Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Determining your rights

Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist Paper # 84 suggested that the US Constitution inherently defended all rights so there is no need to list any for protection.

Hamilton was concerned that such a power would be dangerous in the hands of the government.

"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?"

Hamilton was right. For the last 100 years the supreme court has made rulings with statements similar to this decision in the Garner v U.S. 424 US 648 (1976) case, "The privilege against self-incrimination can be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a tax return."

Considering that the RIGHT to not incriminate yourself is actually part of the bill of rights we should all start to consider what it is the politicians are doing to the United States. I have heard many times in debate, conversation, talk radio shows, news media and books comments such as "I have never seen a right to privacy in the Constitution". This is amusing because technically there are no rights granted by the Constitution to the people. As the Declaration of Independence states rights are unalienable. They exist for the individual because he exists. No government has the authority to remove rights. By default, the government has no authority to grant rights either because the people already have every right.

Hamilton believed that the constitution was written well enough to ensure an understanding that it was a directive to the politicians that all rights were held by the people and the government is to protect those rights. The bill of rights even has a 9th and 10th amendment specifically identifying that the government has not been granted some sort of directive to begin to grant or remove rights from individuals or states.

The case from 1976 and others going back 60 years or so, have shown the court creating this concept called privileges. This is ridiculous because the government declaring a right as a privileged is in effect granting itself the authority of what your rights are and taking away the ones they find inconvenient.

This is just part of a long process by progressives, liberals and what have you to create their socialist state. A right to privacy, a right to own a gun, a right to drive or a right to 'not have the liberals bothering you' are all impediments to the goal of the liberals desire to create the ultimate socialist state.

Why do all of you liberal, democrat and even republican voters seem to be perfectly fine with the government controlling every right you have or in effect removing all rights? There is no gray area here, either you have unalienable rights or the government is socialist and grants privileges it deems necessary for you to have.

No comments:

Post a Comment