The Constitution and Our Rights

The constitution is not for us. It was never meant for us.

This sounds scary, but its really not. I mean, first off, why do we even have a constitution? Is it to protect our rights?

No, its not. The constitution does not exist for us. The constitution is not a declaration of our rights.

On the subject of rights, it can't be said that a single document is the key to every one of our liberties, for our liberties are not decided for us, but by us. No document is higher than the individual, including the constitution. We see this in a lot of ways, as we can question it, challenge it, and amend it. Does that not place us above the constitution?

So, the first big question: who determines our rights?

There are several reasons the constitution cannot effectively determine our rights. Slavery was a legal institution for hundreds of years, and was legal under the constitution for a long time. Does that make it right? Does that not deny the rights to a group of people? If the constitution was meant to protect those liberties, why didn't it then? Because the constitution has no say in our rights. Ultimately, we know what happened to the slaves. The constitution was questioned, challenged, and amended by we the people. We are above the constitution.

How about voting rights, womens rights, civil liberties, our rights to speech and the press, everything else. Did those rights not exist before the constitution? Even under the King those rights still existed, even though they weren't recognized.

So, why is there a certain number of rights? What the hell do we need a Bill of Rights for?

A lot of countries have "bills of rights", but none of them have the same number of freedoms outlined. Do we have different rights than the English or the French? What about the Swedes? The answer is no, we don't, because as we have already discovered no document can determine our rights.

So, now to answer the first big question: who determines our rights?

Is it god? Are they god-given rights? If that is so, why did god give a different set of rights to the French and the English? By that matter we can toss out that answer.

We also know they aren't granted to us by any sort of government or document, so we can toss that out too.

The only thing left is us. We are the determiners of our rights, and only we can declare them. Simple as that.

On to the second big question: why do we have a constitution?

I've already told you that the constitution is not for us. So, who is it for?

It's obvious that anarchy couldn't work, so we had to have some form of government for our new nation. Those 40 people who drafted the document that would become our constitution had one primary fear: a strong, overbearing government.

There is our answer. The constitution is not meant for us, but rather for the government itself. The constitution does not declare any rights, but rather ensures that the government remains limited and restricts it to certain practices. That's it. It's not for us, it's not for our rights, it's to make sure that the government is restricted and limited.

Let's prove it. First we'll look at the first 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."

Look at the language here. It does not say "all people have these rights", or anything like that. It exists to restrict the government from making any sort of legislation that denies these rights (that are determined by us).

If you look all over the constitution, you'll find language like that. Nowhere does the constitution outline any rights, it only restricts the government from violating them. The only way to interpret the constitution is to do so by understanding the meaning of it at the time of ratification, and it is to be understood that the constitution was meant as a safeguard to protect us from the government.

If only our elected officials knew this.

A Funny Thing About Freedom

I've been thinking a lot today, as I often do when I'm tired and not paying attention to what's ACTUALLY happening, about immigration. Why is it that some people are so afraid of immigrants? What gives people this idea that freedom only applies to us, the legal American citizens? Because it most certainly doesn't matter whether you are legal or illegal.

Those immigrants that cross the border have as much right to freedom as any other person in the world. The ability to seek opportunity and ensure your own prosperity is a natural right, one that is not determined by citizenship but by existence. There is no difference, on a human level, between me, you, and that man who just crossed over so that he could make money for his famiy. That man, like any of us, is just trying to make his life better. What's so evil about this?

Then you get these nutjobs, both liberal and conservative, who feel that the border is not tight enough and that we need to do shit like build fences and send in the national guard. How could the answer to this situation be anything close to that? These immigrants are people like us just trying to survive. America is the one place in the world that gives them the freedom to do so and you want to do what? Arrest them, or deport them as if they are bad people? These immigrants have as much right to the freedom of opportunity that we do, and it is high time we realize that and stop treating them as invaders.

It's a funny thing about freedom: it doesn't end at the border.

End the Intolerance

A little while back, a student at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Mississippi named Constance McMillen went through what I would call one of the worst instances of intolerance that I have ever seen. What happened? Constance had asked to go to her senior prom with her female date. Yes, Constance is a lesbian, and all she wanted was to take her girlfriend. Instead of saying yes (which is the correct answer), what did the school do?

They cancelled the senior prom. For everyone.

Apparently, one girl being a lesbian and wanting to take her female date quantifies the cancellation of one of High Schools biggest traditions. How can you possibly be so bigoted that you would cancel the entire prom just because of one student's sexual orientation?

It wasn't over, though. Constance worked with the American Civil Liberties Union and successfully sued the school for violating her personal rights. Unfortunately, it didn't go much beyond that. The judge did not force the school to hold a prom; he was satisfied with the fact that the school promised that she would be welcome at the private prom that was to be held.

So, Constance attended a private dance that was billed as the school's prom. The only problem was - it wasn't. The "event" was attended by Constance, her date, and five other students, two of which had learning disabilities. The "event" was a decoy. Virtually all of the other students went to a parent sponsored prom, which of course Constance wasn't invited to.

So, there you have it - America the free. Unless you're gay or a lesbian. Then it's America, the kind of free, but only if you're a straight white male Protestant. I don't literally mean it that way, but you catch my drift. This is a public school that humiliated her like this, a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Despite my predispositions towards public schools, the fact that they are public means that they have to provide equal opportunity for EVERY student, which is why I approve of the Student Non-Discrimination Act. This act would be the first of its kind on the federal level, and bars public schools from discriminating based on gender or orientation.

If you agree that Constance had her rights violated, sign the ACLU's petition.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2207&s_src=UNW100001ACT&s_subsrc=100408_constance

Wait, the U.S. is Fining Toyota?

Okay, Toyota fucked up, we get it. They should have fixed those cars, they should have stopped selling them, and they shouldn't have "hidden" any of the problems, but this is not an issue for the federal government to handle. Of course, it has been made into one.

16.4 million dollars is the total damage done by the Federal government. That's only the fine; just think about how much Toyota is going to have to shell out to fix those thousands of cars as well as handle other lawsuits. I doubt that we will lose the auto company, but you have to wonder: when does it become too much.

Oh jeez, and then Congress had to question the company's management, in order to find out what happened and where new regulation is needed because, for some reason, the current paradigm at play here in America subconsciously forces us to regulate everything. Even though these things are none of the governments damn business.

And now this. The company is being fined a huge amount of money, in addition to the mounting number of lawsuits it's going to have to settle and the millions that will be spent fixing the damn cars. It is not officially too much.

Since when did it become necessary for the federal government to step in on behalf of us? All that we are going to get out of this is regulation, which does nothing to fix the original problem and in fact, worsens it in the long run. You know what would have fixed it though? The free market. If the GD federal government would have just let us, the citizens, deal with the company, this problem could have been solved quickly and painlessly. The people who had problems with the product can sue, the company can pay for damages and repairs, it can learn from its mistakes, and then take the steps to ensure that it won't happen again. This is how it works; we don't need the government to step in on our part. When did we lose the ability to handle things for ourselves, and become weak?

This is what the U.S. has devolved to. Soon as something goes even moderately wrong, the damn government has to get involved and regulate it to ensure our "safety". And of course, the people allow it to happen by complaining and electing others who think this regulation is necessary. We've totally forgotten what made us a powerful nation in the first place: the measure of a nation's status is not in the power, strength, or compassion of its government, but in the strength and prosperity of its people.

We are not weak.

We do not need help.

We don't need protection from ourselves.

We, the people, are the best insurers of our "safety", thank you very much.