President Lincoln once said, “We, the People, are the rightful masters of Congress and the Courts. NOT to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution”
Many of the items we all rightfully get angry about are directly caused BY perversions of the Constitution. Yet, you cannot know if the Constitution has been perverted if you have not read and studied it.
Let us begin with words that, when first written, were both treason and heresy:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Property. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right and the Duty of the People to alter or to abolish it. ...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Why was this treason and heresy? Under English, monarchic law, only the King had “rights” – and he granted privileges to his inferiors – and rescinded those whenever he wished. Stating that a farmhand had rights was treason under English law – and heresy under the Church of England, since the King was also head of the Church. The 56 men who signed that document were risking death by hanging – and leaving their families in penury from writs of attainder, if we failed to win independence. (Some might cite the Magna Carta, saying this affirmed English “rights” – but only partially. Only Lords were assigned rights by the Magna Carta, and these were considered neither absolute nor unalienable.)
The declaration refers to “Unalienable Rights” – what does THAT mean?
The definition of unalienable: "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor", inherent, cannot be “liened” (as in mortgage or tax lien).
Right: A right is something you can do without asking for permission. It is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another... the powers of free action.” Rights are INHERENT – and can never be removed from us.
Privilege: A privilege is something you can do only when you have permission. It is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.” Privileges are GRANTED – and can be revoked.
Here’s an analogy: I can walk back and forth across my backyard all day long. There’s nothing you can do, from your adjoining house, to stop me. My property, my right; you have no say. Let’s say the safest access to the bus stop, from your house, is to cut across my yard. I give you permission to do this. One day, in a bad mood, I see you out there and call out to you to go around; get out of my yard. I have just revoked your permission and privilege, and you have no recourse.
Rights and privileges are OPPOSITES.
- All rights are derived from property, starting with the first property you own – your body. If you cannot control what happens to your body, you are a slave.
- Every right implies a responsibility –> and we give away jurisdiction over our rights by relinquishing our responsibilities.
- The only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others.
- Whenever a dispute arises about “rights” – the argument can be clarified by asking, “Who owns the property?”
“To secure these Rights” – the only purpose of Constitution is to protect our individual rights. If all rights are property rights, then only purpose of Constitution is to protect our property. “Property” is the one-word answer to any question on the Constitution.
You may have noticed that earlier I wrote, “Life, Liberty, and Property” instead of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – this was deliberate. In John Locke’s “Treatise on Government” – a source document used by the Founders in writing the Constitution, he writes, “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens’ uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” Why did the Constitutional Convention change this to “pursuit of happiness” – because even then, the Founders were thinking ahead to the future abolition of slavery (which the Constitution promised would not happen before 1808; this was a compromise to keep the southern states in the union). By leaving out the word “property” in the Preamble (which today would be called the “mission statement”), they entirely subverted the use of the “but they’re my property” argument.
BEWARE of the term “Constitutional rights”! NO rights are granted by Constitution; it states they are inherent in us, given by our Creator. This is an all-too-common twist today. If the Constitution – a document – “gives” us our rights, then another document (or government act) can, theoretically, take them away. ALL our rights come from our Creator, not from any government or government document – and no government act can remove them.
“But what if I don’t believe in God?” some may ask. There are two separate but pertinent answers to this question. The first is that the Founders DID believe in God, and they were writing from their point of view, no one else’s. The second answer comes from John Galt’s speech in the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand (who did not, herself, believe in God): Galt said, “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”
To reiterate: Our rights are individual, inherent and unalienable, and the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect those rights.
We must also debunk the myth of “community” rights. Individuals EXIST. Communities do NOT have an independent existence – they are made up of individuals, who may join and leave those “communities”. We don’t start with a block of “community” and shave off slivers of “individual” – no; we start with individuals who join to form communities. The only way to protect “community” rights is to protect the individual rights of EACH and EVERY PERSON in that community, always, without fail, and without lapse. You may hear used the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number”. This is the philosophical basis for communism – and it is utterly antithetical to the Constitution and to YOUR freedom and YOUR rights. Take this phrase to its’ logical end: you live in a community of 100 people – but there is only enough food for 90. The greatest good for the community is to kill ten people to ensure enough food for the rest. Histotry shows us, again and again, that the philosophy of “community rights”, applied to nations, invariably ends in mass graves. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Castro. Look them up for yourselves, and don’t limit your search to the 20th century; the evil philosophy of “greatest good for the greatest number” long pre-dates Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”.
“Good To Be King,” Michael Badnarik – Chapter Two on Rights and Privileges available online FREE at http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/ - first choice under the “Purchase Book” menu.
“The 5,000 Year Leap,” W. Cleon Skousen
Publius Huldah’s blog at http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com