TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011
Political Pastachio
This is the Ninth Myth in the series: 25 Myths of the U.S. Constitution.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The conservation of "rights" seems to be a notion that blankets today's political dialogue. That makes sense when one considers it was for the preservation of our unalienable rights that the revolutionaries fought for when forging this nation into existence over 230 years ago. In 1787, the founders created a new government, to replace the old weak confederacy, by writing a new constitution during four months of grueling debate. The Constitution was designed to give the new federal government more teeth so that it may be able to protect the union. However, the Founding Fathers also realized that by giving this new central government the kind of powers they were granting it, the potential for a big government that could have a corrosive effect on our rights and liberties may emerge. Such a leviathan at the federal level could hurt state sovereignty, and place at risk communities by erasing local customs and culture through federal dictates.
In some political circles, the federal government seizing more of the choices of individual Americans through federal programs that are packaged as being thwarted upon us with the best of intentions is considered progress. However, when one dissects the federal government dictates, it becomes clear that the preservation of our rights and liberties are on a backward march. Today's government of progress resembles more the system America endured under British rule, than the one designed by the Founding Fathers so that the blessings of liberty may remain secured.
To understand where the founders stood on rights, and whether or not they believed government is the provider of our rights, one must only consult the Declaration of Independence. In only the second paragraph of that founding document one recognizes that the founders believed our rights to be self-evident, and that our unalienable rights are endowed upon us by our Creator. In other words, "rights" are not given by government, or by the U.S. Constitution, but by God.
According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights are "unalienable." To be unalienable, that means that our rights cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred because they are gifts of God. The reasoning goes that if our rights are given to us by God, they can only be taken away by God. However, if our rights are given to us by government, then government can take them away.
The anti-federalists viewed the creation of the federal government as a menace, rather than a solution. They feared that the rights of the people would be in danger with the creation of a central government, because historically speaking, centralized systems grow more intrusive over time rather than remain restrained as the founders were originally intending. Without proper limitations, reasoned the anti-federalists, federal intrusion into the lives of Americans, and into the business of the sovereign states, was an inevitability. To protect our unalienable rights, the anti-federalists questioned the powers given to government, and demanded that further restraints be placed on federal power. In 1791, in response to the concerns of the anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights was ratified. Though technically unnecessary because the issues the Bill of Rights addresses are intrusions not given to the federal government in the list of enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, the anti-federalists refused to ratify the Constitution unless they could be guaranteed that additional restraints were put on the federal government in regards to personal liberties.
John C. Calhoun, a leading politician and political theorist from South Carolina during the first half of the 19th century, once said: "Government has within it a tendency to abuse its powers."
The founders believed that the abuse of power by a central government was a serious threat, otherwise they would have not placed so many limitations on the new federal government by writing the Constitution in the manner that they did. A fear of intrusive government exists primarily because of concerns over the system compromising a citizen's rights.
Individual rights, however, face another obstacle, through the constantly changing dynamic of definitions. The saying says that your right to swing your arms stops at the tip of my nose. When is it that a woman's right to choose infringes upon a child's right to live? Or when is a right not a right, but a privilege, and when is a privilege not a privilege, but a right? Does an American have a right to provide for his or her own health care through their own personal menu of responsibilities, or is health care a right that must be provided by the taxpayers because there are some that are unable to fund their own care? And if government can dictate health care, as choices diminish, when does health care stop being a right, and becomes instead a dictate by an all-intrusive government that tells the person whether or not they can receive care as based on the willingness of the government to pay the bill?
Placing government back into its Constitutional restraints has become an endeavor that some believe to be too big to tackle. Besides, argue some, what do I care what government is doing as long as they leave me alone. Sadly, most folks don't become active in demanding the federal government return to its constitutional limitations until they believe their own rights to be at risk.
The truth is, when it comes to our rights, the federal government has been continuously overstepping its bounds because those in government often believe they are the granters of rights. This is where the States come in. States should, and can, nullify unconstitutional federal laws that infringe on the unalienable rights of the American people. Those that cringe at the idea of State's Rights, nullification, and the limiting principles of the Constitution on the federal government will surely change their minds when the federal government comes to take some of their precious rights away - either that, or they will accept the arm band of some future regime while pledging their support to a nationalist system that believes collectivism is patriotism, and the nationalistic love of government is next to godliness.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Government
