Our constitutional rights aren’t granted to us by government. Our rights come from God, and the Constitution simply recognizes them.
Illegal immigrants and terrorist suspects don’t have constitutional rights because they’re not American citizens.-The Dialethic Right
And from the comments, by Rad Geek:
It may seem to be a contradiction, but this is really a matter for dialectic.
Thesis: Our constitutional rights aren’t GRANTED to us by government. Our rights come from God, and the Constitution simply recognizes them.
Antithesis: Illegal immigrants and terrorist suspects don’t have constitutional rights because they’re not American citizens.
Synthesis: Only American citizens were created equal, because God only cares about Americans.
You might worry that this is an uncharitable reconstruction of the argument. But I think that the Synthesis does seem to be a pretty accurate representation of common American conservative views.
to quote; we the people of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
ReplyDeleteyour antithesis is correct, the constitution as originally penned does not cover anyone other than U.S. citizens. perhaps you should move to mexico, or go to afghanistan and commit an act of terror, and see what types of rights they are willing to lavish on you.
get back to me if you or any of your friends decide to take that challenge and let me know how much better your life becomes.
Thanks for the comment, J.
ReplyDeleteI just linked to something I found of interest over at Long's blog.
I think you miss the point though. If our rights come from God (as conservatives like to say they do) and not from a written constitution, then they apply to all human beings (everyone was created by God, presumably), not just Americans.
If you were in a foreign nation, they indeed may not respect those "God-given" rights, but that doesn't make those rights any less your rights for their infringement of them.
not trying to argue, be the point is this; our republic was set up because the founders and first settlers of it did not enjoy those freedoms where they came from. hence, in order to form a more perfect union.
ReplyDeleteone can surmise that those things end at the waters edge, and that when you leave home, you begin to play by the rules where ever it is you happen to be. the opening of the constitution is crystal clear, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.
this country was set up to insure the rights were conveyed to it's citizens, and not infringed upon by it's government. the founders were not trying to be imperialists, they were breaking away from imperialism. the declaration of independence, the constitution and its bill of rights cover US, not everyone, everywhere.
"the declaration of independence, the constitution and its bill of rights cover US, not everyone, everywhere."
ReplyDeleteMan, you must have a different copy of the Declaration from me. Mine says:
"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."
Emphasis added.
I certainly don't know how the Declaration would be limited to U.S. citizens, anyway, since there was no such thing as the United States of America when it was written, and no such thing came into existence until about 10 years later.
Not that it matters much. If there were some imaginary Declaration of Independence which only said that all U.S. citizens enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then that imaginary document would be a stupid fraud. Natural rights are not created by documents; they belong to every person as a birthright, simply because they are people. That's something that many conservatives also claim to believe when they talk about rights coming from God, not from government. But if so, then it's manifestly inconsistent with the other views they express about the rights of people who aren't U.S. citizens.
The way I always read it is indeed the framers did believe all their knowledge flowed from God. They moved from that point forward. This is not to be confused with their positions about organized religion which was skeptical. God, on the other hand, they clearly held in reverence.
ReplyDeleteIt was put down in a Constitution to govern citizens. Now. Correct me if I'm wrong, they even believed the Constitution applies to ALL mankind. Not just U.S. citizens as its been pointed out. Now how this fits into the illegal immigration issue I don't know.
Apologies for using "now" twice.
ReplyDeletethanks for half a history lesson chuck. you are aware that the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was a letter to the king of england, from his english citizens, the colonists, right? and that it essentially was outlining their complaints against him and his governance of them, right?
ReplyDeletethey felt like they were being treated unfairly in such areas as land ownership, taxation, freedom to choose their own religion, the repression to speak out against the government-him, the fact that they had no say in how they were governed, they could not make their own courts. they were tired of being treated that way. this information can be found in most elementary school books. hence all men, colonist as well as titled nobility (in england) are created equal.
you are correct that the country did not exist as we know it until 1787. that being said, the idea was acted upon on 4 july 1776. and the founders fought a little something called the revolutionary war so that we could have these things that they wanted, and wanted us to have as well.
hey, you say you have a declaration of independence, right? point out to all of us, the names of the other countries , besides great britian and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that are mentioned in that document.
commentator: again, read the constitution and point out where it mentions any nation, by name, other than the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
kids, you can pick up your own copy of the declaration and constitution at borders for like, $3, and i suggest you do.
when and if you do, you will see that those two documents cover only AMERICAN citizens and the land known as the UNITED STATES.
these things are ours by birthright, because good men and women have gone to their deaths or been horribly maimed, protecting a government they felt was insuring our continued access to those freedoms.
j summ,
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with the argument and the historical context of the Declaration.
What I'm not familiar with is what part of the document would justify this parenthetical:
"hence all men, colonist as well as titled nobility (in england) are created equal."
I have no idea where you got the "(in england)" from. Certainly, it's not in the text. As far as I can tell, you made it up; what the text says is that all men are created equal and endowed by God with unalienable rights, which particular governments (the text does use the plural here, so it is clear that Jefferson et al. are talking about more than just their own government), at best, only exist to recognize and secure.
"hey, you say you have a declaration of independence, right? point out to all of us, the names of the other countries ,"
I have no idea what your point is here. The entire point of the "endowed by their Creator" business is that rights belong to people because of their nature and their relationship with God, not because of their relationship to a "country." The long list of complaints are not intended as a defense of the rights that are listed in the opening paragraphs; rather, the position that human beings have those rights is held to be "self-evident," that is, not needing any defense. What that long list of complaints is, is an attempt to apply the universal principle that human beings have rights, and that governments only have legitimate authority when they defend those rights, to the particular circumstances of the relationship between the British Crown and the American colonies. While the application of the principle is certainly local, I can find absolutely nothing in the text which would give any reason to believe that the general principles themselves are supposed to be limited. On the contrary, what the text says is that those principles are universal and self-evident.
"besides great britian and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
Actually, the Declaration names fourteen "countries," if by "countries" you mean independent states -- Great Britain, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. "The united states of America" was not the name of a "country," or of a government, in 1776. The word "united" is a description of the relationships that the states claimed to have as newly "free and independent states." The notion that there was some general government called "the United States of America" was completely foreign to the signers of the Declaration. No such government existed until the adoption of the Constitution, about a decade later.
"that being said, the idea was acted upon on 4 july 1776. and the founders fought a little something called the revolutionary war so that we could have these things"
ReplyDeleteDon't be absurd. The Revolutionary War was fought to get the several states out from under the British Crown. It was not fought to create the U.S. Constitution. That was not conceived of until years later, after both the provisional governments of the war and another, different arrangement (state sovereignty with a loose confederacy under the Articles of Confederation). Many of the people involved in the Revolutionary War (e.g. Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason) were actively opposed to the U.S. Constitution when it was proposed, and would have been disgusted to be told that that was what they were fighting for during the war years.
"when and if you do, you will see that those two documents cover only AMERICAN citizens"
You're asserting, but what's the argument? How do you figure the Declaration could cover "AMERICAN citizens" in 1776 when there were no American citizens? If you read actual legal writing from the time, what it says is that people were citizens of their states (Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, etc.), not citizens of "America" (which, again, didn't yet exist except as a purely geographical entity). Anyway, the Declaration doesn't talk about "all citizens," whether of the several states or of the United States or of anywhere else. It talks about "all men."
"these things are ours by birthright, because good men and women have gone to their deaths"
If that's what you want to believe man, then go for it, but that's not what the Declaration of Independence says about rights. The Declaration says that all men are "endowed" with rights by God. Not that their rights are won for them by soldiers.
Of course, if you want to believe something different, you should feel free to. The Declaration of Independence is a legal argument, not holy scripture. Maybe it is wrong. But you should stop trying to pretend like your view is the same as the view of the Declaration of Independence. If you want a document that says "all citizens are created equal," then you'll have to write it for yourself.
chuck, when i read your first comment i immediately thought, philosophy major. turns out i'm right. because i do not have the time to kick theories around endlessly, this will be the last time i respond to you on this topic.
ReplyDeletei noticed that a trait you exhibit is to take another persons idea, divide it, and then attack it.
that is reference to your take on my comment on 'these things are ours by birthright, because good men and women have gone to their deaths, OR BEEN HORRIBLY MAIMED, PROTECTING A GOVERNMENT THEY FELT WAS INSURING OUR CONTINUED ACCESS TO THOSE FREEDOMS.'
everything i capitalized, you left out,in order to make your argument or point.
for a guy that loudly proclaims on his site his education at auburn, this seems sort of sophomoric. it also reeks of sophistry. but that's okay, as your degree is in philosophy.
you did this throughout your rather lengthy rebuttal.
a few questions remain, however. you talk about GOD a lot, but i sense what i think is distaste, on your part, for GOD. so 1. where do you stand? 2.were you ever able to find any other nations/countries mentioned in the declaration/constitution besides great britain and the U.S.? you claim to be an anarchist and your apparent desire for equal rights for all, everywhere. 3.what exactly have you personally done to help others achieve these things, other than sit and write/talk at panels? 4.how well attended are these symposiums you speak at? 5.now what is the percentage of attendees, in your estimation, that you are personally responsible for putting to sleep?
lastly, i would like to say that if YOU want want a declaration/constitution that bestows our freedoms and liberties on all people everywhere that YOU will have to write that one YOURSELF. and probably fight for it to be implemented, and if successful, keep it in place.
better climb out from behind the keyboard and get cracking chuck.
Wow. I'm late to this. It's hard to keep track of all comments.
ReplyDeleteJ Summ. If you read this. Where did I argue the word "God" is in the Constitution? I was talking about how the framers did believe the powers vested in the constitution was divine and that it flowed from God. You just have to read their biographies; they pretty clear on that. Unless, I completely misunderstood it.
No, they didn't mention it in the Constitution but it doesn't mean they didn't believe in God. That's all I'm saying.