Rights 4 Sale

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the Colonies alleged a number of abusive decisions and actions by England and railed against these actions being taken by King George III and the British Parliament without any representation.

These conditions guided how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were constructed.  Many of the provisions of the Constitution were adopted the preempt or prevent these abuses from reoccurring.

The government was also designed in such a way that it was difficult to alter the Constitution or pass unfair or unpopular laws.  The rules for amending the Constitution are provided within the Constitution.  The division of legislative, administrative and justice functions acts as a check and balance to tyranny.  The bicameral system of House and Senate balances what’s good for the country and what’s good for individuals.

The House is organized according to the population.   House rules are aligned with the idea that the House is there to directly represent the People.  The Senate is the “upper” house and is based on the Roman and British concepts or representative government.  While it only takes a simple majority to pass a bill in the Senate, it takes a 60% super majority to allow it to reach the point of consideration for a vote which keeps fringe issues from squeaking by on narrow, simple majority votes.   The intention is to prevent the tyranny of a 51% majority.

Recent attempts to restructure procedures by changing the requirements to pass a bill put us on a one-way street that permanently forfeits the freedoms built into the Constitution in exchange for short term and questionable benefits.

Maybe we should slow down and take a more prudent path.

 

Background

The Senate was designed to be the “upper” house.  Senators were given staggered, six year terms and members of the House of Representatives were given two years.  The basic reason for doing this was to provide more continuity to the Senate.  While, there was discourse about how to organize the legislative branch, it was hoped that the longer terms and the staggered terms would combine with the limit of two Senators per state (large or small) to create a conservative body that would respond more to the needs of the nation and less to the every-changing popular sentiment of the people.  The House of Representatives was organized to be responsive to the people, so representation and terms were designed around the distribution of population.

Cloture

To further stabilize the Senate and to prevent tyranny of the simple and/or hasty majority, the mechanism of cloture was “borrowed” from the British Parliament.  While it only takes a simple majority (51 of 100 Senators) to pass a bill into law, it takes a vote of three-fifths (60 of 100 Senators) to end debate or discussion and move the bill on to the voting step.   The motive here is to make sure those Senators who are in the minority regarding an issue have a fair chance to voice their opposition.  It prevents a simple majority (51 in this case) from overwhelming the minority (49 in this case).  It also provides some protection to small (as measured by population) states.

History

Cloture was proposed by the Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 and originally required a 75% (of the member present) majority.  It was modified by the Democrats in Congress in 1975 to three-fifths (60%) of the number of Senators seated in the Senate (rather than 60% of the Senators physically present).

Recent Change

Rather than calling it cloture, it has been repositioned and redefined as “a fair, up or down, simple majority” vote.  Long standing tradition in the Senate is that a proposed subject or bill is debated until 60% of the Senators agree to take it to the voting step which only requires 51% to pass.  This agrees with the conventional approach that has existed for 200 plus years.  The implication is that cloture is unfair and damaging the American people or cheating them out of something by requiring something more that a simple majority (sounds All-American; sounds fair) vote.  Statements are also leading people to infer that 60% approval is needed to pass the bill. The cloture procedure is being made to look anti-American so that current bills under consideration would pass through every step of the legislative process with a simple majority of 51 out 100.

Conclusion

The Founding Fathers talked about the tyranny of the majority where 51% can hold a hammer over the heads of the other 49%.  The Constitution gave us a structure that prevents outside or fringe ideas from becoming law.  For example, amendments to the Constitution require 75% approval from Congress and the States.  The filibuster rules have the same intention – a protection against imprudent attempts to pass less-than-rational legislation.

The legislative process is set up to accommodate proposals that have broad support by a clear majority.  Bills that are marginally popular have a more difficult time becoming law with protections like the 60% super majority in the Senate in order to get to the voting process.

Efforts to dismantle and change the traditional legislative process with a vested interest in getting specific legislation passed preys on people’s unfamiliarity with history, the Constitution or basic understanding of civics and democracy. 

As someone once said, no new law or benefit is worth giving up our liberty in order to get it.  If it can’t get though the legislature, it does not seem justified to change the traditional process or lower our democratic standards.  Maybe the legislation itself should be changed until it has the approval of the majority.

It is also misleading to dissect the issue and show that people agree to various parts, therefore they (probably) approve of the whole.  It is disingenuous, for example, to say that people want health care reform and then extrapolate that everyone, therefore, likes a particular proposal.

A pile of half-truths still doesn’t add up to one full truth.

 

The function of the United States Constitution is to establish a government that is by the people and for the people, to establish and protect inalienable rights and to provide products and services that are most efficiently and better provide by federal or state governments.  It is written which further solidifies its existence and force.

The Constitution established itself as the law of the land.  It also provides a procedure for changing the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers knew that events would unfold that they had not envisioned and that there would be pressure to change the Constitution according to popular trend.

Were there no provision for changing or amending the Constitution, it could be argued that the Constitution should be treated as a living document.  But, better than leaving it to ambiguous interpretation, the Framers left us an amendment process that requires an exact description of what is to be changed and ensures discourse between proponents and opponents of the change.

To suggest that the Constitution should be changed, based on some individual’s particular interpretation, is ignoring extant procedures as described in Article V of the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers didn’t give it a passing comment; they gave it a whole Article because it was such an important point.

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.

To bring change by working outside of this process is to work outside of the law and to bring about illegal or unconstitutional change.

The Framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution ensuring that future changes were unquestionably supported by the majority and not vulnerable to whimsical  and ethereal thoughts or actions of a people acting as tyrants.

Proponents of a Living Constitution cite “that which is written is insufficient in light of what has transpired since” as their justification.  Another point of view would say “if it is so important, then amend the Constitution to reflect the new circumstance.”

Any branch of the government that operates outside of the law should be impeached immediately and constitutional order restored.

 

The Declaration of Independence is probably among the best known documents of all time including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the British Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

To better understand why certain issues were addressed in the Declaration and the Constitution, it is helpful to look at the events and activities of Colonial America during that time period.  Before 1776, there was strong loyalty to one’s own state, but there was an undeveloped sense of any national loyalty.  While states existed, like New York, Pennsylvania or Virginia for example, there was no official recognition of the United States (which did not officially exist). 

Concurrently, continued abuses by King George III and the British Parliament covered everything from taxation without representation to lack of due or fair process under the law.

Democratic concepts, never practiced by the majority of countries, were intermittently present throughout history.  Europe was evolving its own attitudes about individual and human rights as a part of the Age of Enlightenment.  The introduction to the Declaration relies heavily on the philosophical and political ideas of the Enlightenment period of 18th century Europe, including the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and, most particularly, John Locke.

England had just undergone its Glorious Revolution which saw the introduction of a British Bill of Rights in 1688.  The concept of individual rights was making progress in Europe, but King George III ignored the concept when dealing with the recalcitrant Colonies.

To demonstrate the transgressions against Colonial America, the Declaration list twenty seven complaints or abuses and describes them as:

 

• The King interfered with the colonists’ right to self-government and for a fair judicial system.

 

• The King and Parliament are guilty of outright destruction of American life and property by their refusal to protect the Colonies’ borders.

 

• Acting with Parliament, the King also instituted legislation that affected the Colonies without their consent.

 

• This legislation levied taxes on the colonists. Taxed without representation.

 

• The British required Colonist to quarter British soldiers.

 

• The right to trial by jury was removed.

 

• British Army Located Among Colonies.

 

• Common defense prohibited by British.

 

• States militia were not well armed, not well trained, not strong as a whole.

 

• Accused citizen of the Colonies were sent to England to be tried.

 

• Redress was used against Colonists.

 

• No right to due process justice system.

 

• Citizens of the colonies were impressed into (captured and forced to join) the British Navy.

 

• Colonists were not allowed to have private property.

 

• No privacy was afforded to inhabitants of the Colonies.

 

• The British prevented the Colonist from trading freely. 

 

• The British confiscated American ships at sea

 

• British intended to hire foreign mercenaries to fight against the Colonists.

Based on their experience with the British, those who advocated independence were concerned about and included the following in their demands:

                                               

• Freedom of Speech

 

• Freedom of Religion

 

• Freedom of the Press

 

• Freedom of Assembly

 

• Right to Petition

 

• Due Process Under the Law

 

• Right to Privacy

 

• Right to Property

 

• Right to Bear Arms

 

• Freedom from Quartering Soldiers

 

 

The Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson with several different objectives in mind. 

The most obvious was to declare independence from England. 

The preamble to the Declaration tried to link theory and practical politics.  It also tried to express the values as fundamental values of the new American government.  This was needed to teach Colonist about their (own) rights and it was needed to justify their actions to other countries.  Approximately 200 originals were printed so that copies could be sent to key countries with the hope of engendering agreement for the Colonies’ actions and support for the Revolution. 

Jefferson also sought to explain the actions of the thirteen colonies in rational terms. Jefferson believed that governments exist to support the rights of men. Governments exist only through the power of the people that they represent. When a government fails to grant rights to the people and removes the involvement of the people, the people have the right to change their government in a way that will allow for their unalienable rights to be protected.

Anticipating that this document would influence rebellions elsewhere, Jefferson clarified that governments should not be overthrown for trivial reasons; it is not typical for people to change a system that they are accustomed to. However, when the people have suffered many abuses under the control of a totalitarian leader, they not only have the right but the duty to overthrow that government.

The Declaration was also written to align sentiment between the states and within the population regarding the need to move for independence.  Not all states and all people agreed with the Declaration.  In fact, many people were still loyal to the British and some states did not see a need to use its own resources to defend other states that were under direct attack.  The national esprit de corps had not fully developed and some states were only concerned about their own survival, not the welfare of the United States.

So, the Declaration of Independence was written with a multiple of objectives in mind:

 

• To establish the concept of Inalienable Rights

 

• To establish the Concept of Power to Govern Coming from Governed.

 

• To establish Concept that Government Exist to Protect Rights of Men.

 

• To establish Colonist about their own Rights

 

• To convince and Unite the States to Fight Together as One.

 

• To justify Actions to other Sovereigns and Solicit their Support.

 

So, the precepts contained in the Declaration were not just academic exercises, but were based on the real issues of the day and were included in the documents for a reason.  Knowing the history explains why the framers thought it was important and knowing the reason for their existence then may give us understanding for their use today.

 

If you are having trouble with the facts, try these: 

 

1.  Invalidate your opponent.

 

Start by invalidating something and then, gradually, link your opponent(s) to that thing.  For example, say that an organization is bad and then show how your opponent is related to that organization.  Capitalism is bad because it profits from the work done by laborers.  That company is in business for a profit (it’s capitalistic).  This person used to work for that company.  This person must be a capitalist who unfairly makes a profit on the backs of working class people.  This person is bad.

 

 

2.  Move the accent to another word.

 

“Health care for everyone is possible, I imagine.”  “It is possible to imagine health care for everyone.” (it sounds like agreement).

 

3.  Equivocate – slide back and forth regarding the meaning of a word.

 

Health care is a right for everyone.  We have the capacity to deliver heath care to everyone.

 

4.  Water down your opponent’s argument and then defeat it.

 

“The only reason you are opposed to health care reform is that you don’t like Democrats.”  “You’re biased.”

  

5.  Find a false cause and effect and declare it true.

 

“Insurance companies are profit-driven, so they’re evil and don’t care about individuals.”

 

6.  Assert that it can’t be known.

 

“The cost of not having universal heath care can never be known.”

 

7.  When you assert something, use that assertion as the reason it is true (circular).

 

“Doctors will choose the most profitable path, so can not be trusted not to take out your tonsils when an aspirin will do.”

 

8.  Use “did you stop beating your wife?” type of questions.

 

“Do you want to continue denying health care to the uninsured?”

 

9.  Manufacture a similarity and pin it on your opponent.

 

“People who demonstrate are just like radicals who demonstrated before.  People who show up for demonstrations are lunatics or radicals.”

 

10.  Manufacture a dilemma requiring choice that supports your cause.

 

“Health care is rising at such an alarming rate that it will bankrupt the country.”

 

11.  Generalize every fact or datum.

 

“47 million people don’t have health insurance, so the system doesn’t work”

 

12.  Say that your opponent is not a “true” ____________.

 

“You’re not really a humanitarian if you don’t support reform.”

 

13.  Obscure the argument by assigning a false cause.

 

“Insurance company greed is causing cost to escalate.”

 

14.  Threaten that going this direction is a slippery slope.

 

“If we don’t pass health care now, we may never get another chance.”

 

15.  Find something that exists and declare it true for everyone.

 

“Insurance companies terminated her coverage and it will happen to all of you.”

 

16.  Use sweeping generalizations.

 

“People do not have health care coverage because of caps, exclusion and pre-existing conditions.”

 

17.  Point out that others do it, so it must be OK then.

 

“Other modern nations have universal health coverage.”

 

18.  Discredit it based on its source.

 

“That information came from opponents to this plan, so it can’t be true.”

 

19.  Say that everybody’s doing it, so it must be OK.

 

“Canada, the UK and Germany do it, so it must be OK.”

 

20.  Imply that the whole is like one element.

 

“14,000 people are losing their health insurance each day.”

 

21.  Say that an attribute of the whole applies to a certain part or element.

 

“Health care is beneficial, so it doesn’t matter how we get it.”

 

22.  Assign the wrong reason that something is true.

 

“We are in this condition because of profiteering insurance companies.”

 

23.  Create a false premise – falsely relate a cause and effect.

 

“Insurance companies already ration health care.”

 

24.  Attribute a fact to an Authority.

 

“The AMA says this is a good plan.”

 

25.  Attribute a fact to tradition.

 

“We have always provided a safety net to our people.”

 

26.  Create a “chances are it will happen this way” argument.

 

“Chances are you will contract some illness that will bankrupt you if you don’t have insurance.”

 

27.  Argue an issue that is not really related to the issue at hand.

 

“The economy will crash if we don’t act now.”

 

28.  Threaten that, if someone doesn’t do or believe something, they will regret it.

 

“If we don’t change to a new system, it will collapse.”

 

29.  Point out that it is novel – never before proposed – so must be true.

 

“We can’t continue the old ways.  This is new.  It’s Hope and Change, so it must be good.”

 

30.  Create pity and sympathy to win a point.

 

“Do you want to see people go without health care?”

 

31.  Declare something popular.

 

“Universal health care exists in every civilized country.”

 

32.  Relate it to poverty and declare it good.

 

“Helping people who can’t afford it is good.”

 

33.  Say it is good because it cost a lot of money.

 

“It is the largest single part of our economy, so we better fix it.”

 

34.  Say it is good because it is moral.

 

“We can’t leave people uninsured in this day and age.”

 

35.  Say it is good because it is natural.

 

“It is natural (human) for people to get sick, so health care is a right.”

 

36.  Create diversion by going off on a tangent.

 

“We tried to have bipartisan support, but they didn’t want to cooperate.”

 

37.  Create a similarity simply by comparing two things.

 

“It’s like car insurance – everybody should have it.”

 

38.  Directly accuse your opponent of missing the point.

 

“You just don’t understand the significance of this issue.”

 

Of course, the other time-honored way of arguing an issue is to get real facts and information on the table.  The truth is hard to combat.  Modern PR-based warfare is based on using a little bit of truth to communicate misleading or untruthful information to the public wrapped in spin and image.   Fortunately, it unravels in the face of the truth.

The United States is both a collection of independent and autonomous states and a single entity.  Almost all other countries have provinces or districts, but the government is formed and operates at the federal level.  Most of these countries have local city-type governments, but the only meaningful government is at the federal level. 

Because of this unique dual coexistence in the US – state and federal – the questions of rights and jurisdiction are complex.

In simple words, the Constitution states that rights not enumerated (explicitly specified) to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.  It also states that federal law has precedence over state law whenever there is a conflict between the two.

While this seems simple, there is a mountain of case law regarding states’ rights versus federal rights and a long history of struggles between state and the federal governments.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776.  For the next decade, the country operated under the Continental Congress.  When the Constitution was finally proposed in 1887, one of the reasons it was favored was because it was generally thought that the existing Continental Congress was lacking enough strength and authority over the states.  This was important to small states that wanted the federal government to be able to protect them from big states.  It was also important to the Southern states who exported agricultural products who wanted protection from the Northern states who imposed import duties to protect their manufacturing.  The imposition of Import Duties brought retaliation to the products exported by the South. 

The proposed Constitution offered a good solution for these concerns, but brought up the question of individual rights or the lack of protection of individual rights.  The solution to these concerns was the Bill of Rights.  Working together with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights provided a balance of rights and powers to individuals, states and the federal government.

According to the Constitution, The Congress shall have Power To:

• lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
• pay the Debts
• provide for the common Defense
• provide for the general Welfare of the United States
• ensure that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
• borrow Money on the credit of the United States
• regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
• regulate Commerce among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
• establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
• establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
• coin Money, regulate the Value thereof
• regulate the value of foreign Coin
• fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
• provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States
• establish Post Offices and post Roads
• promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
• constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
• define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas
• define and punish Offenses against the Law of Nations
• declare War
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
• make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• provide and maintain a Navy;
• make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• provide for calling forth the Militia
• execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
• appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
• become the Seat of the Government of the United States
• exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings
• make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Other Articles and Sections of the Constitution address individual rights, finances, taxes, treaties, elections and other important subjects.  The above rights are the enumerated rights of the Constitution and everything else is reserved for the states, or to the people.

Amendment X:  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.

In summary, the theory is simple.  The rights of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution.  Rights not enumerated are reserved for the states, or the people.  In the event of conflicting laws, federal law has precedence over state law (assuming both laws are constitutional as adjudicated by the Supreme Court).

By corollary, the federal government has no jurisdiction in areas not spelled out in the Constitution.  Allowing confusion and legal complexity to obscure the clarification between states’ rights and federal rights weakens our working system.

Various interests have attempted to establish rights for states or the federal government by finding implied meanings in the language and interpretations of the Constitution.  As covered earlier, this is not a problem in most countries because states are only concerned with local issues and have no real rights or powers.  In the US, we have a balance of powers that allows states to have rights while the federal government retains enough rights and powers to provide for things like nation defense or postal system.  The federal system also maintains enough power to keep states on one side of an issue from trampling on the rights of other states.  Case law and legal opinions complicate the subject.

Another simple point of reference is whether a government, issue or project is for a majority of people.  Government actions, political issues and public projects that exclude a majority of people are probably not beneficial to the country.

Programs that benefit small groups or special interest are usually not good for the whole.  Defending basic rights of person and property are not reasons to create new redundant laws to enforce laws that already exist.

The Constitution gives us the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Taken together with the right to free speech and assembly, we have the right to express our point of view whether left, center or right.  Suppressing people’s right to express their point of view is non-survival for the whole.

There are a number of ways to suppress a viewpoint.  Mainly these methods can be divided into three categories.  The first is to use logic and reason.  Logic and reason depend on two-way communication and public debate where both sides to and issue get a chance to express their point of view.

The second is to invalidate a person or idea.  If you can diminish the opposing point of view, you can gain ground for your argument or initiative.  There is a factor of domination in this category.  Domination can be in numbers, the use of government mechanisms to dominate or the use of (black) public relations to foment an idea.  Domination is the key.

The third category is destruction of the person.  Destruction can be physical, economic, social or mental.  The concept is simple. If you can destroy the person. then your idea is the only one left standing.

Countries, groups, projects and movements are held together by agreement.  By definition then, making progress by domination or destruction means winning with disagreement remaining on the other side.   Eventually the disagreement will dislodge the progress.

Democracy depends on government by representation.  Representation depends on hearing both sides of an issue.  Progress and sustainability depend on agreement.  Winning by domination and destruction actually sets a project or cause back.  Government has to be for the majority in order to survive.

 

Rights are complex.  The definition of what is a right has been in the forefront of human concern and philosophy since the beginning of human existence.  Our collective beliefs about human rights define the basic laws of the land.  While it can be a deeply philosophical subject, let’s see if we can analyze it from a logical point of view.

It’s sometimes hard to distinguish between natural rights and legal rights and moral rights.  The line between them is indefinite.  It could be said that legal rights evolve from natural rights.  Certainly there are natural rights, and at the very least, an underlying sense of what is common decency.  Constitutions and the law making process are different from country to country.

While human rights seem to be intuitive to most civilized societies, in some parts of the world, people are still treated as chattel and they remain slaves of the economy, socialism, communism or dictatorships.  Most people recognize when people’s fundamental rights are being violated.

Related to this is one’s belief about what the government is responsible for supplying.  In a fascistic or socialistic society, the government supplies everything including education, clothing, jobs, food, health care, retirement and all the needs people have.  The socialist believes we should take care of people from cradle to grave.  In a liberal society, the government supplies a complete and wide safety net to anyone who needs it.  A liberal believes in government-supplied safety net for almost every eventuality.  In a conservative society, there are basic services, but people are left to take care of each other and the support from the government is reserved for people who really need it.  A conservative believes in giving help to those who need it.  Libertarian societies support a small government and offer few services to individuals who are expected to produce and be responsible for themselves.  A libertarian would provide emergency services and leave the rest to the individual.

Let’s look at some of those “rights”.  In the real world, many of these rights fit into more than one category and it is difficult to see in which one they fit the best.  Most of the rights that people think are essential and universal are present in the Declaration of Independence. US Constitution, Bill of Rights and US law.

Fundamental Rights are those that are a part of nature.  They come from nature or God, depending on your beliefs.  For the most part, these rights include the concept that all men are created equal and that men have a right to their life and their own sanity.  Underlying these rights is the idea that these rights are inalienable which means that they can’t be taken away or transferred to somebody else.  There is also a legal term – fundamental rights – used by the courts to make judgments when governments intrude upon individual rights.  The rights listed as fundamental rights under the law are (major ones):

• Right to life
• Right to freedom of movement
• Right to own property
• Right to marry the person of one’s choosing
• Right to procreate
• Right to freedom of association
• Right to freedom of speech
• Right to equal treatment or equal protection before the law (fair legal procedures)
• Right to freedom of thought
• Right to vote
• Right to freedom of contract

If it’s the opinion of the court that the legal fundamental rights of the person have been violated, then the court is likely to find in favor of the individual.  Individual and legal fundamental rights are senior to other rights.

Moral Codes are usually a collection of what has been found to be beneficial to society or to work in a society.  They may be unwritten until it is felt that it is necessary for it to be formalized and then it is adopted as laws, ordinances or regulations.  Moral codes would cover items like being honest or virtuous or respecting elders.   These tend to focus on or define what you can’t do.  Don’t steal.  Don’t speed.   Don’t practice adultery.

Constitutional Rights or Laws are some combination of natural or God-given rights and those that that are thought of as basic.  They would include Fundamental Rights and Moral Codes that apply to that society.  In the US, basic laws are set by the US Constitution, but can be further originated by Congress and then refined in decisions and case law by the Judicial Branch.  A state example of this would be compulsory education (Massachusetts enacted America’s first compulsory education law in 1852).  Another example would be the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment of the Constitution).   

Rights in this category might include these:

• Protection of personal property.
• Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
• That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights.
• That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.
• Freedom of the press.
• All men have the right not to be held in slavery or servitude.
• That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments;
• That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.
• Taxation with representation.

These rights are built on the idea of representative republic and the continuing survival of the country and the defense against tyranny in any form.  They also illuminated issues of humanitarian concern providing people with the opportunity to have their own life and pursue happiness which is a basic precept of democracy.

Concerning the practice of law, there is a wide variety sub-divisions of law – commercial law, criminal law, constitutional law, real estate law, family law and labor law, to name a few.  Obviously, each has its own specialty and there is endless content in each area.

Religious Beliefs and Church Doctrine

Religion can supply a wealth of rights, responsibilities, laws, guidelines and doctrine.  Most religious laws are covered by the Ten Commandments or their equivalent which are considered as basic moral imperatives by the Judeo and Christian and other communities.  Other religions may not track the commandments one for one, but they have similar precepts.  The Qur’an covers the same points in various different verses and these verses align with the Ten Commandments, but they are not called that.

These rights or laws usually revolve around prohibition of murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, waste, idleness, false witness and disrespect of elders, to name a few.  They tend to define a virtuous person.

Until the Nineteenth Century, insanity and mental problems were handled within the church.  Some would argue that the church still has dominion over the treatment of mental problems and this puts forward the concept or right to one’s own life and sanity with further emphasis that only God has the power to suspend these rights.

In a more general sense, people have a freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Personal Choices

Below these levels are rights that are derived from Personal Choice.  There are a number of choices we have when it comes to living our life.  We can decide with whom we associate.  We can decide what to study and what career to follow.  We can work or not.  We can participate in government and culture at the activity level we want.  Decisions regarding where one lives and what kind of house you will live in or deciding on where to invest your money would be the exercise of personal rights.  We can select whom to marry and how or if to raise a family

Entitlements

Depending on culture and political point of view, the following are viewed as entitlements – rights or benefits people (or any citizens) are entitled to receive from the government or society at large.

• Food
• Clothing
• Education
• Employment
• Unemployment Benefits
• Disability Income
• Social Security or Retirement
• Health Care

A feeling of entitlement can refer to one’s opinion and expectation of benefits or rewards.  Entitlement also has a legal definition (which is pretty strict = eliminating personal opinion).  Under the law, entitlement is explicitly delineated by contact or agreement or it doesn’t exist.

Cost

It is interesting – rights don’t have a price tag, but entitlements do.  You would fight to defend your rights and entitlements are things to which you could easily attach a price.

Whatever you think about what is appropriate for the government to supply, it goes without argument that every service or benefit has a real cost.  The cost needs to be paid by someone.  If somebody uses $100 in government services, then somebody needs to pay $100 in taxes.  That $100 is over and above what that person needs to pay for living expenses and money that the individual wants to save, spend or invest.  For example, if someone makes $500 and has living expenses of $300 and taxes of $100, then that person would have $100 left over to spend, save or invest.  If another person wants $100 worth of services from the government but is unable to pay, then someone has to pay for it.  The government will have to get the $100 from the first person or borrow the money.  But the borrowed money needs to be paid back, so any way you slice it, the first guy will have to pay $100 more in taxes so that the second guy can receive his benefits of services.

It’s a long-winded way of saying there is no free lunch.  If we are going to offer services, benefits and entitlements, then we have to pay for them.  Benefits, services and money don’t grow on trees.

Summary

What does this boil down to?  Rights are based on what your beliefs are from a religious or philosophical point of view.  The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence both refer to rights that come from God.  Only our moral guidelines, whatever they are base on, can guide us to formulate what is right and wrong and what is an inalienable right.  Presumably, someone who is an anarchist and an atheist would say there are no natural rights except the right to be ungoverned and religion-free.  You could rightfully ask, “Where do those rights come from?”

In any case, it comes down to what we agree upon as a society and the basis and foundation of that agreement.  It may be based on religion, experience, practice or just our considered judgment of what is right.  In the case of the United States of America, the US Constitution is the vessel that holds and protects those rights and freedoms.  Knowing the basis of rights and what creates them is a prerequisite to debate, discourse or changing society for the future.

If you don’t know your rights, then they can be abridged, alloyed or taken away.  It’s worth spending a little bit of time sorting it out in your mind.

The only words in the constitution that talk about religion are:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freer exercise thereof;

Using this definition in the US Constitution, there is not a specific statement that church and state should be separated.

The only law laid down is that the government should not establish a church and should not prohibit citizens from exercising their religion.

Nothing else is inferred from the words.

In previous societies, the head of state was also the head of the church and that person could manipulate one to affect the other.   This was true at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

In 17th Century England, the King of England was also head of the Church of England.  This became a problem to priest in the US who, as the Church of England dictated, swore their allegiance to the King.  This was at cross-purposes with the trend in American thinking at the time of the Declaration.

The first mention of “separation of church and state” occurred in a letter from James Madison on January 1, 1802. It is not a law.   The metaphor got traction and survives to this day.  It is often misunderstood as the law.

Today, prayer in school, Ten Commandments monuments and any number of inferred violations exist that say the separation of church and state has been violated. There is a whole body of case law related to freedom of religion and religious practices.

Religious freedom is no less important than it was in 1776.  Understanding its background and revisiting the words in the Constitution remind us that there are two concepts worth fighting for; no government established religions and freedom of religious practice.

The US Constitution was written to accommodate change.  There are specific procedures detailed in the Constitution that are provided for amending the Constitution.  There are two ways to amend the Constitution and both require a lot of work and a healthy majority to ratify any changes to the document.

The reason for the difficulty are simple.  The Founding Fathers did not want tyrants or a tyrannical government to have easy access to changing the Constitution and thereby enslaving the population.  Knowing that they could not anticipate every evolutionary development, this provided a procedure for bringing “no-brain-er” updates into our law.

Proponents of a “living constitution” say that the Constitution should be rewritten regularly to reflect changes in the culture.   Their argument is that the framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned some things or conditions and the Constitution needs to be updated to include these new things or conditions.

Proponents of the Original Intent school of thought would argue that the provision is there to amend the Constitution and changing the original words risks losing the original intent forever.  The Constitution has worked for hundreds of years.  What has recently changed that reqires fundamental edits to a document that has served so well for so long?