PDA

View Full Version : Daily Kos believes "Rights" are given by Government



fettpett
03-08-2012, 10:50 AM
Hot Air posted this article after the moron founder of the Daily Kooks tweeted about where Rights come from (Government to him)
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/07/remedial-constitutional-education-for-markos-moulitsas/


Remedial constitutional education for Kos posted at 6:35 pm on March 7, 2012 by Karl


As many of you still shun Twitter, I must share with you the wit and insight of nutroots commissar Markos “Kos” Moultisas on Rick Santorum’s Super Tuesday speech:
http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/KosTweet01.jpg (http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/KosTweet01.jpg)
Following widespread mockery from the right, Kos did what he always does… dig himself a deeper hole:
http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/KosTweet02.jpg (http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/KosTweet02.jpg)
Apparently, Kos was never taught that the Founders of our nation believed in natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights), although this is obvious from the opening of the Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html):

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 to abolish it, and to institute 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.

(Emphases added for easier nutroots comprehension.) Of course, the Declaration is not the Constitution, even though many of the same people were involved in both projects. However, as Kos cites the Preamble to the Constitution, it is worth noting as the Supreme Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=197&invol=11) has, that “[a]lthough that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.” That “We the People” formed a government simply does not mean the people or the government are necessarily the source of rights mentioned in the Constitution.
Kos obviously is unaware of the debate (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment) over whether the Constitution should be amended to include what is now known as the Bill of Rights, let alone the role of natural rights in that debate:

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, articulated this concern in The Federalist No. 84 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm). Why should a Bill of Rights, Hamilton asked, “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press. A provision “against restraining the liberty of the press,” Hamilton said, “afford[s] the clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”
The Federalists were also concerned that any constitutional enumeration of liberties might imply that other rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, would be surrendered to the government. A Bill of Rights, they feared, would quickly become the exclusive means by which the American people could secure their freedom and stave off tyranny. Federalist James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. A “positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude,” Madison said. “If an enumeration be made of all our rights,” he queried, “will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government?”
Madison (http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html) ultimately became an advocate for a Bill of Rights. Kos should read Madison’s arguments, as Madison noted that not all of the rights mentioned in the Constitution are natural rights. For example:

Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.

Madison won the day in part by proposing what became the Ninth Amendment, which provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment in particular was to remind future generations of statists like Kos that our rights predate government. The Bill of Rights was largely intended to secure pre-existing rights against the new government. For example, this is why the First Amendment does not state that it creates a right to freedom of speech, but declares Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of speech. That Kos seems so ignorant of these concepts is ironic in light of the role they played in the Supreme Court’s decision of… Griswold v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479), a case which Kos no doubt supports as much as Rick Santorum does not (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/santorum-court-ruled-wrongly-griswold-v-connecticut-pre-roe-right-privacy-decision).


This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here (http://hotair.com/greenroom/?p=39618).




pretty sad that the left doesn't understand this stuff...but then if they did, they wouldn't be Statist

txradioguy
03-08-2012, 11:39 AM
Just shows how far our education system has fallen that these supposed "smartest people on the planet" don't even know basic easy to find out stuff about the Constitution.

NJCardFan
03-08-2012, 01:07 PM
Soooo, this idiot thinks that the Constitution was written to be a government tool on how to give rights? Scary. Just scary. The reason why this idiot thinks this way because in his puny brain, what rights a government can give it can also take away like the 2nd amendment. But let's play the game. Tell me libtards, how would you feel if the government repealed the 1st amendment. That wouldn't just give them the power to remove all religion a la the Soviet Union and China, this means that free speech goes bye bye as well. So, all of those "peaceful" OWS demonstrations? Aww gawn. You would go to prison for simple saying something mean about the government. And in prison, that pesky 8th amendment? Well, they can repeal that so cruel and unusual punishment would become a way of life. Don't like the idea of cops breaking your door down in the middle of the night whenever they want? well, when the 4th amendment goes away there would be nothing you can do about it. In short, be careful what you wish for. Believe me, if things were as these idiots want them to be, they'd commit suicide.

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 01:13 PM
They're just trying to find a way to avoid saying "God given rights".

Apache
03-08-2012, 01:52 PM
Just shows how far our education system has fallen that these supposed "smartest people on the planet" don't even know basic easy to find out stuff about the Constitution.

in markos' case its a matter of changing history and warping views. we all know what amendment they're targeting with this latest ploy. sad thing is... it seems to be working

JB
03-08-2012, 08:54 PM
Off topic but I was reading that fine document and came across this:

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

I think the gubmint just gave me the right to kick Occupuke ass. :smile-new:

fettpett
03-09-2012, 12:57 AM
They're just trying to find a way to avoid saying "God given rights".

yes, and no. It doesn't matter what faith or non-faith you have, you have these Rights because you are alive. THAT is what the Founders believed. I wish Hamilton had been right, but men are evil :blue:

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 01:06 AM
I wish Hamilton had been right, but men are evil :blue:

Woman are more eviler!http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/aloof-and-bored/aloof-and-bored015.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Novaheart
03-09-2012, 01:09 AM
I generally refer to the Constitution as guaranteeing or enumerating our rights. They can be lost, stolen, or given away so the other attributes of those rights would be wishful thinking or commentary.

txradioguy
03-09-2012, 03:52 AM
I generally refer to the Constitution as guaranteeing or enumerating our rights. They can be lost, stolen, or given away so the other attributes of those rights would be wishful thinking or commentary.

Bullshit.

TVDOC
03-09-2012, 03:48 PM
I generally refer to the Constitution as guaranteeing or enumerating our rights. They can be lost, stolen, or given away so the other attributes of those rights would be wishful thinking or commentary.

Err....The Declaration of Independence specifically states that the source of our rights is universal......."Endowed by our Creator....."

The Constitution neither establishes nor enumerates any of our rights.......it simply sets finite limits on what the government can do regarding them.......their existance and source, by the Constitution is assumed.......

The two documents are inseperable contextually, and although the language is a bit archiac, they are both written to an eighth-grade reading level, perhaps you might want to revisit them......I realize that it is the neoliberal M.O. to parse and seperate the two, finding "nuance", and "hidden intent" where none exists, however, any serious student of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers can readily see the founders thought and purpose..........

You can legitimately argue that the principles stated in these documents are flawed due to the passage of time.......however the founders also anticipated this, including an amendment process......just because that process is intentionally difficult, and your ideology lacks the support (votes) to actually amend the document does not make it invalid......it just means that your views lack the necessary support to accomplish that change.....unfortunately for liberals/progressives, as a "political minority", you get to ride in the back of the bus, not drive it........tough but fair.

Stating that the founding documents intend something that they clearly do not, is not only dishonest, but makes you appear somewhat naive.......

doc

Novaheart
03-09-2012, 04:20 PM
You can legitimately argue that the principles stated in these documents are flawed due to the passage of time......

Except that I wasn't arguing that, and my post is also written in plain English. Our right were not then nor are they now universal or inherently eternal. They are a design, and one which is constantly under assault from both the left and the right.

TVDOC
03-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Except that I wasn't arguing that, and my post is also written in plain English. Our right were not then nor are they now universal or inherently eternal. They are a design, and one which is constantly under assault from both the left and the right.

Before you make another really dumb statement like the one quoted above, I suggest that you re-read them......

doc

Apache
03-09-2012, 05:51 PM
Except that I wasn't arguing that, and my post is also written in plain English. Our right were not then nor are they now universal or inherently eternal.

says the 'man' with morrocan robes at the ready...

NJCardFan
03-10-2012, 12:02 AM
Our right were not then nor are they now universal or inherently eternal.

Uh, yes they are. That's why they're called inalienable rights meaning they are universal. The Constitution was written to set boundaries for the government. But the funny part is that the left always seem to use the Constitution as a matter of convenience and cherry pick what rights are worth protecting. They(correctly) argue for free speech rights and the like when it comes to wackos like the OWS movement, however, they want the same government to silence the Tea Party movement. This is what differs conservatives from liberals. Conservatives have no problem with the opposition having a voice. Liberals, however, want any opposition silenced with the barrel of a gun.

AmPat
03-10-2012, 01:05 PM
: Daily Kos believes "Rights" are given by Government (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?47826-Daily-Kos-believes-quot-Rights-quot-are-given-by-Government/page2)
If that lie is allowed to fester, then future Americans will be less inclined to fight for their Inalienable Rights. If government gives you rights, government can withdraw those rights. Beware what lies you embrace liberals!

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 01:34 PM
If that lie is allowed to fester, then future Americans will be less inclined to fight for their Inalienable Rights. If government gives you rights, government can withdraw those rights. Beware what lies you embrace liberals!Unfortunately, that lie has been festering for quite some time. It's why the Left dreams up "rights" that are actually entitlements. The "right" to housing, the "right" to food, etc. When they say that, they are, of course, trying to claim that these are entitlements, but it sounds so much more forceful and legitimate if they apply the label "right" instead. No one wants their rights trampled, of course, so it's a quick and easy way to rouse the rabble.

Madisonian
03-12-2012, 06:25 PM
Uh, yes they are. That's why they're called inalienable rights meaning they are universal. The Constitution was written to set boundaries for the government. But the funny part is that the left always seem to use the Constitution as a matter of convenience and cherry pick what rights are worth protecting. They(correctly) argue for free speech rights and the like when it comes to wackos like the OWS movement, however, they want the same government to silence the Tea Party movement. This is what differs conservatives from liberals. Conservatives have no problem with the opposition having a voice. Liberals, however, want any opposition silenced with the barrel of a gun.

But the government does set limits or limitations on our rights.
Congress has placed limits on the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to freely exercise one's chosen religion, the right to buy and sell one's property as they see fit and the right to peaceably assemble.
So rights are either inalienable and inherently eternal, or they are not. If the government can impose limits, then they are neither inalienable or eternal, they are granted by the good graces of the government and can just as easily be taken away.

This does not even begin to scratch the surface of the Ninth Amendment which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

fettpett
03-12-2012, 06:29 PM
But the government does set limits or limitations on our rights.
Congress has placed limits on the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to freely exercise one's chosen religion, the right to buy and sell one's property as they see fit and the right to peaceably assemble.
So rights are either inalienable and inherently eternal, or they are not. If the government can impose limits, then they are neither inalienable or eternal, they are granted by the good graces of the government and can just as easily be taken away.

This does not even begin to scratch the surface of the Ninth Amendment which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

just because they do, doesn't mean that they should, or mean that it's the government that they come from.

Elspeth
03-18-2012, 02:09 PM
in markos' case its a matter of changing history and warping views. we all know what amendment they're targeting with this latest ploy. sad thing is... it seems to be working

Who is Markos Moulitsas, anyway?

He apparently served in the Army, and according to Wikipedia called it "the ideal society." He was raised Catholic, though seems to have pulled away from it, and he was very active in the Republican Party but apparently shifted in the 90s. (His family had to flee Community guerrillas in El Salvador when he was a kid.)

But why the big liberal shift? He claims it happened during his time in the military, which is a surprise to me since most of the military people I know have maintained their conservatism. This guy never saw combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas