Constitutional Rights

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by melbo, Jan 11, 2008.

  1. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory.” To wit: the moment your Constitutional rights are pared down, clarified or diluted is the moment to act. It is neither prudent nor wise, to commandeer a phrase, to wait until the absolute last minute to defend one’s rights.

    For the purposes of illustration, I’ll use the Second Amendment as an example. The Brady Ban, which prohibited “assault” weapons, is one of those pieces of legislation that seems rational at first, but which puts us on a slippery slope toward disarmament. Most Americans didn’t own assault weapons, couldn’t imagine a scenario in which an AK 47 would be necessary for personal defense, and so didn’t see any reason to oppose their ban. When the government goes after handguns, people who don’t own handguns will be hard-pressed to rally behind those who do. It is a classic case of dividing to conquer.

    The newly-passed H.R. 2640 attacks the Second Amendment from a different angle entirely. It prohibits people who have been diagnosed with almost any psychological condition from owning any firearms. This would include veterans diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, to any degree, citizens designated with ADD/ADHD, those with bipolar disorder, etc., ad nauseum. The bill also expands NICS ( the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) to include all those people under the umbrella of H.R. 2640, effectively labeling them criminals for exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    Proponents of the bill like to point to the appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongly included in the ban. These people must literally sue the government to get their rights back. One can imagine how daunting a task that can be.

    The point is simply this: even if some piece of legislation doesn’t affect you directly, it affects all of us in the long run. We must remember:

    They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me,
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    Congressman Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. His voting record speaks for itself in that regard. He has never, and vows that he would never, pass any legislation in violation of the Constitution. Dr. Paul would never give an inch on personal freedoms, Constitutional rights or civil liberties, and you can take that to the bank.
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    First, I would like to say that I believe Ron Paul truly is an American Patriot. He is honorable and his intentions are just. Second, I would like to clarify, not for sake of argument, but to lay to rest any doubt just what "rights" really are. There is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right", legally or morally. All rights in America are individual rights, and these are not derived from any document or through any legal channel, script of Congress, or judicial decision. Individual rights are derived from the idea of personal existence, being born in this great nation. A citizen (lower case) is a sovereign entity, meaning there is no power or physical being who has control over them, legally or arbitrarily. The US Constitution was originally drafted absent the first ten amendments, as the document was only intended to be an outline for controlling the People's republic, thus keeping the government confined within its operational boundaries. The first ten amendments, also known as the "Bill of Rights", only enshrines, or protects the most basic rights, it does not "grant" rights, nor assumes such power.

    A government cannot grant rights. The only function any form of our three branched government may perform, through edict, appointment, and contract, is assign privileges. Knowing the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" is wisdom that cannot afford to be ignored.

    Additionally, there is a great deal of importance on exercising said rights. All rights in America, being derived from the universe itself and self governed, can only be exercised on property owned by the individual respectively. For instance; I cannot simply walk onto YOUR property and demand you to obey my authority. Likewise, if you were to come onto MY privately OWNED property (allodial title owned), I would not expect you, or any government to make demands. Remember, you may have rights, but you cannot exercise such rights freely without taking into consideration "who owns the property".

    And last, I would like every person to search the web and download the video constitution class by Michael Badnarik, as his "it's good to be king" rationale is truly inspiring and insightful. Try searching "badnarik" + "constitution class" in Google to find it.

    Best wishes to all of you.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary