Saturday, March 8, 2014

Getting Rights Right

by Scott Strzelczyk                                                                                      From: A Citizens View

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The term “rights” creates misconceptions resulting in innumerable conclusions that are inaccurate, deceptive, and nonsensical.  Rights can mean anything, everything, and nothing.  Rights can be real and tangible or abstract and ill-defined.  Rights can be manipulated and twisted into political and economic terms used by the ruling class to advance ideology and embed into minds the very idea that government is the source of rights, defines rights, and adjudicates rights.

Here is a reasonably complete list of rights as they are used today:  Unalienable rights, negative rights, positive rights, natural rights, human rights, constitutional rights, contractual rights, political rights, voting rights, civil rights, women’s rights, property rights (real, personal, and intellectual), states’ rights, legal rights, economic rights, parental rights, children’s rights, LGBT rights, prisoner’s rights, immigrant’s rights, etc.

A significant problem with the term rights is the meaning and definition.  Any discussion or debate over rights must be predicated upon an agreed upon definition.  To do so, let’s start at the beginning.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Exposing the “Living Document” Lie

by Dave Benner                                                            From: TenthAmendmentCenter.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite all historical evidence to the contrary, it is often claimed that the Constitution is a “living document” that is easily malleable through semantics and modern desires for extended federal power.

This is the view that saturates public schools, the mainstream media, law schools, and politicians. We are even sometimes told that a primary benefit of the United States Constitution is that it can be so easily manipulated at the will of politicians and judges.

However, this view flies directly against the evidence of history, and disputes the words of those who supported the document during the ratification debates. After all, the Constitution only provided the general government the powers “expressly delegated to it” according to Edmund Randolph, who had the duty of explaining the Constitution to Virginia’s Richmond Convention.

Similarly, when naysayers in South Carolina raised the same concerns of unlimited powers, Charles Pinckney rebuked their claims strongly by echoing these sentiments and insisting, “we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the Constitution.”[1] This clarification was not an isolated phenomenon; the Constitution was described this way in all states by its vigilant supporters.......

CONTINUE READING--->

Saturday, October 19, 2013

The Constitution is Dead

by Scott Strzelczyk                                                                                      From: A Citizens View

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitution is dead!  Meaningless!  Useless!   A bunch of unenforceable, misunderstood words
on parchment.

The precise date of its demise is debatable and I’ll leave that to historians to ascertain.  However, it’s crystal clear the Constitutional objectives started to fray within a couple years of its enactment.  The decay and rot has worsened over the decades and centuries.

The primary objectives of the constitution were; to define a structure of government and define the specific powers delegated to the government.  Demonstrably, the framers and those in the state ratifying conventions understood the new government ordained by the Constitution was one of limited powers.  The three branches were intended to be co-equal where no one branch can control or dominate the other two branches.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was intended to further restrict the powers of the federal government and explains those rights not enumerated rights were retained by the people and that many powers were retained by the states or the people.  Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down by the chains of the Constitution.”

Unquestionably, the constitution has failed to meet its two primary objectives.  The chains are broken and the inmates are running the asylum.  The powers delegated to each branch respectively are gone, blurred by sophistry and judicial interpretation, usurped by other branches, or relinquished knowingly by one branch to another.  Likewise, the government was intended to be one of limited enumerated powers.  Today, the government is unlimited in its power.

G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve