the government is trying to do with our Right to Keep and Bear arms.

Sometimes, I really have to wonder why everyone finds it so amazing that modern Americans have no idea about their Rights.

When journalists who are supposed to be intelligent, educated people write phrases like, and I quote directly from your recent article, "most Americans cannot list the liberties given them under the Constitution", it seems obvious: They are being brainwashed into believing that the Constitution created Rights.

Of course, that is false. The Amendments to the Constitution simply state that there are certain things the government cannot try to take away. Although, they try anyway.

Rights are inherent in every single person. They are not given, or created, or granted. They are as natural to a person as is Life itself. Indeed, Life is listed as a Right in the Declaration of Independence. Does the Declaration of Independence 'give' a person Life? Of course not. The Right to Life exists regardless of any document. The document merely expresses the obvious, for those people, like politicians and the media, who seem to think that Rights only exist when specifically granted by the government.

Rights are natural. Priveleges are granted. Remeber that, because priveleges can be revoked.

The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Right to Free Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, all of these are the natural attributes of a Free People.

The privelege of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the privelege of free speech, the privilege to keep and bear arms, all of these are the mark of slaves and subjects.

I am a Free Citizen, and will always be, because I have natural Rights.

I will never be a subject or slave.
 
isol,
Good letter. I would have added but one thing: freedom is a consequence of the exercise of rights.
 
Excellent letter, iso1. If we are to ensure the preservation of our Rights, we mustn't allow ignorant reporters and editors to spread these misconceptions that our Rights are "conferred" by some piece of paper.
 
<Rant Mode On>
Somehow or other a way has to be found to challenge ignorant (I will be charitable) journalists and politicians. I wish, I really really wish public figures would simply stop an on air interview when the set up to a question betrays gross ignorance (again, I'm charitable).

For example,

Blow-dry: "What is wrong with Bush conceding the election to VP Gore? After all, he did win the popular vote. Isn't that what a democracy is all about?"

Typical Response: "We must count all votes. It's too early to talk about concession." <Notice, the response assumes the question's set up is correct.>

Proper Response: "We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Our constitution lays out how our president is elected. The popular vote is irrelevant above the state level. Popular vote only matters within each state. In the electoral college each state presents its vote to elect the president. A national popular vote is mere entertainment for members of the media. Now if you do not like the fact that the president is elected by the electoral college, the constitution prescribes ways it can be changed and you are perfectly entitled to spearhead such an effort. But until then get your facts correct and report reality not your personal preference.

Now, I will be happy to respond to a question that reflects how our government works, not how you want it to work.

Your move. Try asking that question again."

My infantile hope is that a handful of such exchanges will change the nature of interviews. These self-important, pretty faced air-heads will come to an interview prepared.

<Rant Mode Off>
 
Back
Top