“Constitutional Rights”? Not Really

I frequently hear people talk about how many “constitutional rights” we have lost under (fill in whichever President’s name). This brings up a very interesting misunderstanding about the origin of our rights… For one thing, our rights don’t come from the Constitution; the Constitution merely recognizes that our rights preexist it.

For instance, in the 2nd Amendment it goes like this:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ..not “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” – this is a very important difference in syntax! This is true throughout the document, and the document even recognizes in the 9th Amendment that we have all the rights not specifically mentioned.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

If the Constitution gave rights, then the syntax of the 9th would say something like “that the people shall enjoy” or “that the people shall have” instead of retained by the people.”

The meaning of the subtle difference here is profound, and has vast implications!

Details

The Non-Coercion Principle

The world is run by rules that determine how we interact with other people. A baseball team has rules on how it interacts with its players, a husband and wife have rules on how they interact with each other, and freedom has its own rule.

The non-coercion principle is the one rule of freedom because it is, as its name implies, when a person does not force or coerce in any way how another person acts. This allows each person to exist in a state of freedom since they are free to engage in any behavior they want without any other person having any say otherwise. This principle does not limit a person’s own choice over themselves but completely inhibits their choice over what other people do. The only right that is denied by this principle is the right to dictate what other people should do.

Details

What category do you fall into?

I think the problem is that most of the people in the tea party movement are not true believers in liberty. They are neo-con statist Republicans.

They are also ignorant of the meanings of the words and quotes they use.Remember, I say all this as a founding member of the Orlando Tea Party and someone who has spent the past year and a half of his life fighting in this movement.

This is how I see it: there are two different kinds of tea partiers. There are the younger, more libertarian, Ron Paul tea partiers. We were having tea parties in December 2007.

This is something that Tom Tillison argued with me about. He didn’t believe that Ron Paul supporters were having tea party rallies more than one year before the rest of the country. We were doing it before Obama was elected-during the Bush years. If you don’t believe me, use Google and find the articles for yourself.

Details

Tenther Homework

Professor Krey has an assignment for you tenthers out there. Please check out this video from the Federalist Society regarding “trying suspected terrorists in federal court” and summarize their arguments for me. The Federalist Society, much like the rest of the Beltway Right, is far too cozy with unconstitutional, warmongering neocons for me to ever…

Details