Is there a Right to Healthcare?

According to long established tradition in the English common law, and as explained by the eminent Blackstone, the three rights in the Declaration of Independence are as follows.

Life is the right to live, intact with one's limbs, eyes, and organs. Any physical damage that cripples or removes a limb, or eyes, or kills one violates this right. This definition was important because according to the common law people had the right to defend themselves with lethal force if they were under threat of losing life or limb.

Liberty is the right to move about freely. Any false imprisonment, clapping into slavery, or kidnapping violates this right. Once again, under the common law people had the right to defend themselves with lethal force if they are under threat of losing their liberty.

Property is the right to keep the fruits of one's own labor, including items that are improved from their natural state, and to transfer the rights to this property to others as one wishes. If people become wealthy through their hard work, they can trade for the things they like, buy and sell items, and pass property on to charities or family as they wish. This is also known as the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, because if happiness is brought nearer by a life without hardships, and hard work and the accumulation of property leads to a life without undue hardships, then they are one and the same. Certainly people cannot be happy if they are forced to constantly struggle in abject poverty for food, a bed, and a roof over their head.

Those with nothing to their name, newcomers and the bankrupt can always start building up wealth with their bare hands and their innate inventiveness. Anyone can. Nobody said it was easy to become wealthy, but with property rights it is possible. Without property rights it will never be possible for the poor to rise out of poverty. The best they can hope for without equal property rights is a few pennies thrown their way by their 'betters' in the elite classes to make their poverty slightly less miserable, and maybe free beer on holidays so they forget their misery as they also lose their drive to succeed. The question though is whether it is desirable for people to live in poverty and misery, even if it is alleviated by government charity. Shouldn't they be allowed and encouraged to lift themselves out of poverty instead? Shouldn't they have property rights allowing them to rise from poverty?

It is as plain as the nose on your face. If you punch your nose with your fist, you will have a nosebleed. It is your responsibility to stop the bleeding. It is your responsibility to clean up the blood after. By the fact of having punched your own nose, you are responsible for the fact of the results. And if you are responsible for an injury, whether to yourself or another, you are responsible for the remedy to it.

As even the most obstinate slaveholders learned in the War Between the States that ended the Peculiar Institution of Slavery, when rights conflict, for instance the right of a slaveholder to his property conflicting with the rights of a human to go where he wants and keep the fruits of his own labor, humans do not have rights to the life, liberty, or property of other humans.

This was never all that controversial. The controversial part was in defining who was human. Eventually all Americans came to the true conclusion that the differences between the different human races were cosmetic. Under the skin we all were, are, and forever will be members of the human race.

If healthcare were a right, which it is not, what would that mean? First, if Able has a right to healthcare, Dr. Baker must supply his labor to Able (violates Property rights). Second, Dr. Baker cannot move about freely, because he is required to serve Able (violates Liberty rights). And Dr. Baker's property rights in his medical learning, his medical practice, and his office are seized for Able's needs (more violations of Property rights). Dr. Baker serves Able, just as all doctors serve patients now, but Dr. Baker no longer has a choice of whether to serve Able. Now he is placed in involuntary service. Another phrase for involuntary service is involuntary servitude. And that is equal to bondage or slavery. Dr. Baker must be a slave if Able has a right to healthcare!

And that is why the right to healthcare is not a right. Because if it is a right then it places all the Dr. Bakers into slavery. No right can place another person into slavery. Such rights are illegitimate.

What is healthcare really? It is a responsibility that goes with being alive. If you are alive, you have the responsibility to stay healthy. There is no argument possible about it. You can exercise. Nobody else can exercise for you. You can eat right. Nobody else can eat for you. You can pay attention to wounds and diseases. Nobody else knows how you feel until you tell them. Nobody has any responsibility for your body other than you. You do.

And that is the underlying reason we are having this discussion. The Christianity-hating progressive movement could not reinvent society following reason alone without acknowledging God, has therefore abandoned reason entirely, and now denies that individuals have responsibility for their selves and their actions.

The Truth is obvious to those who look. Don't be afraid to see what you see and say so.

This post was inspired by A Well-Reasoned Perspective on the "Right" to Health Care, by Amy Miller and Ryan Kazmierczak. Read here for more on rights and duties.

Technorati Tags: Health, Rights, Responsibilities, Obamacare, Government, Constitution

Read more...

Moncton's Warning: Beware Copenhagen in December!

All hands alert!

I don't have anything to add because this is so shattering there is nothing that can be added. If this extract scares you then you have to read the whole thing. And then we all shall have to do something.

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

Read the treaty. Read the rest of Lord Moncton's remarks. If this is signed and passed, it will be the greatest act of BETRAYAL that has ever been committed on the American people. We all must act, every one of us, doing whatever we can.

This must not stand!

Technorati Tags: Obama, Copenhagen, Climate Treaty, Environmentalism, Tyranny, Constitution, Treason

Read more...

Opposing Sotomayor: A Line in the Sand

As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on Tuesday, "It’s not the rule of law, it’s the rule of lawyers: That’s the central message conveyed by Pres. Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor." She is, after all, widely admired among the Obamanist left for her empathy, not her temperament or wisdom. That plus her compelling life story and her love of Nancy Drew mysteries.

We also know that she has had many of her decisions reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court, that she is argumentative and unpleasant, that she believes the place of a judge is to create policy, rather than to apply the law impartially, and that she believes her race and gender make her better than whites or men.

Racism does not have a good track record. It's been tried a long time. And you would think by now that we'd want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.

(Thomas Sowell, 5/27/09 on the Glenn Beck Show)

Democrats and the partisan Democrat media have started their campaign for Sotomayor by blackmailing Republicans; saying if they oppose her that Republicans will never get another Hispanic vote. And they are also preemptively accusing Republicans of hypocrisy because George H. W. Bush mentioned upon nominating him that Clarence Thomas's inspirational life story should arouse Americans' empathy.

---

Let's deal with these lines of attack.

Hypocrisy and Empathy

I'll take the second one first. When Bush pere nominated Thomas he praised him for his learning, his wise and brilliantly written opinions, and the respect he had earned from his colleagues and those who appeared before him. He also mentioned Thomas's background as an interesting sidebar. Then Thomas, who was a child of an impoverished single black mother became the target of the most hateful, vicious slanders and character assassination from the Democrats and their catspaws in the media, government bureaucracy, and academia. Let me repeat this. The Democrats insulted and attacked a black man who had overcome incredible odds and difficulties to rise, through merit, to the peak of his profession. In America, he had become through his own efforts an honest to goodness role model that should have made all black Americans proud, that should have inspired black Americans to become great jurors like Clarence Thomas.

Thank God the Democrats lost that battle, and Clarence Thomas survived it to become a great Supreme Court Justice.

Blackmail

Did Democrats suffer any backlash from their relentless, hateful, awful demonization of one of the best and the brightest among black Americans? They did not. Why not? Because they claimed he was a misogynist, that he liked porn movies, that he told off color jokes to women. So they claimed he was a misogynist, and that privileged them to attack him.

When Republicans proposed to appoint Miguel Estrada, another Hispanic, to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Democrats opposed him precisely because he is Hispanic. Karl Rove writes:

The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.

What is wrong with Sotomayor? What makes her an out of the mainstream, left-wing stealth missile? What is wrong enough with her that even a Democrat would agree she is the wrong choice? Quite simply: She is a racist. Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the party that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments against Democrat opposition, the party that was targeted along with black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws alike, has a venerable history of opposing racism. A racist is a racist, "straight up," and we can hardly doubt that the woman who said any Hispanic woman can out-think any white man would think the same of a black man or woman. She is a racist. She believes in protecting her own group, her own race, at the cost of others. The law is only a secondary concern. Appear before Sotomayor in court and be sure that if you are white you will lose. If you are an employer you will lose. If you are a man you will lose. If you are Republican you will lose. The law is not the most important thing to her. Empathy is: Empathy for those who are most similar to her.

She believes in tribal justice, and she will always defend her tribe. Are you sure you want to appear before her in court? Are you sure you're in her tribe, and not in some other tribe? If the law changes with every new plaintiff how can anybody know how to act lawfully? If the written law is irrelevant then why should anyone obey it in the first place?

Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is not to obey the law as written. It is to rule by her whim. That is the worst kind of rule. It is a wholesale rejection of what America stands for with the Rule of Law, and a return to medieval times.

Can a judge who believes as she believes take the Oath of Office without, at least on a subconscious level, expecting to break it? How can she administer justice without respect to persons when empathy for persons is the most important aspect of her c.v.? How can someone who is so passionate and partisan claim to be impartial? How indeed?

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

She is wrong about the law. She is wrong for any court. With all due respect, she is most definitely wrong for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Those are the principles upon which Republicans should respectfully oppose Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

If it is a lonely fight, so be it. Let us draw a line in the sand. We will not let the anti-Revolutionary forces of those who would return us to the rule of kings advance without a fight. We will make a stand here, because it is important. And even if we lose this fight it's worth the fighting.

The choice to fight on principle says a lot about the party’s courage in a tough place. Instant retreat says just as much about cowardice. To fight will draw support both from those who have given up on Republicans (for good reason), and from those minority Americans who see that Republicans are actually willing to fight to protect them. Republican principles are true. They work for everyone: Black; white; yellow; red; English speaking; Spanish speaking; and even those who speak Mandarin. If Republicans fight for and articulate those principles every day, then the fight will inspire allies that Republicans need. Republicans need to fight for every step, every inch of ground. And instead of giving ten feet, or one foot, or one single inch, Republicans have to try to take an inch, or a foot, ten feet, or a mile.

Sirs, draw the line. Gird yourselves.

And when we are forced back, outnumbered, bloodied but still standing tall, then we draw the line again and once again prepare to fight. By fighting we will attract new allies and strengthen the will of our moribund support.

There is a principle in the opposition to Sotomayor: We will not accept racist or partisan or tribal interpretations of the law as just, but inevitably know they are as unjust as anything. The 14th Amendment stiffens our spine against them. And we will not accept “policy setting” and legislation from the bench as Constitutional. That is a lie. There is only one meaning to "interpret the Constitution," and it is to follow the original, plain English meaning of the words. Anything else is making it up by whim. Anything else is post facto legislation.

Ever since the revolutionaries of 1776 stood for the Rule of Law against the Rule by Whim of the English King, America has stood for the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Whim. America will not change that now. America will not change that ever.

Maybe some inspirational language from another time and another place will help stiffen the spines of conservatives to take a lonely stand and oppose Sonia Sotomayor. I have two inspirational passages from Winston Churchill to offer.

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim?

I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

And here is another, just as stirring. Obama gave back the bust of Churchill given to America after 9/11. He didn't think we needed Churchill's inspiration. I think we do.

"We shall fight on the beaches"

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

The battle begins today and every day for those who will take up the mantle to protect America against those who would overthrow America's Revolution of 1776 and return us to kingship, taxes, bread & circuses, the persecution of Christians, and tyranny.

Technorati Tags: Sotomayor, Constitution, Republicans, Racism, Post-racial

Read more...

Federalism Amendments - Reload

Randy Barnett continues to work on the Bill of Federalism (previously blogged on here). His updated version is here (PDF).

The Bill of Federalism was drafted by Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law School and is supported by The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition. You can support The Bill of Federalism by downloading the pdf above and delivering it, via email or print, to your local state legislator, requesting that they introduce a bill in their legislative body to petitition Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of passing all 10 amendments of The Bill of Federalism. You can find local contacts to help you in your state here.

So Barnett is moving ahead with the plan to advance it through the states. Individuals are to print the PDF out and give copies to their state and federal representatives, while explaining why it's a great idea.

I'm still thinking the last clause is the hardest part of that plan to actually perform.

Technorati Tags: Federalism, Constitution, Government

Read more...

The Care and Feeding of Future Ex-Democrats

Today, prompted by an anecdote at the American Thinker, The Other McCain (the conservative Hunter S. Thompson for today) wrote about finding and convincing future ex-Democrats that conservatism is the shiznit. Also, on RedState pilgrim wrote that the Thugocracy Will Yield a Bumper Crop of Ex-Democrats.

I think that I shall never see,
A billboard lovely as a tree Future Ex-Democrat.

(Ogden Nash, mostly)

Like many another unique snowflake, I am going to apply my own unique point of view to the problem. Here goes.

Luckily or not, most Republicans were raised as Republicans. Their parents were Republicans. Their parents' parents were Republicans. The party is like mother's milk to them, a comfort and a refuge. The other, rarer kind of Republican is the convert from either political don't-give-a-dammism or the Democrat side of the aisle. I am going to be writing about Democrats in this article, but everything applies equally to don't-give-a-dammers. Future ex-Democrats eventually get turned off by something in the Democrat party. It may be the economic or regulatory insanity, the alliances with America's enemies at war, the vicious abuse of those whose opinions differ from the mob's consensus, the egalitarian attack on equality, the Orwellian torture of language to mean its opposite, the shameless hero worship and narcissism of the movement, the treatment of women, gays and blacks as pet minorities who vote for Democrats but should really shut up, the morally inverted insistence on killing children in the womb plus saving terrorists and serial killers from the death penalty, or the general acceptance of "the lie" as the way the world is supposed to work; something about Democrats turns Future ex-Democrats off.

---

When that turn-off happens, as it inevitably will, one of two things happens. Either the turned-off Democrat gets homesick and rejoins the Democrats, while tabling the turn-off. Or the turned-off Democrat finds something about the Republicans that is different enough, and compelling enough, to convince him to sever part or all his attachment to the Democrat Party. With some Democrats, this process will occur several times. With others there is only one chance.

So we had better seize that chance!

To effectively nurture turned-off Democrats and grow them into ex-Democrats and possible Republicans, Republicans need to be ready. They need to know their strengths and the corresponding Democrat weaknesses. They need to be tough instead of wishy-washy politically correct nincompoops. In other words, Republicans who wish to recruit Future ex-Democrats need to distinguish themselves from Democrats, who are wishy-washy politically correct nincompoops.

Remember, if the turned-off Democrat wants to find someone who is just like a Democrat they would simply rejoin their old party. Imitating Democrats does not fool anyone. It just brings admiration from the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) who do not have Republican best interests at heart.

There are three main appeals that Republicans can make to turned-off Democrats, corresponding to the three legs of the conservative stool: Fiscal; Social; and National Security.

Fiscal Conservatism and Free Market Economics

As R. S. McCain points out, the biggest problem with Democrats in 2009, the year of the not-a-stimulus Stimulus and the $1.8 Trillion deficit (46% of spending and trending up), is their numbers don't add up. Democrat economics have not ever worked, do not work now, and will never work. They are based on the same old discredited Keynesian, fascist, and socialist caveman-economics nostrums that have failed in every modern country in which they've been tried. To the extent that the US travels (once again) down the socialist road, that will be more wasted time, economically speaking. It always is. Compare their economics, and the economics of the middling Republicans-lite who currently dominate the leadership councils of the Republican party, to the free market economics that Reagan employed to power the American economy into 30 years of growth, that JFK used to jump start the economy in 1961, and that the underrated Harding used to recover from the Depression of 1920-21 and usher in the roaring twenties. In one year the US economy suffered a 21% contraction in GDP and unemployment up +133% from 2.1M to 4.9M, now the incident is forgotten because Harding's approach fixed it so quickly.

Of course there is an alternative to a socialist economy that Obama and his advisors may take. Often called corporatism or mercantilism, or fascism if you're being technical, this path combines private ownership and government control of companies, with profits being privatized and losses coming out of the taxpayer's wallet. That sounds like a bailout; doesn't it? To the extent that the Democrat team tries to turn the American economy into another fascist command economy like that of China it will be an economic loss, and a loss of freedoms for all.

There is an unpleasant memory from 2008 for many Republicans. The Ron Paul campaign demonstrated how strong the appeal of free markets can be. The Ron Paul movement tried to take the Republican party over and failed. There were some parts of the movement that Republicans were right to resist. But Ron Paul's economics were the only economics espoused by any candidate in the elections that spoke to what was happening. And to a large degree the same excitement brought to the surface by Ron Paul's campaign has energized the TEA Party movement, a popular grassroots movement for sound economics in a world of fiscal insanity.

Republicans might desire to stick with the Keynesian ideas of the past because they are familiar, but that would be a mistake. Government stimuli have never been known to actually work. The Great Depression was not fixed with government spending. The opposite is true. It was an example of amazingly effective government propaganda and deficit financed payoffs (that we are still paying for).

Republicans should not constantly invoke Reagan, but they should follow his sound economic principles. The free market economics of the Chicago school or the Hayekian and Misesian schools were behind Reagan's greatest successes. If Republicans want to succeed they should wake up and embrace free market (libertarian) economics. It's where the TEA Parties are leading. Republicans should not ignore it. Start at these sites.

• Cafe Hayek


• Cato Institute


• Freeman


• Ludwig von Mises Institute


• Market Ticker


• Taking Hayek Seriously

Social Conservatism: Life, Liberty, and Property

Republicans believe in individual freedom as opposed to coerced sameness. We believe in law and order and politeness, and that as long as people don't trespass on each others' life, liberty, or property, or break the laws and duties of free men in a free society under the rule of law, they can pretty much do what they like. That does not mean license to live in anarchy, with chaos and thuggery the result, but the respect of armed men and women for each other's unique ideas, opinions, and abilities.

As a side note, this is why Republicans stink at enforcing Party uniformity in Congressional votes. They are all individualists with their own opinions, and they rebel against attempts to rein them in.

The idea of equality as conservatives and Republicans understand it is that we are all unique, more unique than snowflakes, but are treated equally by the laws, with equally applicable individual duties, and are equal in the eyes of God. In nations before the US came along laws applied differently depending on who you were. A noble could ride a horse. A peasant would be flogged for riding a horse. Only the king could wear purple. Only a knight could wear boots above mid-calf. Alcohol couldn't be purchased on Sundays unless you were a noble and member of a private club. A gentleman could flog a peasant without punishment or payment, but if a peasant hit a gentleman the punishment was death. These examples of different justice for different classes of people are an example of inequality under the law. The principle of equality under the law means that as long as people obey the laws they will be treated equally, and if they break the laws they will be treated just like others who break the same laws.

This is the intent at least. Sometimes the execution falls short. But that does not damn the intent, but rather the performance. And performance can be reformed and improved, and is over time. After all, Republicans managed to get rid of slavery over the objections of the Democrat party, passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments against the Democrat Jim Crow laws, and wrote and voted for the bill that became the 1964 Civil Rights Act in higher percentages than the Democrats did. Slavery and its successor, Jim Crow, was the greatest injustice in the American land, and it was banned almost entirely by Republicans.

Abortion is the new great injustice that kills over a million children every year, including one out of three pregnancies of black mothers. That's true, by the way. Look it up. And I think 33% killed out of a population qualifies as genocide under the commonly accepted definitions. Yet Democrats, once again, oppose the rights of a certain class of persons. This time instead of denying a class of people, black skinned people, their liberty, they deny a class of people, unwanted or inconvenient children, the right to live.

Egalitarianism: Republicans are opposed to the other concept of equality, called egalitarianism or "equality of results." Under the concept of egalitarianism, the government takes from some and gives to others. This is a violation of property rights. If a private person did it this would be called theft. But when the government does it some claim this makes it okay. It does not. Government involvement does not turn theft into something good; it only turns the government itself into an offender against equal justice, which should protect all equally but is corrupted by a corrupt government.

Life, Liberty, and Property are the three most important human rights according to Republicans. Sir William Blackstone chose them way back in 1765, because as he pointed out, when a tyrant has the right on a whim to take away Life, Liberty (freedom to travel), or Property, then none of the human rights are worth a bucket of warm spit. So these rights are jealously guarded and none have the right to take them away on a whim, but only for an offense against the law and after due deliberation by a duly appointed jury.

Some Republicans may not believe in God themselves, but all Republicans fiercely guard the right of Americans to believe in God in private and in public. They realize that America was founded by people seeking the freedom to practice their religion, not by people seeking to prevent others from practicing their religion. This modern state opposition to religion in public is opposed to everything the founders stood for, was invented by the racist, anti-Catholic bigot Hugo Black, and Republicans would reverse this state hostility to religion in an instant if they could.

Republicans believe in strict Constitutionalism. They believe that the Constitution was intentionally written to be a short document, with a very short list of enumerated powers for the federal government, because Madison and the rest knew the larger the federal government got the more it would steal rights and freedoms away from individuals and the states. This is the way to totalitarianism and tyranny. The United States, founded in rebellion against tyranny, must not descend into it once again. And on the question of how tightly to adhere to the plain language of the Constitution Republicans believe that you either follow the plain language of the Constitution or you're just making it up as you go. There is no middle ground between following the Constitution and making up law by whim.

Religion, constitutionalism, and rights and duties, are important for Republicans because not only do they mean something in themselves, but they also promise that Republicans actually have standards other than the rule of convenience and falsehoods that Democrats use to justify their choices. This reliability and steadfastness is more attractive than you might believe to turned-off Democrats.

National Security: We'd Rather Trade, but We're Willing to Fight for What We Believe

To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.

(George Washington)

Republicans generally believe that the United States will only survive and prosper if it maintains its territorial integrity. In other words it must not allow parts of the country or the waters adjoining it to become lawless or governed by foreign laws. The Constitution defines two of the federal government's powers as military self-defense and control of immigration and citizenship.

This means that the borders should be enforced. Illegal immigration must be stopped. Legal immigration, on the other hand, should be fixed. Right now legal immigration policies for countries like Mexico are draconian. They need to be repaired. But the solution to a bad law is not to break the law, but to fix it.

This also means that the US should use its advanced military technology to make America and its allies safer. Missile defense is just such a technology that would prevent some nuclear weapons from getting through to kill people. There is nothing wrong with such a defensive weapon. It would never prevent 100% of Russia's ICBMs from getting through the defensive shields anyway, but it might stop a small flight of nukes from a rogue nation such as Iran or North Korea, both of which have active nuclear weapons programs and long-range ballistic missile programs. To refuse to defend ourselves with the best technology we have is madness.

When the US gets into a war Republicans support the US military until the end of the war, whether it was a Republican fight or not. We don't believe in proportional response; we believe in overkill. Republicans believe that if you go to war with an enemy, first you kill him dead. Then you kill the corpse. Then you bomb the greasy stain. Then you plant grass over the bare dirt and put up a marble statue of a man waving a sword and perched on a rearing horse to memorialize it. There will be no negotiations other than acceptance of our surrender terms once the war starts. The American way of war is to win. That's all there is to it! Any other choice is un-American. To choose America as an enemy is to choose death. That's how it works when Republicans are in charge.

Democrats behave the opposite way. A country that declares its enmity to America will be wheedled and bribed with incredible treasures. See Iran. And when America goes to war with a Republican president in office, Democrats will side with the enemy against their own country. Because to Democrats the political opposition to a Republican president is the most important thing in the world, they will gladly betray their own country and its soldiers to enemies while at war without ever feeling a twinge of guilt. The ends justify any means, no matter how treasonous. This behavior turns off a lot of Democrats in time of war and Republicans should always be ready to exploit it. This is what drove me away from the Democrats.

Of course Republicans should prosecute treason when it happens. Unfortunately they have not been doing so, because they are scared of political in-fighting under the media spotlight. They should not be. Prosecution is the only way to discourage treason when Democrats are in the opposition.

If a nation is friendly America will be the best friend it ever had. Republicans don't believe in foreign aid; we realize the empirical fact that aid money just goes to line the pockets of dictators or pays for troops to oppress and plunder the citizens. Republicans believe in trade with countries because that creates jobs, freedom, and lasting wealth and raises the people out of poverty, instead of just turning a dictator into another billionaire. It also creates markets for American products, and brings in a multiplicity of foreign products for Americans to enjoy.

Democrats behave the opposite way. A country that stands by America's side in time of trouble will be betrayed, or treated like a pet poodle by Democrats. See Iraq.

* * *

Please forgive my long-windedness. I hope that somewhere amongst all the extrapolation and digression something has proved useful for Republicans who want to improve their ability to recruit Future Ex-Democrats and convince them that Republicans are the principled, truthful, honest, hopeful, predictable, kind, and winning party.

Technorati Tags: Republican, Democrat, Constitution, Libertarianism, Conservatism

Read more...

I Know My Rights—Do You?: Toward a Catalog of Unalienable Rights and Duties

THE CALL

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.

(Albert Einstein)

"I know my rights." We have all heard it. But what does it mean? What are the rights that are invoked but unlisted in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? You know the ones.

Article the eleventh [9th Amendment] .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [10th Amendment] ... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Right. Those ones.

What might be the rights and duties of a free people that were such common knowledge in the days of the founders that they declined to write them down? They were well-known rights from English history and common law, but were not listed because the founders didn't want a prescriptive list of rights to deny or disparage other rights: the rights, duties, and powers that were mentioned in passing in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Three of the rights were listed in the most important passage of the Declaration of Independence. This passage which powered the American Revolution and spurred America to greatness goes like this.

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 the pursuit of Happiness—-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 of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The question under consideration is what are the rights I emphasized with bolding and underlines that are mentioned in the Preamble and guaranteed in the 10th Amendment?

---

Obviously, three of these rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The key characteristic of unalienable rights is that, with the exceptions of defense and self-protection, an unalienable right for one person should not trespass on an unalienable right for another person. What are the other rights, hinted at in the Declaration's Preamble (underlined above)? W. Cleon Skousen lists the following unalienable rights in The 5000 Year Leap.

• The right of self-government


• The right to bear arms for self-defense


• The right to own, develop, obtain, and dispose of property


• The right to make personal choices


• The right of free conscience (freedom of religion)


• The right to choose a profession


• The right to choose a mate


• The right to beget one's kind


• The right to assemble


• The right to petition


• The right to free speech


• The right to a free press


• The right to enjoy the fruit of one's labors


• The right to improve one's position through barter and sale


• The right to contrive and invent


• The right to explore the natural resources of the earth


• The right to privacy


• The right to provide personal security


• The right to provide nature's necessities—air, food, water, clothing, and shelter


• The right to a fair trial


• The right of free association


• The right to contract

To which I would add these

• The right to know the law


• The right to cooperate with others to mutually provide personal security


• The right to educate one's self or others

And as a capstone to these unalienable rights add the big three from the Declaration

• The right to life (Meaning life and limb. Upon which all the other rights depend)


• The right to liberty (The right to travel and relocate one's home. And the right not to be kidnapped, enslaved, or falsely imprisoned. This is also foundational)


• The right to pursue happiness (as John Adams wrote, this really means property rights. "All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine [i.e. in other words], that of seeking and obtaining their safety [first clause] and happiness [second clause]." Brackets mine.)

This group of three rights (Life, Liberty, and Property) were identified by the great jurist Sir William Blackstone eleven years before the Declaration as the three most fundamental rights from which the others sprang. His Commentaries were widely circulated in the Colonies, for the people were very concerned with the systematic violations of their rights that had been going on for years. To me, the fact that the greatest legal mind of the time had previously identified them as central, in a wildly popular work that was broadly available in the Colonies, explains why they were placed so prominently in the Declaration of Independence.

INDIVIDUAL DUTIES

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

(George Washington, from his Farewell Address)

It is impossible to avoid responsibilities for a person's own actions. That is the nature of the Creator's plan. But in addition to responsibilities for one's own actions, a person can take on obligations. Obligations are like responsibilities, but they are assumed voluntarily rather than involuntarily. And then there are duties, lawful but more basic than laws, that fall on persons who choose to live within the structure of a lawful society, or an ordered liberty. Within the ordered liberty envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, and the other founders, unalienable rights carry with them duties to prevent people from trespassing on the rights of others.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(John Adams)

And so we come to the Duties of lawful free people in a free society under the rule of law. These are voluntary like all obligations, but they are mandatory, like all laws required for the orderly function of a free society. They cannot be passed off to the government, but are individual duties, just like the individual rights. These duties descend from the Divine laws followed by the ancient Anglo-Saxons and the ancient Israelites when they were free peoples, before their representative governments were replaced with kingships. Skousen lists the duties as follows.

• The duty to honor the supremacy of the Creator and his laws.


• The duty not to take the life of another except in self-defense (Justified only by being falsely imprisoned, kidnapped, or under threat of loss of life or limb. Assault and battery are not sufficient cause unless there is a reasonable fear of loss of life. Nor is loss of property, though one is able to protect property short of homicide).


• The duty not to steal or destroy the property of another.


• The duty to be honest in all transactions with others.


• The duty of children to honor and obey their parents and elders.


• The duty of parents and elders to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children.


• The duty to support law and order and keep the peace.


• The duty not to contrive through a covetous heart to despoil another.


• The duty to provide insofar as possible for the needs of the helpless—the sick, the crippled, the injured, the poverty-stricken.


• The duty to honorably perform contracts and covenants both with God and man.


• The duty to be temperate [prudent].


• The duty to become economically self-sufficient.


• The duty not to trespass on the property or privacy of another.


• The duty to maintain the integrity of the family structure.


• The duty to perpetuate the [human] race.


• The duty not to promote or participate in the vices which destroy personal and community life.


• The duty to perform civic responsibilities—vote, assist public officials, serve in official capacities when called upon, stay informed on public issues, volunteer where needed.


• The duty not to aid or abet those involved in criminal or anti-social activities.


• The duty to follow rules of moral rectitude.

The duties (to be enforced by law) of those who have criminally flouted these duties, wrongly trespassed on the rights of another, and caused damages to the life, liberty, or property of another, or by committing treason, are (from Blackstone):

• The duty to equally recompense all those whom one has injured or falsely imprisoned or whose property one has damaged or taken with force or fraud, plus pay a penalty.


• The duty to suffer physical or civil death as the rightful penalty for homicide, treason, or causing loss of limb (or sight) to another. The meaning of physical death is self-evident. Civil death is loss of property and banishment from the country (or to a monastery, in the ancestral English law).

Together this is a good start to a list of unalienable rights and the duties with which the Creator endowed all free humans. It would be useful and clarifying to expand upon each one of them. But it would undoubtedly be the work of many pages to do it.

VIRTUE

I thank God that I have lived to see my country independent and free. She may long enjoy her independence and freedom if she will. It depends on her virtue.

(Sam Adams)

In this time of government-caused crisis it is the virtue of every American that will be called upon. Let us be strong enough to face and overcome the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth,—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate circumstance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Benjamin Franklin, address to the Constitutional Convention on 28th June 1787)

Let us do as the Constitutional Convention did, and before we act, let us pray.

Technorati Tags: Constitution, Rights, Duties

Read more...

Tea Parties and Federalism Amendments

The assault on American traditions and freedoms led by the current congress and the Agitator-in-Chief has not gone unnoticed. The Tea Party movement is one such reaction. A popular movement to study and understand the original meaning of the Constitution is another (also see here). And finally, means to strengthen the original meaning of the Constitution, enforcing the original meaning with structural changes in the government, are being widely considered.

Last week Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown University, inspired by the originalist vision of the Tea Parties, wrote an op ed in the Wall Street Journal that argued for the enactment of a federalism amendment limiting the powers of the federal government. Ilya Somin at Volokh and others have been sending their learned feedback to Barnett, who revised his proposal from the single amendment with five sections in his WSJ op ed to Ten Federalism Amendments.

The Ten Amendments of The Bill of Federalism

• Article of Amendment 1: [Limits on Federal Power]


• Article of Amendment 2: [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]


• Article of Amendment 3: [Reserved Powers of States]


• Article of Amendment 4: [Recision Power of States]


• Article of Amendment 5: [No Federal Death Tax]


• Article of Amendment 6: [No Federal Income Tax]


• Article of Amendment 7: [Term Limits for U.S. Senators and Representatives]


• Article of Amendment 8: [Balanced Budget Veto]


• Article of Amendment 9: [Protection of the Rights Retained by the People]


• Article of Amendment 10: [No Judicial Alteration of the Constitution]

PJTV has a thorough discussion by Barnett and Tea Party organizers on the merits of the proposed amendment that is worth listening to if you have an hour to invest. If you don't have the time, I'll summarize what I think are the most important points from the discussion.

---

• First, some may ask why ten? Barnett got so many comments and suggestions, from other constitutional lawyers and other smart people, that he had to re-conceptualize and rewrite his proposal. The initial amendment was broken into ten pieces for two reasons.
  
  
  
  1. If there are weaknesses in individual sections of a single amendment it scuttles the whole amendment. If there are ten amendments and one turns out too contentious then it can be thrown out and the rest kept.
  
  
  2. Some of the initial language was legally insufficient to achieve its goals. So it had to be reworded. Some of this rewording pointed out additional amendments that were necessary.
  
  
  
  


• Second, many will say that passing amendments is a political impossibility. Even the Enumerated Powers Act is unlikely to happen. The response is that it is obvious the federal legislature will never agree to limit its powers unless it is forced. The way forward is to go through the states. Several states have recently been passing laws that make an explicit claim against the federal government's encroachments against the 10th Amendment. For instance, the Montana legislature passed an act nullifying the federal Real ID Act within its borders. And more to the point of the 10th amendment and the federalism issue, a number of states have recently considered state sovereignty resolutions. As of the date of this writing, the list is 35 states long:
  
  
  
  1. Alabama (2nd Resolution, HJR403, introduced 03-24-09)
  
  
  2. Alaska (2nd resolution introduced 03-19-09) (HJR27 Passed 37-0 on 04-06-09) (Senate Passed HJR27, 19-0, on 04-19-09 - Awaiting Transmittal to Governor)
  
  
  3. Arizona (Committee voted Do-Pass on 04/14/09)
  
  
  4. Arkansas (failed in committee on 03-04-09 passed committee 04-01-09 failed House vote, 54-34)
  
  
  5. Colorado (04-27-09: Postponed by committee)
  
  
  6. Georgia (Senate Version - Passed 43-1 on 04/01/09)
  
  
  7. Idaho (Passed House 51-17, on 03-23-09, Passed Senate on 04-07-09)
  
  
  8. Illinois
  
  
  9. Indiana (2nd Senate Resolution Introduced 03-19-09) (SR0042 Passed Committe 8-0 on 04-01-09) (SR0042 Passed Senate 44-3 on 04-09-09)
  
  
  10. Iowa
  
  
  11. Kansas
  
  
  12. Kentucky (2nd resolution introduced on 02/24)
  
  
  13. Louisiana
  
  
  14. Michigan (senate version introduced 03-03-09)
  
  
  15. Minnesota
  
  
  16. Mississippi (senate resolution introduced 03-10-09)
  
  
  17. Missouri (passed house on 03-23-09) (senate public hearing 04-07-09)
  
  
  18. Montana (Failed 51-49 on 02-24-09) (Resolution reintroduced as HR3) (HR3 Passed House Committee on 04-21-09) (HR3 failed to pass in house, 50-50)
  
  
  19. Nevada (Committee 04-11-09: “No Further Action Allowed”)
  
  
  20. New Hampshire (resolution killed in house on 03-04-09: 216-150)
  
  
  21. New Mexico (tabled in committee)
  
  
  22. North Carolina
  
  
  23. North Dakota (passed house 52-40 on 04-07-09) (passed senate 25-20 on 04-20-09 - returned to house, amended) (passed House by voice vote on 04-27-09)
  
  
  24. Ohio
  
  
  25. Oklahoma (passed house on 02/18/09, senate version passed 25-17 on 03-04-09) (Joint version passed Senate, 29-18 on 04-15-09 - awaiting signuture of governor) (Vetoed by Governor on 04-24-09)
  
  
  26. Oregon
  
  
  27. Pennsylvania (senate resolution introduced 03-19-09)
  
  
  28. South Carolina (passed house on 02-26-09, senate - referred to subcommittee)
  
  
  29. South Dakota (passed house on 03-03-09 by a vote of 51-18, passed senate on 03-05-09 by a vote of 20-14)
  
  
  30. Tennessee
  
  
  31. Texas (senate resolution introduced 03-02-09 - senate’s 2nd resolution introduced on 03-04-09)
  
  
  32. Virginia
  
  
  33. Washington
  
  
  34. West Virginia
  
  
  35. Wisconsin
  
  
  
  State sovereignty resolutions haven't yet passed in all 35 states, but if they did that would be 70% of the states, which is more than the 2/3s requirement for constitutional amendments (though less than the 75% required for ratification). The fact they are being considered at all in 35 states including such heavily Dem states as Wisconsin and Iowa is an indication that federalism is more popular than the statist ideological echo chamber of the media would have us believe.
  
  The point of this explication was that there is sufficient interest in the states to indicate that a raft of amendments limiting the power of the federal government have a chance of passing in the states, even if the federal legislature opposes them. Assuming the Constitution has any power left at all, this change cannot be stopped by the federal government!
  
  That is the strategy.

Though these changes are never going to be popular with the political classes, they are popular with the grassroots, as demonstrated by the people's Tea Party movement. It is impossible to force any centralized agenda upon the Tea Parties, but if conservatives can articulate the concerns of the movement they can use the momentum to reform the Republican Party as a winning conservative party rather than a bunch of feckless go-along-to-get-along Democrats lite doomed to always sabotage real conservatives and lose every contest to real Democrats (also see RMSP, RLC, Benedict Arlen Specter, the Gang of 12, and DeMint's "Big Party" op ed).

Trackposted to Nuke's, The Pink Flamingo, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: US Constitution, Politics, Conservatism, Federalism

Read more...