Rights in The Constitution.

Rights in The Constitution

American Dream? What is the
We’ve heard this phrase before. There’s probably no officially correct answer. But what does it mean? How is America different than other countries? Why isn’t there a Canadian dream or a Russian dream? My definition of the American dream is that government will get out of your way so that there are no limits to your dreams and to what you can accomplish.

What We Will Cover: Definitions of Rights The Founders’ View on Rights
- What is the origin of rights? - Who possesses these rights? - Why do rights matter? The Actual Words of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in Regards to Rights Modern Day Confusion of Rights What We Can Do About It

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Right: (adjective)
“Accordant to the standard of truth and justice or the will of God. That alone is right in the sight of God, which is consonant to his will or law; this being the only perfect standard of truth and justice. This sounds like a definition of right as a value statement; as in right versus wrong.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Right: (adjective)
“Accordant to the standard of truth and justice or the will of God. That alone is right in the sight of God, which is consonant to his will or law; this being the only perfect standard of truth and justice. In social and political affairs, that is right which is consonant to the laws and customs of a country, provided these laws and customs are not repugnant to the laws of God.” But then look what he goes on to state. Rights must comply with truth

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Right: (noun)
“Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. ” Defended/demanded justifiably by force Freedom that complies with natural law - Freedom to . . . - Freedom from . . . How do rights differ from license? License - To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission. Where does a license come from? Man, government Where do rights come from? God

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis; a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” What is the origin of our rights? Thomas Jefferson

“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another... It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” What rights are equal to every man? Quite simply - the rights to be free! Free from coercion and free from oppression. Rights come from what individuals have in common with each other (who we are by nature) not from what makes one individual inferior to others. This is the victim syndrome. According to the victim theory of rights the more an individual can find to make him inferior to another the more rights he should have granted him to make up the difference. This is done because of a focus on equality of things or status rather than equality of true natural rights that all of us are born with. Trying to bring everyone to an equality of things and possessions rather than an equality of protection under the law from infringement on our rights is what opens the door to a true understanding of rights and government’s role with respect to our rights. In short, our natural rights come from who we are not from who we aren’t. "All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them." Thomas Jefferson (last letter he ever wrote) Thomas Paine

“Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.” How is any one of these natural rights completely dependent on the other two? First, obviously without life you have no ability to exercise your liberty or to act on your property. Second, without liberty to do as you please with your life or property you really aren’t in possession of your own life or property Third, without property, your life and liberty to make use of your faculties cannot have any expression because there is no ownership of property with which to make your life and liberty have lasting or substantial value. Hamilton Fed 73, “a power over a man's support is a power over his will.” What makes a natural right different from all other types of rights? Its source The individual can use force to defend it The individual can use force to demand it Frederic Bastiat

“It seems to me that the rights of the state can be nothing but the regularizing of pre-existent personal rights. For my part, I cannot conceive a collective right that does not have its foundation in an individual right or presuppose it. Hence, to know whether the state is legitimately invested with a right, we must ask whether the individual has that right in virtue of his nature and in the absence of all government.”. Do states, nations, or communities possess these rights? No. The only true sovereign endowed with natural rights is the individual. Many people say, “states’ rights” or “state sovereignty” which is fine if the intent is to identify the state as independent of the federal government in its state jurisdictions and responsibilities. But the people are the only ones with rights and the people created all levels of government. Government may possess duties but those duties are assigned by the people. And the people are authorized to act because they possess natural rights from God with power to defend those rights by natural law. Frederic Bastiat

“If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.” I have the natural right to defend my property, my life and my liberty. Then I can delegate to government the duty of protecting my property, life, and liberty for me. In this instant, government is born. Does the government now possess the right to defend me? No. They possess the duty to defend me, but I retain the right. Only individuals have rights. Frederic Bastiat

“(We) rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”
James Madison Why do rights matter? Because individual rights are the basis for the formation of a free government and individual rights are the only legitimate authorization for government to do anything - since man formed government in the first place. Jefferson, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.“ Does self-government mean man do whatever he wants to and so can the government he forms?

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. Self-government is to do whatever you want to do Period! We were created free. We literally can do whatever we want to do. That’s how God made us. We can do good and we can do bad. Why did God make us that way? Why did he give us freedom to do good and freedom to do bad? 1) Because what does good mean in the absence of bad? 2) if we were forced to do only good then that would be called force, not freedom. God intentionally gave us the freedom to do whatever we please so that we truly would be free. It is obvious then that the other side of freedom is responsibility. You can use your freedom to make choices but you can’t choose the consequences of those choices. Notice the parallels here between Godly government and earthly government. Freedom is the pursuit and no restraints are put on that freedom until you use it unwisely. Jefferson makes the distinction between liberty and rightful liberty. Thomas Jefferson

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. So, rightful liberty falls along the lines of “rights”. We only have a right to do those things which are right. In other words, can I do whatever I want? Yes, but can I rightfully do whatever I want? No. All I have to do is look at the personal individual level. Self-government means that those things that man can do individually, by nature, can be delegated to government to do on his behalf. In other words, if, at a personal level, I can justify using force to punish someone for doing something evil or for failing to do something I have a moral right to require of him then I can rightly give to my agent, the government, the duty to exercise that force in my behalf. But if what I want my government to do for me I would shrink from doing personally then my conscience has told me it is not within the proper role of government because it exceeds my natural individual right by intruding on the equal rights of others. A true God-given right is a right that can be exercised by any one person or all persons at any time without infringing on others’ rights. If, in order to exercise a “right”, I have to infringe on a non-offending person’s rights then it is not a God-given right. “Logically, a fundamental human right is one that every individual possesses and can exercise in exactly the same sense at every point. If person A claims a right that, when exercised, denies exactly the same right to person B, the alleged right belongs only to A, not B. It should be called an A right, not a human right, for A and B are rivals in the exercise of the right. Genuine human rights are those which can be held and exercised nonrivalrously.” Thomas Jefferson

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Just because a law says government can take from one and give to another does not make that action rightful. Thomas Jefferson

“ freedom is not, as we are told, liberty for every man to do what he [desires] (for who could be free when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?). [Freedom is] a liberty to dispose, and order as he [desires], his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.” Notice that Locke does include laws in his comments as opposed to what Jefferson just had to say about laws. So, why do we have laws, or government in the first place? Locke will offer his explanation about proper laws. John Locke

“ the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law.” The whole purpose of government is to preserve and enlarge freedom – freedom to do with one’s own life, liberty, and property what he wants to do. "The freedom and happiness of man... [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.“ Jefferson John Locke

“With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” First Inaugural Address The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 33: 17 February to 30 April 1801 Government’s role is to punish guilt and restrain crime. In short, government is to secure freedom from injury and invasion and allow freedom to pursue and improve their self interest. Thomas Jefferson

“The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” Thomas Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence
These are incredible and inspiring ideas and philosophies. But do they show up in our actual founding documents?

“We hold these truths to be self evident, Self-evident truths comply with the “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary put it this way, “Evident without proof or reasoning; that [which] produces certainty or clear conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind.” Gravity is a self evident truth.

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal In what way are men created equal? With their natural rights!

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator Endow - To enrich or furnish with any gift, quality or faculty The source of this gift is God – not man and not government .

“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, Unalienable - that [which] cannot be alienated; that [which] may not be transferred Rights are a gift from God. We can’t transfer them or alienate ourselves from them. Positive rights are granted rights – created rights, sometimes called vested rights – that are given by man or government. Of course, if they are given by man they can be restricted or taken by man

“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 Among these rights meaning there are other God-given rights.

“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, God’s greatest gift to mankind is the gift of life. He gives life and He takes life away and grants to no man - nor to the government man creates - this sacred power.

“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 Next to the gift of life itself, the ability to guide and direct that life through our choices is God’s greatest gift to man. Once again, God does not allow man - nor the government man creates – to invade or restrain this liberty unless the liberty is being used to invade or restrain another man’s rights.

“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. The right to pursue happiness – not to possess happiness. This phrase recognizes that no man can demand happiness from any other man nor from the government man creates. But, man can demand and defend his right to pursue happiness against others who would inhibit his pursuit by infringing on his rights. In other words, men are free to do, to strive, to become, and to succeed, as they see fit as long as they don’t infringe on others’ rights. But men do not have the right to possess happiness at the expense of another man.

“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, God gave man his rights. Man made government to protect those rights. Man is superior to government and the ruler over it. Government by nature is a negative power. Its force is used to restrain men from injuring or invading other men’s rights. Government is not a positive force. It does not exist to provide. It exists to protect through the proper use of its negative powers. Negative force defends. Positive force provides. America rose to greatness not because of what government did but because of what government wasn’t allowed to do. There is an interesting inference in this phrase: Without government rights would not be secure. Government is essential for our freedoms to be maximized by providing the protection of our God-given rights.

“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” As individuals we can only do certain things. We, the people, consent to the government carrying out duties that we as individuals have the right to carry out. It follows, therefore, that we can’t give powers to the government that we ourselves don’t have. As an individual I am justified in using defensive force to protect my rights but I am not justified in using offensive force to require someone else to provide something good for me. Nor am I justified in using offensive force to require someone else to prevent something bad from happening to me. If that “bad” thing were to involve an infringement on my God-given rights then the use of force would fall under the defensive category in the defense of those rights. Governement’s role is to protect – not to provide and not to prevent. Government is a negative force not a positive force.

“Before the formation of this Constitution
“Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has never been disannuled.” Some have argued that the Declaration of Independence isn’t in any way connected to our law – the Constitution. Samuel Adams

Article VII The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

“ [T]he [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.” 1897 Supreme Court case. 2 Cor. 3:6 The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. And a few verses later, v. 15, “where the spirit of the LORD is there is liberty.” The beauty and power of the Constitution is in its simplicity and respect for natural rights and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Pharisees and Saducees – A few millennia ago, a people were given some simple basic laws that were supposed to turn them to their long awaited Messiah. The leaders of this people took the foundational laws that were broad and based upon principles, and through a complex code of compliance transformed the basic, fundamental truths into a series of rules, regulations, policies and procedures that eventually led the most devout rule keepers to actually reject and ultimately crucify the very Messiah that the law was intended to point them

“The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.”
Warren Burger

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Why has this happened? Consider that the Constitution – the foundational document for the laws of our land is significantly shorter than a almost any one law written today. “People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.” ― Thomas Sowell “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” ― Leonardo da Vinci I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein Benjamin Franklin

Article I, Section 4, Clause 2
“Limited” Government Article I, Section 4, Clause 2 “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year . . .” This is reflected by the founders writing into the Constitution this phrase. Apparently, they too felt that as Jefferson exclaimed,

“That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves. If we are directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we will soon want for bread.” (This quote attributed to Jefferson – there is controversy over its source but it is in harmony with his writings.) Isn’t it interesting that in Communist Russia where their Constitution guarantees they will have bread on their table they are in constant want for food and the basic necessities of life. Whereas in America where government doesn’t give any such guarantee that the people are more prosperous than any other people on earth. Thomas Jefferson

The Preamble to The Constitution of the United States
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” “. . . There never was an assembly of men charged with a great and arduous trust who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them [of] devising and proposing a constitutional system which should best secure the permanent liberty and happiness of their country.” James Madison

The Preamble to The Constitution of the United States
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” What can be more telling as to the source of the authority to establish this new form of government than for the first three words to state, “We the People.”

Preamble to the Bill of Rights
“The conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: Speaking of Preambles, did you know the Bill of Rights has a preamble? We’re going to spend our time in the Bill of Rights to discuss what the Constitution has to say about rights. Misconstruction – Wrong interpretation of words or things; a mistaking of the true meaning Abuse – to use with bad motives or to wrong purposes; as, to abuse rights or privileges. Declaratory – The declaratory part of a law, is that which sets forth and defines what is right and what is wrong. A declaratory act, is an act or statute which sets forth more clearly and explains the intention of the legislature in a former act. Restrictive – Having the quality of limiting or of expressing limitation

Preamble to the Bill of Rights
“The conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution; RESOLVED that the following Articles be proposed as amendments to the Constitution. . .” Beneficent – doing good

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” Alexander Hamilton

U.S. Constitution Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and the freedom to freely exercise religious beliefs are given and granted by God – not by the U.S. Constitution. Too often we refer to these rights as 1st amendment rights when really they are God-given rights that are protected by the first amendment. If the creators of the 1st amendment gave us these rights then they could take them away. The Constitution of the United States simply prohibits government from infringing on those rights that God gave us.

U.S. Constitution Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” What are some of those rights retained by the people? The freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and the freedom to freely exercise religious beliefs are given and granted by God – not by the U.S. Constitution. Too often we refer to these rights as 1st amendment rights when really they are God-given rights that are protected by the first amendment. If the creators of the 1st amendment gave us these rights then they could take them away. The Constitution of the United States simply prohibits the government from infringing on those rights that God gave us.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” One of my favorites that is often overlooked is the freedom to associate – or as the Constitution calls it –the freedom to peaceably assemble. If I’m free to associate does that mean I have to associate? Obviously not. Applying this concept to unions makes it clear that forced union membership is a violation of God-given rights. If I’m free to associate does that mean that if I form an association (say a church or a civic group) that I have to accept anyone who wants to belong to that group? No. Therefore government mandates into membership qualifications infringes on my right to associate. “We may assemble ourselves into whatever peaceful associations we choose, and the government is forbidden to interfere with those choices. But what does this really mean? The word “peaceably” in the Amendment has two meanings. The associations we choose to enter may not undertake violence to accomplish their ends, and within each association one person may not coerce another. Associations must be based on mutual consent. That the Constitution guarantees freedom of association to each of us does not mean that we may each associate with anyone we choose. It means that we may associate with whoever also agrees to associate with us. If B is forced to accept A’s offer of association, B is not free to choose his associations. Association would be a right of A, not B. It would not be a human right. Therefore, freedom of association, correctly understood, has both a positive and a negative component. We are free to associate with those who will accept us (positive), and we are free to abstain from associations of which we do not approve (negative).”

“The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. What I like most about the freedom of associate though is the power that it retains in the people. We don’t look to government to solve our problems by using its force. We look to ourselves. We associate with other like-minded individuals and role up our sleeves and get to work. Just because something is good doesn’t mean that we should employ force (government) to bring it about. “Only those associations that are formed in civil life without reference to political objects are here referred to. The political associations that exist in the United States are only a single feature in the midst of the immense assemblage of associations in that country. Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.” Alexis de Tocqueville

“If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.” It is interesting to see that Americans used to look to themselves to get things done when so often nowadays we look to the government to get it done. I think this freedom of association has a lot more to say than we think. If a city wants to build a monument, should the issue be put to a vote and as long as the majority want to spend their tax dollars that way, should the monument be built? No. Why? Because citizens who are opposed to such an endeavor shouldn’t be forced by government to part with their property – their money – against their will for a purpose other than the protection of their rights. What should happen if a community wants to build a monument. They should start an association. I, for one, would be horribly opposed to a government sponsored monument. But if an association approached me with the opportunity to participate in beautifying my community I’d be inclined to donate. Alexis de Tocqueville

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Beyond recognizing that the bill of rights doesn’t grant us rights it just protects them another interesting feature of the 1st amendment is the phrase, “Congress shall make no law”. Notice the prohibition is placed on Congress. Did you know that when the Bill of Rights was ratified many states had state religions. Is that compatible with the U.S. Constitution? Yes, because the 1st Amendment only prohibited Congress from establishing a religion. But did you know that the Wyoming State Constitution has in it a prohibition on the free exercise of religion?

Wyoming State Constitution
Article I, Section 18 “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state . . . So far, so good.

Wyoming State Constitution
Article I, Section 18 “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.” So, in other words, in the State of Wyoming you cannot be licentious and claim it as the freedom of the expression of your religion. The Wyoming State Constitution directly addresses that issue. Fortunately, this prohibition in our state Constitution is completely consistent with the principles of freedom and how one man’s freedoms end where mine begin. I bring up this point about the 1st amendment to emphasize that the Federal government and the state governments have jurisdictional differences. The 10th amendment points out these differences clearly.

U.S. Constitution Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” All powers that are not specifically given to the United States are reserved for the people themselves or to the states as the people direct them to act in their behalf. This encourages competition among the states so that the best policies and most freedom producing laws make the state a success relative to its other united states and people vote with their feet as to where they want to live, raise a family, work, and play. It also keeps governmental power as close to its source – the people – as possible so that redresses and grievances can be solved at the lowest level possible, preferably on a face-to-face basis where local concerns and situations can be taken into consideration. It is critical to understand, however, that absolute power (sometimes called plenary power) is in the people, not in the states. Sometimes people read the 10th amendment and understand it to say that all power is either with the federal government or with the state government. In reality all power is in the people and they allow the state or federal governments to exercise power that they the people themselves possess on their behalf.

U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is clear that the original intent of the Bill of Rights was to add “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Federal government’s] powers.” The 14th amendment opened up a controversy which the Supreme Court has resolved by interpreting the 14th amendment to mean that all prohibitions on the Federal government are also prohibitions on the state governments. The original intent of the 14th amendment was to address the problem of states not accepting and treating black people as citizens. But through unintended consequences brought about from the wording of the 14th amendment, this interpretation of the Supreme Court has introduced the further invasion of the Federal government into state affairs. This is why in nearly all circumstances we refer to the US Constitution as binding and the law to look to in all cases even though we should be looking to state laws and statutes on the internal issues that concern the state as Madison referred to. But, for all practical purposes, whether the prohibition on governments to infringe on individuals’ rights comes from the US Constitution or the State Constitution is immaterial as most State Constitutions duplicate the concepts and in some cases the exact wording of the US Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Amendment V
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; The only time government should deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property is when they are found guilty of violating someone else’s natural rights after they’ve had the chance to defend themselves in court. But is it just the ownership of property that gives it its value? Or does the idea of a God-given right to property imply the ability to not only own property but to also use it as you please? In other words just because my property isn’t physically taken from me doesn’t mean that I haven’t nonetheless been deprived of my property.

“[Property] in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.’ and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. James Madison

“[Property] in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.’ and which leaves to every one else the like advantage He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. James Madison

“[Property] in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.’ and which leaves to every one else the like advantage He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” James Madison Ownership of his rights. He has a right to his rights.

U.S. Constitution Amendment V
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The next part of the 5th amendment states, “ ” Some may read this and assume that as long as people are compensated for their private property government can take it. But looking at it more closely reveals a few more details that the Constitution imposes on government to protect the private property of citizens. What does “public use” mean. Does it mean “public good”? i.e. We all agree that those apartment buildings are ugly and worn down so we’re going to establish a new code and condemn them if the private property owner doesn’t choose to renovate them according to the new codes for city beautification. (ask yourself – has the private property owner violated anyone’s natural rights? No adjacent property owner has a natural right to demand neighboring property owners keep their property up to a certain standard.) If the land value of neighboring property owners is reduced they can do all within their power – including persuasion, donations of time and money, etc - to influence and encourage the apartment owner to improve his apartment building – but they can’t go to the government and have them do the job they can’t or won’t do on their own individually. If I can’t use personal force and I’m not willing to use my own time and money to fix the problem then I can’t delegate to the government to use force and to use other people’s time and money to fix the problem. Remember the proper role of government is to protect our rights not provide nice amenities. Public use carries with it the connotation of “regretably having to take private property but only because the public needs it in order to function properly.”

As an individual, I have the unquestionable, God-given right to be:
Free from . . . Free to . . . Coercion Use force to defend these freedoms Invasion Injury/Death To pursue my own version of happiness Confiscation As long as I don’t infringe on the individual rights of another.

Under this Republic – or rule of law – The Constitution explicitly:
Prohibits others (including government) from infringing on my God-given individual rights Instructs government to act on me only if I have infringed on another individual’s God-given rights In a nutshell – it all comes down to one simple concept: If an individual’s God-given rights are infringed upon government must act on the offender to secure those rights. If an individual’s God-given rights are secure – government must not act. Notice what happens if you take out God and just talk about rights. Those rights have to come from somewhere and if they come from man or government then they can be taken by man an government and the foundation crumbles where are rights are simply relative.

God-given Rights Government Action Force
Why? Because this is the logical and natural course of action on an individual basis. I don’t use force against you until you first infringe on my God-given rights. Absent any infringement of rights we live in peace without the need for force.

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant - and a fearful master.” George Washington Government is not a play thing.

God-given Rights Government Force God-given Rights Government Force
Why? Because this is the logical and natural course of action on an individual basis. I don’t use force against you until you first infringe on my God-given rights. Absent any infringement of rights we live in peace without the need for force.

God-given Rights Government Force
When God-given rights are not violated and government still acts then its force will be directed at God-given rights and they will be restricted. Why?

Do I have the right as an individual to use force to . . . ?
God-given Rights Government Force Do I have the right as an individual to use force to ? The next part of the presentation we are going to look at 4 different categories – agencies, programs, laws, and issues – and see how a correct understanding of rights affects each of these. In order to do this we are going to analyze these categories two different ways: 1) by using the model of God-given rights and government force. 2) by asking the question former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson posed in determining “The Proper Role of Government” His question: “Do I have the right as an individual to use force to accomplish the goal I am trying to accomplish. If so, I may transfer the power to do so to my agent, the government. But if not, I cannot transfer to government a power I do not myself possess.”

“That to secure these rights governments were instituted among men”
God-given Rights Government Force The Declaration of Independence “That to secure these rights governments were instituted among men” That’s what this whole model is based on – the securement of man’s God-given rights and government’s role in doing so.

“Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Do I have the right as an individual to use force to ? The Declaration of Independence “Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Government was created by man so it can only do what man himself can do.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
God-given Rights Government Force Are the God-given rights of passengers waiting to board an airplane being violated by other passengers waiting to board an airplane? No. Are people’s God-given rights secure? Yes, then government force must be restrained from acting on anyone’s life, liberty and property. Some might argue that government is providing protection by doing these searches. But there is a difference. Am I, as a passenger on a plane, infringing on anyone’s rights by simply riding the plane. No. Therefore, the government cannot use force to act on my God-given rights. Another way of looking at this may be: At an individual level, can I use force to search every person who will be riding on the plane with me just to make sure they don’t have a bomb on them? No. It would infringe on their right to privacy. Then I cannot delegate a power I don’t have to my agent the government to exercise on my behalf. What would constitute a “reasonable” search and seizure. The very next sentence of the 4th amendment sates, “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be infringed.”

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
God-given Rights Government Force Interesting trade off: Possibility of rights being violated (someone brings a bomb on the plane) vs. absolute guarantee of rights being violated (everyone being patted down, searched, and screened.) Amendment IV: “No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin What if someone is completely willing to give up their rights to be secure in their person and effects so that they can have a sense of security? Benjamin Franklin had something to say about that. But the point is – if someone wants to give up their God-given rights that is their choice. But that doesn’t mean that government therefore has a right to force me to give up my rights. How might this play out. The free market could offer to those who value security over freedom that option. Airlines would weigh the options, test the market for desirability and offer such a service – at a price. Other airlines would offer passengers who value their freedom above all a different option – at a lower cost to both purse and privacy – which they could take advantage of. Why are we brainwashed into thinking it is appropriate at a public place where many people are gathered to give away our rights to privacy? Why aren’t there pat downs at NFL games, or at libraries, etc. Fear is struck in our heart when we think of boarding a plane where no searches have been made. Why is it any different at any large gathering? Media

Department of Labor, Agriculture, Energy, OSHA, etc.
God-given Rights Government Force Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 6 – “No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce to one state over those of another.” Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 1 – “No State shall pass any ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Is an employer’s job offer to a laborer to work for him infringing on that laborer’s God-given rights? Is the financial success or failure of a farmer – due to bad weather or planting a crop that didn’t produce well – have anything to do with someone infringing on his God-given rights? Does the price of gasoline infringe on a consumer’s God-given rights? No. Does the fact that an employee might get hurt at a job infringe on his God-given rights? Are the laborer’s, farmer’s, consumer’s, and employee’s God-given rights secure? Yes. Then government cannot use force to meddle in the affairs of markets in order to make something easier on a favored group of the economy. OSHA may deserve further comment. If an employer is negligent and an employee get’s hurt because of such negligence the employee has a right to seek redress in a court of law. An employer who makes a habit out of being negligent will find that he can’t hire employees and that he keeps losing all his profit to lawsuits. The free market will solve the problem. The employer has a natural incentive to make safe working conditions so he can keep employees, get work done, and turn a profit. Just because something is good – safe work conditions – doesn’t mean government should use force to mandate what they approve as a safe work condition. When government force is employed the employer has to comply with certain mandates and is not free to do as he pleases. Having worked with OSHA for over a decade I can tell you that although their motives may be to create safe work conditions the reality is that they create a bureaucracy that becomes a control issue and power struggle instead. Why? Because they are imposing government force on an employer who has not violated an employees’ rights. One way to say it may be that government’s role is to protect rights – not to provide good things and not to prevent bad things. Do I have the right as an individual to use force to interpose on behalf of an employee, a farmer or a consumer so they don’t have to suffer from hardships? No. Then I can’t give to my agent, the government, a power I myself don’t possess to do so.

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare
God-given Rights Government Force Amendment V: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Amendment XIV: “No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Is a person’s lack of food, absence of a retirement plan, or limited access to medical care a result of someone infringing on his God-given rights? No. Are his God-given rights secure? Yes, then government force should not be used to confiscate the God-given right to property of one person in order to take it from them and give it to another. The property owner may choose to give his property to a less fortunate person but it cannot be forced from him because he has not violated anyone’s God-given rights. It doesn’t matter how much the government wants to help the unfortunate. The government is us and if we want to do something about the poor we can of our own free will. On a personal level, can I use force to take from one person who has a lot and then give it to another person who has a little? No, therefore I cannot transfer to government a power I do not possess myself. What are the results of these social programs on the individuals they are supposed to be helping? The government robs from them their independence, and makes them dependent on government for their lives. These programs steal from the people their “liberty and pursuit of happiness.” because they are no longer free to do as they please but must comply with rules in order to get their handouts. It’s not their pursuit any more. There is no thrill of victory and no agony of defeat. All that remains is a dependence on government for all that should come from themselves. They are no longer free.

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified. Quite simply
“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if [government] takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. But, what if government does take from those who have to give it those who don’t have? That is defined as legalized plunder. Frederic Bastiat

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified. Quite simply
“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if [government] takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if [government] benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Frederic Bastiat

National Defense Authorization Act
God-given Rights Government Force Does a person have the God-given right to speak out against his government if he feels they are infringing on his rights? Yes. That is the very substance of the 1st amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

God-given Rights Government Force Amendment V: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Is a person infringing on anyone’s God-given rights by expressing his opinion on a political issue – or any other issue for that matter? No. Are his and others’ God-given rights secure? Yes. Then government should not act on that individual. - Indefinite detention of American citizens - writ of habeus corpus suspended - no due process

God-given Rights Government Force Amendment VI: the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Taxes God-given Rights Government Force
Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 1 – “ provide for the common defence and general welfare . . . [taxes] shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Surely taxes can’t fit into this model! When government forces me to pay taxes, my God-given rights to the control and use of my property is infringed upon, isn’t it? The question asked a different way might add clarity to the issue: If I benefit from the protection of my rights provided through government force without paying my fair share but instead demand that others pay for that benefit are those people’s God-given rights secure? No. Because I’m forcing them to provide for my benefit. Therefore government must act on my property to force the payment of my share of the cost in the form of taxes. Taxes are only to be used to pay for the legitimate functions of the federal government (as found, principally, in Art I, Sec 8) The benefits and the costs should be uniform throughout the United States. The benefits should be enjoyed by all – not just by a specific group – and the costs should be shared by all – not just a specific group. National defense Is it a legitimate function of the Federal Government as enumerated in the Constitution? Yes (Art I, Ssec 8, clauses 11-16) Benefits and Costs must be uniform. Do all citizens benefit from National defense equally? Yes, it can’t be divided. Every citizen of the United States is protected by it. Since we all enjoy the benefits we all must pay the cost. It wouldn’t be right to have it paid for on a graduated scale because it’s benefits are enjoyed by each member of the public equally and it would violate principles to make some pay more than others when all receive equally of its benefits. It wouldn’t make sense for National Defense to be privatized because the benefit would be paid for by a private group of citizens but enjoyed by the entire public who didn’t pay for it. Nor would National defense be a legitimate function for state governments because the same problems would exist – some states would pay for a proper defense and other states would not – thus creating an inequality of benefits and costs. Art 1, Sec 2, Cl 3 – “Direct Taxes shall be apportioned according to their respective numbers.” Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 4 - “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census”

Zoning Laws God-given Rights Government Force
Amendment V: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . .” Is it just the ownership – or deed – to a piece of property that gives it its value? No, it’s the liberty to do with your property as you please. Is a property owner infringing on others’ God-given rights to the use of their property by using his property as he pleases? No. Are the property rights of others secure? Yes. Then government must not act. According to the 5th amendment of our Constitution, the only time government should deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property is when they are found guilty of violating someone else’s natural rights after they’ve had the chance to defend themselves in court. So, if the private property owner has violated no person’s natural rights he is therefore protected from being deprived by government of the ownership or use of his property. But here’s the big question: What if someone is using their property in such a way that it is affecting my God-given right? For example, what if my next door neighbor has completely let his property go to shambles and there is no question this is affecting the value of my property? As his neighbor, what are my options? I can approach my neighbor and explain the situation and my concerns and try to persuade him to be a good neighbor or I can offer my time and/or money to help him improve his property if he doesn’t seem interested in addressing the issue himself On an individual level can I force myself on to my neighbor’s property and start throwing away things that I deem to be messy or ugly. Why not? Quite simply because even though my neighbors use of his property is affecting the value of my property at a very basic level I don’t have a God-given right to have a neighbor who keeps a clean yard or who makes decisions about his property that I agree with. If such a right were God-given then I would possess a positive force to compel my neighbors behavior – which would violate his God-given rights to liberty and property. If I can’t do that at a personal level then I can’t do that at any governmental level – whether it be the legislative, executive, or judicial level - no matter how much I’d like to force him to do so. If I can’t use personal force and I’m not willing to use my own time and money to fix the problem then I can’t delegate to the government to use force and to use other people’s time and money to fix the problem. Why? Remember the Declaration of Independence states, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The people are the source of all governmental power and the government can only use force to do what a person at an individual level can do. Some may argue, well the “consent of the governed” is embodied in the local representatives who are elected to carry out the majority’s will. And, that would be true were we a democracy. But we are not a democracy (rule by majority) – we are a republic (rule of law). And our law, the Constitution, and the philosophical document that gave it birth – the Declaration of Independence – are founded on principles of individualism – individual right to life, liberty, and property, not collective life, collective liberty, and collective property. Let’s take this example one step further and say my next door neighbor decides he wants to use use his 10-acre parcel to run a pig farm. Don’t I have some type of right to protect my home and property from such activity. I would say that yes, you have the right to contract and you should’ve negotiated before-hand with the private property owner for some type of covenant or restriction on the land use through a private contract. In other words, I think zoning laws have a great purpose – to protect your land and property from being affected in a way you don’t it to be affected – but that protection should be offered at the free market level where individuals can decide how they want their land and the land around them to be restricted. There is not need for government force to intervene and force that arrangement on any property owner. It can and should be done outside of government. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” John Locke

Abortion God-given Rights Government Force
Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Amendment XIV: “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In the case of an abortion, is a child’s right to life being infringed upon? Yes. Is the child’s basic right to life secure? No. Then government must act as a negative force on the God-given right of liberty the woman possesses who is attempting to kill her unborn child. Do I have the right as an individual to use force to defend an innocent and defenseless human being against an attack upon his life? Yes. Then I can transfer to my agent, the government to exercise that power on my behalf.

Homosexual Marriage God-given Rights Government Force
Declaration of Independence: “ The laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The first thought we conservative Christians have about this topic is this: Homosexuality is wrong because God said it is and that’s good enough for me! But there’s a lot more to it than that, in my opinion. Homosexual marriage is an interesting and hotly debated issue. Let’s apply our two models to this issue. The question is, do two consenting adults exercising their God-given liberty to engage in homosexual activities infringe on anyone else’s rights? No. Are everyone’s God-given rights secure? Yes. Then government should not act. But the issue is not liberty - equally given to all by God. The issue is the definition of marriage. A right to act as one chooses (without injuring others) is a God-given and Constitutionally-protected right that homosexuals and heterosexuals enjoy. But the power to use the force of government to reverse the definition of a term is not a God-given right nor is it Constitutionally protected. Definitions are terms that are widely accepted by society as a common foundation for human interaction. For instance, gravity is a term we use to describe that natural law that keeps us from floating off into space. Dog is the term we use to identify a certain type of animal that barks. Night is a term we use to describe the portion of a day that is dark and without the sun. Let’s employ our 2nd model - At an individual level, do I have the right to use force to make all of society accept a new definition of a term? No. Then I can’t transfer to my agent, government, the power to do something I can’t do myself. It’s that simple. Why would doing so be a problem? Talk about self-evident truths! If men through their governments can go around changing the definitions of terms to fit their fancy, words would no longer have meaning. Up could mean down, right could mean wrong. Black could mean white. Government and society are organized around the definition of terms. Marriage is a term that has been used for centuries to describe the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a God-given right that is respected not only in society but consequently in government as well. Marriage is also the term used to describe the process that a man and a woman go through in order to be God-ordained and legally recognized as the builders of the basic unit of society – the family. Nature itself supports this definition. Only one man and one woman can create a child. To add the prefix “homosexual” to the word marriage is to make the word marriage, as described above, void of all meaning. It would be an attempt to attach a particular lifestyle to a term whose definition is foreign to that lifestyle. It would be equivalent to adding the word “sunny” to the term night and arriving at the word, “sunny night.” It voids the term of all meaning. If homosexuals want to call their unions something else they may do so and they may try to convince society to grant it the rights marriage has been granted by God, and therefore society (hopefully a God-fearing society would see the dangers in doing so and would refrain). But they cannot use the force of law to make me except homosexuality as morally equivalent to marriage. To piggy back homosexuality on to a term that is in direct opposition to homosexuality is to make marriage a meaningless term that would lead to societal and governmental chaos. The rights granted by God, and therefore society and government, to the institution of marriage come from the very definition of marriage and the fact that God ordained it. Those same rights cannot be extended to the new term “homosexual marriage” because it isn’t the same thing – by definition and by the fact that it isn’t ordained of God. Why does it matter? Isn’t it just a bunch of wordsmithing and semantics? It matters because if society and government accept the new expanded version of the term and attach the same rights to it, then those who uphold the traditional view and definition of marriage will be subject, by societal norms and the consequent governmental power, to the negative force of government upon their natural and God-given right to act in support of marriage and in opposition to the poorly named “homosexual” marriage. Since “homosexual” marriage would be legal, acting against a government-protected institution would become illegal. Just like refusing to recognize government-sanctioned cars with lights on their hoods to have authority to pull you over will land you in jail so also would refusing to recognize homosexual marriages as a clergyman, a photographer, a businessman, an adoption agency, an insurance salesman, etc. would land you in jail for a violation of these new rights that were created by man.

Public Works God-given Rights Government Force
Declaration of Independence: “ Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 1 – “ To provide for the common defence and general welfare” Amendment V: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Public works seems to be crossing the line from a protective, negative force to a providential, positive force. The question could be asked, for instance, are citizens’ God-given rights being infringed upon if streets and stop lights aren’t provided by government? In my mind, this is somewhat of a gray area. No, people’s rights aren’t being attacked – their rights are secure. Therefore government force should be restricted. But an individual’s right to liberty and property, though secure, are severely limited if they have no ability to move and act except within their parcel of private property. After all, how would an individual get anywhere if all land was privately owned? Does the individual have the right to use force to build a road to accommodate his transportation needs. Yes. But that right only extends to his own personal property. So, the individual can’t transfer to government the power to forcefully build a road outside of his own personal property because he doesn’t have that right as an individual. This is true even though that road would be very convenient for everyone and would greatly expand their God-given rights of liberty and property? What to do? What we should always do. Look to the Constitution! What if everyone collectively decided that the building of public roads on someone’s private land would be beneficial? Would that help legitimize government’s participation and use of force in doing so? It would help. But some other elements have to be considered. Just because a majority or even a consensus wants to violates someone’s rights, doesn’t make it justifiable. The road must be for the general, not specific, welfare of everyone in the community. If it just benefits one citizen or a few private citizens then government force shouldn’t be employed, but private funds. The 5th amendment states, “ ” Some may read this and assume that as long as people are compensated for their private property government can take it. But looking at it more closely reveals a few more details that the Constitution imposes on government to protect the private property of citizens. What does “public use” mean. Does it mean “public good”? i.e. We all agree that those apartment buildings are ugly and worn down so we’re going to establish a new code for the public good and condemn them if the private property owner doesn’t choose to renovate them according to the new codes for city beautification. (ask yourself – is this action being done for public use – i.e. the general public needs to use this private property in order for society to function properly – or is it for public good - i.e. it would sure make down town look good.) Or, another example, we can generate a lot more taxes for our city if we can get rid of residential homes and tax exempt churches and replace them with businesses that generate high tax revenues. (once again, ask yourself – is this action being done for public use – i.e. the general public needs to use this private property in order for society to function properly – or is it being done for public good - i.e. it would sure be nice to have some more tax revenue for the city.) Remember the proper role of government is to protect our rights not provide nice amenities. Public use carries with it the connotation of “regretably having to take private property but only because the public needs it in order to function properly.” Blackstone, “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” When the three previous conditions are met – namely the public consents, the project will benefit society as a whole, and it will be carried out only for public use then the last and critical element has to be upheld – just compensation. The private owner of the land must be compensated by the public for its confiscation. The public interest infringes on an individual’s right to property and as much as possible that confiscation of property (land) will be reimbursed by the public with an equal amount of property (money) to make the individual whole again. Blackstone, “In this, and similar cases the legislature alone can, and indeed frequently does, interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by absolutely stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner; but by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained. The public is now considered as an individual, treating with an individual for an exchange. All that the legislature does is to oblige the owner to alienate his possessions for a reasonable price; and even this is an exertion of power, which the legislature indulges with caution, and which nothing but the legislature can perform.”

“For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.” I need to point out that progressive thought would like to take this idea we’ve just discussed and summarize it as such. Is this line of thinking correct – is the community supreme over the individual? Only if you divorce yourself from the Constitution and the principles of liberty we’ve been discussing. The founders were very aware and particular about protecting the individual’s God-given rights. Tocqueville “It [government] covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [Tyrannical] power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. Woodrow Wilson

Pursuit of Happiness FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights
The right to a useful and remunerative job; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman to trade; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears; The right to a good education. Pursuit of Happiness Another progressive tactic is to call things “rights” that are not rights at all. Remember, by definition, a right gives an individual the ability to demand or defend with force his access to the right. Can an individual demand by use of force any of these things? No. Then they are not rights. This brings us to the point that just because something is good 1) does not make it a right 2) therefore does not make it within government’s role to provide or to protect. All of these supposed “rights” can get us pretty confused. We would like to think people do have a right to a good home, a good education. The question is, “At who’s expense?” The bottom line is each and every person does have the right to access these things? How? Through their pursuit of happiness. Nobody has the right to infringe on an individual’s right to pursue their own version of happiness and government force must be imposed on anybody who attempts to do so . But to pervert that truth and say that individuals have the right to the happiness which they never pursued (said differently - fruit of labor they never performed) and that government force must be imposed on law-abiding citizens’ property (money) in order to provide non-laboring citizens with that happiness is to defy logic and fly in the face of nature’s laws. We can see how all these different agencies comes into existence - Health and Welfare, HUD, EPA, OSHA, USDA, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, etc. etc – because they are trying to provide rights that simply don’t exist.

What do we do? Prevent any new unconstitutional programs, policies, and agencies Let current programs, policies, and agencies run their course and not be renewed Phase out programs, policies, and agencies that are indefinite So, what do we do about all of the programs, policies, and agencies that currently exist. How do we get back to a Constitutional government? Pulling the plug would cause chaos. If a plane is hijacked and you finally gain control of the aircraft don’t just immediately send it straight down for a crash landing. You have to gradually bring it down to a safe landing. Ignoring the programs, policies, and agencies that currently exist, though, will not solve the problem. And how do you actually do this. Education and activation. You multiply your efforts by joining a group of like-minded citizens to learn and do practical steps to getting our nation back on track.

“No one in the United States has dared to advance the maxim that everything is permissible for the interests of society . . . Alexis de Tocqueville

“No one in the United States has dared to advance the maxim that everything is permissible for the interests of society Thus, while the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust.” Alexis de Tocqueville Am I trying my best to learn as much as I can about God and then live that way? Am I looking to government to decide for me what is right and wrong or am I looking to God? How do I look at the agencies, programs, laws, and issues that we’ve discussed? Are my actions congruent with my beliefs? Do I share with others, both publicly and privately, my feelings and viewpoints about rights and the proper role of government? Am I active in my community in standing for what is right and in standing up for God? Could I join an organization that make my voice better heard and my actions more effective?

= You can’t legislate morality
You can’t make laws based on morality Laws can’t make you moral or define your morality Of course you can make laws based on morality. Morality, or right and wrong, is at the very foundation of any law that is made for any purpose. But it’s true that if you’re looking for law to determine your morality you will become immoral. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is right. For instance, as we talked earlier, just because it may be legal to abort a child does not make it right. Or maybe a little closer to home, just because you legally qualify for food stamps doesn’t make it the right thing for you or for the tax payer who is paying for your food.

“. . . of all the dispositions of habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” “ George Washington

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The real problem of America lies in our lack of morality and religion. We can never fix the government if we don’t first fix ourselves. We must influence our family, our neighbors, and our communities. And if everyone is doing so we will in turn be influencing our counties, our states, and our nation. It happens in unexciting ways sometimes. We won’t get press coverage and in fact, maybe not even the individual you’re trying to teach will have any idea what you’re doing. John Adams

“The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.” Tocqueville, I believe said the following. “It [government] covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” [Tyrannical] power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. Samuel Adams

“Duties are ours - Results are God’s”
John Quincy Adams I’m available for questions about how you can learn more and do more. Thank you.

Rights in The Constitution.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Rights in The Constitution."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Rights in The Constitution.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Rights in The Constitution."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback