To protect and to serve... rare, medium or well done?

To protect and to serve... rare, medium or well done?
If you grew up watching "Dragnet" & "Adam-12", or even today's "Southland", the motto you probably associate with the police department, is "To protect and to serve" That's not every police dept's motto, but it turns up, in one form or another, in the motto's of most law enforcement agencies, and many other govt agencies, across the land. But what does it mean? Or more to the point, what doesn't it mean?

The reason I ask is because officials of the law, both law makers and law enforcers, from across the country, are interpreting how "to protect and to serve" their communities in some strikingly different ways.

Sheriff John Cottle. of Lincoln County MO, believes that protecting and serving the people of his jurisdiction, means that his motto and his oath require that he uphold the constitution and the rights secured under its amendments, without excluding the 2nd amendment, no matter who might wish to infringe upon them - and he is by no means alone amongst Sheriffs in his views. As he explained,

"...As your Sheriff, I want you to know that it is my sworn duty, responsibility and privilege to protect your individual rights and liberties afforded and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Neither my deputies, nor I will stand by and allow federal encroachment upon rights and liberties, which are afforded and guaranteed to every citizen by our constitutions...."

For some reason, that is seen as controversial. Can anyone tell me why?

The Police Chief of Emeryville CA, Ken James, who is also the chairman of the Police Chief Association’s Firearms Committee, is by no means alone amongst police chiefs in seeing a very different role for themselves, and for rights and firearms themselves, in protecting and serving their community:

"One issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon,” he said. “That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.” “A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power,” James added. “Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.”

For some reason, that is seen as mostly uncontroversial, drawing nary a mention in the popular press. Can anyone tell me why?

I ask because this chief believes that his officer's job requires them to carry a gun, not for defense, but as an offensive weapon of power and intimidation, and so it seems sensible to ask just what it is that he sees the police are to be protecting, and what it is that they see themselves as serving.

Does protecting and serving the people justify saving the people from themselves? In whose judgment will such measures be determined as being reasonable? It's worth asking that question in light of the proposals which Chief James has endorsed as being 'reasonable':

• Requiring all handgun owners to obtain an annual safety certificate akin to that required for obtaining a concealed weapons permit, which requires holders to take hours-long courses in gun use and safety.
• Barring the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally.
• Requiring gun owners to purchase insurance to cover the cost of any damage that could result from use of a firearm.
• A 5-cent tax on each bullet purchased, with the money to be spent on either policing in high-crime areas or mental-illness screening and treatment for children.
• Requirements for ammunition sellers to be registered and sales reported to state officials.

Is it reasonable to trust those with the weapons of power and intimidation, with the power to say what is reasonable for you to have and do - or not? What will determine which measures are reasonable? Whatever those in government say is reasonable?

Who chooses what to protect and what to serve?
Who has the right to make these choices about who can defend themselves, and with what? Who has the right to say yes, and who has the right to say no? It seems pretty clear, that Chief James and those of like mind, believe that they - the ones with the guns - have the right to make those decisions for you.

Sheriff Cottle, the controversial one, believes that the United States Constitution preserves your right to make that choice for yourself.

Hater.

How do such different points of view arise within the same profession of upholding the law? Without taking my usual ten or twenty page digression on what lays behind our ideas of law and justice, lets take a look ahead at what those, such as the Emeryville's Police Dept. website says, is their purpose for enforcing it:

"The vision of the Emeryville Police Department is to be an organization of professionals respected by our law enforcement peers and fully responsive to the public safety needs of our community. We are dedicated to making the City of Emeryville a safe environment in which to live and work."

So in Chief James own words, those who carry firearms in order to intimidate and show power (his words, not mine),  seeks the respect of their fellow wielders of power and intimidation (his belief, not mine), in order to keep the environment safe to live and work in... what couldn't go wrong? If you are depending upon their being calm and rational, while they see the purpose of their job differently than you do, you'd better be thinking about what they might try to rationalize, and why. Chief James, speaking of the above proposals,

"...called the proposals "reasonable" and said they would benefit police officers.

When officers encounter guns, he said, "that is a high-stress, high-intensity situation for us. It takes it out of us. It scares us."

The safety of the police officer should be a high priority, but it is not the purpose of their job.

No one doubts that being a police officer is a dangerous job, but it is the nature of the job, and if you wish to change the purpose of the job to make it safer to perform it... maybe it's time for a new job.

The safety of the public should be a high priority for the police as well, but is their safety the only thing, or even the highest thing, they are employed to protect and to serve?

Isn't the the liberty of the law abiding members of society the fundamental reason for the laws which our public servants are sworn to uphold and protect? Isn't it perilous to the actual liberty of all, to sacrifice its safeguards for new laws which lawbreakers, by their nature, will disregard? How can you serve liberty or safety by injuring liberty, and restricting the ability of its law abiding members to keep themselves safe?

If any of the individual rights which the 2nd amendment defends, are seen as being obstacles to operating efficiently and safely, what else will be seen as such? What limits are there to the quest for efficiency and safety, if efficiency and safety are made our highest priorities and goals? And when you've done away with the source of limits upon the powers of those in power, what will protect you from what they see as being  more 'reasonable' measures for keeping themselves safe from you?

Does it need to be mentioned that a prison is also intended to be a safe environment to work and to live in?

I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm only trying to point out that if safety is the sole purpose of the laws, what is there that you can count on to keep your environment different from a prison? If safety is the only criterion... why would you stop short of complete safety? What would limit you from furnishing each person with a nice, safe cell, job, diet and other safe essentials, along with wardens & guards to ensure every one's safety?

Liberty requires limitations
It does not seem unreasonable to say that there is, at the very least, a possibility that those who seek to be the sole possessors of all "offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power", already see their purpose, and yours, in these terms. If you disagree with me that that should be a concern... why? What limitations can you point to there being on what govt can do to keep you safe, once you've converted any of our constitutions first amendments from having the force of law, into being mere nice to haves?

Unless you have clear limits against the well intentioned use of power, what makes you think that the use of power won't naturally transform into an abuse of power? If you recognize no limitations upon power... by what standard would you distinguish the use of power, from an abuse of power?

For instance, these Missouri lawmakers are busily calling for laws such as these:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or 

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. 

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

If state or federal laws or executive orders such as these are passed, making guns illegal and gun owners into felons, is it likely that Chief James', or those like him, would let their respect for the 2nd Amendment keep them from collecting them from you?

I'm thinking... nope.

Would there be anything to restrain them from infringing upon any of your other rights? For your own good? If some lawmaker felt that your speaking out against them made for a hostile environment, even an unsafe one, can you point to anything that would limit their response and preserve your right to speak out against them? Without a clear respect for those limits the Bill of Rights lays upon the govt, telling it 'This far and no farther', is there anything that police chiefs like James, or lawmakers like those in Missouri, who don't accept the Constitution as a limitation upon their power, is there anything left to limit them from using their power to limit any or all of your individual rights and actions... for your own good?

Nope, I'm not seeing it. You?

They would no doubt answer that they only proposed 'reasonable laws', but to be reasonable, requires recognizing limits. Reason requires a respect for reality, it requires a respect for the truth, and reasonably exercising power in your relations with other men requires that you respect the nature of being human, respecting that there are certain inalienable rights which laws are instituted to uphold and protect. If the laws you seek the power to uphold, do not recognize the lines they must not cross in the exercising of that power, then they cease to be Law, and become instead simply rules arbitrarily decreed by those in power.

And those in power will require weapons of power and intimidation to enforce them. For your own good... no doubt.

Without recognizing that there are limitations upon what can be considered reasonable, the plans which will follow from them cannot possibly be reasonable.

The small distinction that makes all the difference
Chief James describes his police dept's motto:

"It is through the dedication and caring by our people to the community we serve that has led us to adopt the motto "Our Strength is Our People." We are proud that in a core urban environment we are working with our community to make Emeryville a safe place to live, work, and play. Ken James Chief of Police"

To protect and to serve... medium rare, or well done if necessary... in order to keep you safe. And secure. As they see it.

The Lincoln County Sheriff's page also expresses a concern with preserving the peace and making their environment a less fearful and safe one in which to work... but with one small distinction. It says:

"Our mission is clear. We will strive to enhance the quality of life in Lincoln County through partnerships with the community and in acordance with constitutional rights to enforce laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment."

And in that seemingly small distinction "...in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce laws..." there lies the difference which I hope we do not live to see become more clear through its absence.

Without there being limitations upon the actions of those in power... there will be nothing to limit the will of law makers, and those who enforce their laws, from keeping you and me just as safe as they would like us to be.

If you disagree... maybe we can meet in New York sometime, over a couple of Big Gulps.

Cross posted at The Bell News

Rights from the source... so to speak

So where we left off yesterday was with saying that one thing we can say unequivocally about our Rights at this point, is that we are not Given them by legislators, philosophers or prophets, they come from a much more unimpeachable source than that.

They come to us, through us. Let me back up, to back that up, by first ticking off two big huge camps of my fellow Americans, those who are religious, and those who claim to be scientific (with the implied assumption that the religious cannot be scientific. Quick! Someone get Doc Brown to jump in his time travelling DeLorean & get that memo back to Isaac Newton, I'm sure he'll find the charge fascinating), with an analogy which, hopefully after giving it a whirl, will help smooth a path for each to set aside their beliefs and agree upon what neither of their beliefs will see as being a compromise.

Rosy Fingered Dawn
One of the first casualties of modernity was authorship. Homer, despite what those who were much closer in time to him and to the still living traditions that were handed down to them of his being a single individual poet, modernists claimed 'Homer' to be a convenient name given to many authors, and his works are claimed to be nothing more than the contributions of many that've been stitched together under that name. There's been much analysis demonstrating one assertion after another about the author, and even more about what he (they) really meant, what Achilles really was like, etc.

One thing that is easy to say, is that those claiming this don't really know, they simply find it plausible, more plausible than one individual being talented enough to write the Homerian epics (Quick! Get Doc Brown again, this time get this memo back to Shakespeare!). But the issues of authorship is of less consequence than what else you begin seeing, that amidst all the assertions about who wrote what, all of that criticism soon begins to become criticism of criticism, and the actual text, which does exist and which sparked it all, soon becomes lost beneath the jabber about it. To the point that people of Periclean Athens, would not recognize in the least the epics or those populating them, such as the pouting, man-child in a infantile temper tantrum, which today goes by the name 'Achilles' (BTW, this book "The War that killed Achilles" does an excellent job of restoring a reasoned perspective to Achilles and to Homer, and why our ancestors found the story to be so valuable).

But whether the author is Homer, or a composite of many authors, the only thing that can be said with any certainty, is that they've all nearly lost sight of the original works of the Iliad and the Odyssey and why anybody ever bothered with reading them in the first place.

But one thing that remains available to us today, and very nearly as it did nearly three thousand years ago to those in ancient Athens, are the epics themselves, The Iliad & The Odyssey.

What's my point?
My point is that if you want to understand and get value from those masterpieces, fuhgeddaboud these unsettled, and unsettle-able distractions over who authored what, and instead, concentrate upon the valuable actual works that are available to you here and now, as they were to our fore-fore-fore-fathers, then you might actually learn something.

The same point applies in regard to our Rights. Fuhgedaboud what neither of you will ever agree upon, whether the author is God, or Evolution or something else, and direct your attention to what all of you can perceive, recognize and assess together, the epic itself, Mankind. Examine the quality of 'the book', and the author will receive all do praise from that, as Jefferson said,

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

. Deal? Swell. So. Onwards.

As I was saying, it is self-evident
Our Rights are not Given to us by legislators, philosophers or prophets, they come to us and to our understanding, from a much more unimpeachable source than that, they come to us, through us.

Not from our minds.

Or at least not from our minds in the same fashion as ditties, poems, stories, lies and notions come from our minds; they are not the products of our wishes, fabrications or innovations but from observations of the nature of man himself; by observing our minds as situated within our bodies and within the world; our Rights are able to be derived from the nature of what makes us human beings, and as such they are equally alike, and equally present, in every person, in every way, and as such, we are made able to hold these truths to be self-evident.

Note: To my 7th grade civics teacher, Mr. McClellan, who mocked

'Self evident? Do YOU understand what they mean by that? No? Then they can't be self evident, can they?!'

, Self-Evident does not mean something that is brain-dead obvious or something as perceptually apparent as a cold sore. What it means, is that for those who consider and come to some understanding of a matter, certain issues become self-evident, they stand out as the rest of the information becomes better understood. Just as to the first time casual observer, the actions of people standing upon or running around bases or dashing about the field in the game of baseball, seem chaotic, but to the person who understands the game, it is self-evident who and what the Short Stop is, and why, it is self-evident who the pitcher is, and why, it is self-evident who the Umpire is, and why.

For something to be self-evident to someone, requires that they have some knowledge and understanding of the matters involved, and once understood, certain matters will become self-evidently true.

If, on the other hand, you don't understand even the basics, nothing will be self-evident, nothing but your, and the civics teachers, ignorance. To people raised under the rule of law, living in liberty, and understanding the philosophical underpinnings of that liberty they had become accustomed to, certain truths most certainly do become self-evident. Because those who haven't bothered to grasp those necessary fundamentals, fail to see that, is not an indictment of those self-evident truths, but only an indictment of themselves.

To those well versed in the Greco-Roman-English and Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our culture, these truths were self-evident, and they were so no matter which source was claimed as the disputed authorship of Man and his nature; whether a person at the time of our founding (and still), were religious, and found them comfortably expressed in scriptures such as the Ten Commandments; or whether they were secular and found them expressed in the ideas of Cicero, Aquinas, Locke and Blackstone (or, more likely, both) - These Rights are indisputably written into our very fabric by the author of Mankind & who wielded the pen - deity or philosopher or scientist - in this sense, matters not in the least; if your concern is with what is true, then the reality of the evidence in this matter is sufficient enough, and readily available to any with a judiciously open and reasoning mind who is concerned with discovering the nature and properties of reality, and in doing so, our Rights do become Self-Evident.

Compressing Time
So what are your Rights? Answer that, and then you will know where they come from, and what role your govt and your legislators play in the matter, but it will require compressing some time (which I've partly uncompressed before here, and here). For those Americans who are religious and accept our Individual Rights as being God Given, no further explanation is necessary - which might be fine for you, but it leaves you no common ground to meet upon with your fellow Americans. For those who are not religious, or who would also like to grasp the argument for Individual Rights from the evidence available to their own eyes and mind, the essentials can be presented briefly (ahem), and in doing that you too will be able to find common ground from which to agree with your more religious counterparts.

The Evidence of your senses - it's a jungle out there
Each of us, if not afflicted with some dread disease or impairment, each of us has awareness, and we each of us have the ability, and necessity, of making choices about what we will do with what we become aware of, which is called Free Will (Locke & others disliked the term because it is misleading, what it describes is the vaculty of volition, not that which carries it out, the Will. Locke said

" ... liberty being as little applicable to the will, as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness-to virtue. Every one would laugh at the absurdity “"

It is a little bit like saying you have 'Free Muscle'", it isn't the Will that is free, but your volitional ability to choose. But we're stuck with the label, a bit like Tidal Waves are stuck to Tsunami's. Deal with it.

That we have the volitional ability to make choices is a plain fact, available to any honest and inquiring mind, and with as first hand information as it is possible to get, seeing as how you are both the experimenter and the experiment, and the results are indisputable - those who do dispute it invariably fudge it with "It's as if you made a choice", which besides being a con, is a distinction without a difference. If you'd like to choose to assert your disagreement... well... if the absurdities in just those nine words aren't enough to make you feel ashamed of yourself... then feel free to go and dispute it with the likes of Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, here, allow me to give you the excuse you're looking for so you can claim that my words determined your actions, against your non-existent choice: "You're deluded or an idiot, and a dishonest one at that. Be gone."

Those of you who are still here reading, are doing so because you chose to. Those who left, chose to leave. Case closed.

There is no rationalistic fanaticizing here, and no room for it, no airy faerie conjectures are involved, nothing which some overly uneducated twit has room to say 'well, that may be true for you, but it is not for me.', no this is something which is true of every human being on the face of the earth, whether they are born and raised in New York City or in the stone age jungles of New Guinea, all men have awareness and the ability to make choices about their actions; Human Beings have Free Will. Period.

Each person is aware of their surroundings, and each must make decisions about how to respond to them, and knowledge (a contextual relation of facts which allow common generalizations to be made and from which meaning and principles can be derived, and further integrated into a wider context of knowledge) improves the quality of your decisions.

For the jungle dweller, in their awareness of being faced with a tiger, they must choose whether to run, or maybe to try and defend yourself with one of those branches you see laying near you on the ground. For the Urban dweller, if an elevator opens wide before you, should you step inside, or not? is it going Up, or Down? Will it take you nearer to or farther from your job interview? In either case you must make a choice about what to do in regards to the nature of the reality you are facing. There is no intermediary, no noumenal world, no collective consciousness to pierce, no impenetrable paradigms restraining you, and there is no escape from the necessity of choosing, there are no environmental causes that will determine a decision for you - you very well may see only one choice available but you must still make it.

There is no possible way to live as a human being, without making choices based upon your awareness and knowledge of your surroundings, both in space and in time (and congratulations, we just shook off a good chunk of the accreted muck of nearly three centuries of 'modern' philosophy).

How carefully you consider your surroundings, and the decisions you make within them, will determine how effective your choices will likely be, which will also depend greatly upon the depth of your knowledge of your surroundings - the more deeply you perceive and understand them, the more likely your decisions will be able to benefit you, and to what extent; and again, it applies just as equally in the jungles of New Guinea or New York.

If in the arboreal jungle, your knowledge of those sticks laying on the ground before you, could be of life and death importance. If you simply look and pick one up at random to use as a club, that perceptual level understanding of your surroundings might benefit you... or it might lead to an ineffective struggle that serves only to whet the appetite of the tiger, an ineffective defense that leaves you dead and the tiger full. On the other hand, if you have some knowledge of the woods that those sticks are made of, and use your imagination to envision what you might do with the brittle, but hard wood, you might, by that process of Reason, select that particular stick, snap the end of it over your knee, and make it sharp enough to form a crude spear and up your chances of survival with the tiger by leaps and bounds.

Similarly with the urban jungle. The fellow that takes the elevator up to an interview, answers the questions well, just might get that job. But the fellow that takes the elevator up to the interview knowing something of the business he's interviewing for, and of the company and person interviewing him, might learn enough through questions of his own, to imagine that taking this particular job is likely to lead to a dead end position that won't benefit him in the long run, and so through that Reasoning, choose to continue searching for a better interview and position.

The seedling of our Rights is derived from that simple truth of our Human Nature, that we have awareness of our surroundings, the ability to transform facts into knowledge and the capability of imaginatively reasoning our way through making decisions that put us in command of our surroundings, and the need to be free to do so. Our Rights are those actions which our existence naturally requires us to be able to make, and without which, we could not live a fully human life. They also entail the responsibility of individuals recognizing that their own Rights depend upon not forcibly treading upon the rights of another in the free exercise of their Rights. In short, Rights are the logical consequence of creatures employing their Free Will in a rational respect for reality, where truth and understanding are your most vital tools of survival.

Property
Something else the two jungle scenarios have in common, is the necessity of Property to the exercise of your Rights. That stick, simply by picking it up, is transformed by your effort and purpose, from detritus of the landscape, into personal property, but not simply by the action of picking it up, as Locke seemed to think, but by picking it up for a purpose, it is the intellectual actions of your mind which enable you to transform mere matter into personal property, and such property is essential to mankind in the exercise of his Right to life and living it.

If you cannot take those actions necessary to your survival, you cannot live. If you cannot retain the materials your actions bring you - your property - you will not live. If you do not extend the same understanding to those you associate with, you will have no one to live with... and a man alone is but a meal for the animal kingdom.

The same principle applies to the urban dweller, and though not as perceptually apparent as a club or a spear, his intellectual property is just as useful and the use and right to it just as necessary, as the weapon is to his cousin in the jungles of New Guinnea. Property, Private Property, is that which we transform through our actions, guided by our mental actions, and through which, if no prior legitimate claim exists, they become ours.

That 'prior legitimate claim' brings us to another key factor in Rights. Prior legitimate claims or disputes about them, are what brings us to the point of being able to lift ourselves above the level of the jungle dweller, and into civilization, but to do so we need a method - other than bashing each other's brains in - for resolving disputes, so that we can live in association with others, and benefit from doing so, and that method is the Law, along with a system of Justice for administering it.

Laying Down the Law
Law begins with an attempt at fairness: 'If you do this, I'll do that, deal?', and slowly extends beyond simple perceptual bargaining, to dealing with situations where two or more parties who find themselves in a dispute, can be agree to have a third party decide the matter for them, even though that third party won't have any way of knowing what happened, and probably won't know either party involved - that's a huge leap. Your newly elevated society, to become elevated, needs a way to examine the situation and judge whether Joe or Bob did something, even when both deny they did (how they determine that, we'll have to leave for another time). And even stickier, you need a system where Joe, Bob and every one else understands that the truth, let alone satisfaction, may not ever be realized, but you will need a system where each person can at least agree that they had as fair a shake as possible, and agree to abide by the results.

The alternative is robbery, assault, feuds, clan warfare and Hobbes's war of all against all. The Law is your escape from the Animal Kingdom, to a Humane society.

You cannot live without making choices, using your mind to enhance and defend your life and provide yourself with the means and material required for living - your Rights, in raw form, are those actions which your life requires you to choose to perform, and what results from them, in order to to live life as is natural as a human being - that is the basis for Natural Rights, or Individual Rights.

You cannot live well, however, without doing so in association with others, and the price of that association, society, is that each person agrees to delegate their use of force against another, or their possessions, to a set of rules, administered by a widely respected few who are trusted to treat all comers fairly - that is the basis for Natural Law, and your Individual Rights find their support and defense, in it. Through Natural Law, your right to take those actions you deem necessary for your life, and which do not infringe upon another's rights, those requirements of Human life, are elevated to become Rights to freedom of speech, liberty of action and association, and a right to the property which results from those actions, and for which those actions are taken in the first place. From an earlier post:

"That delegation, is the true, and only sense, where the community and the individual are mingled into one collective body. It is through Law, and the system of Justice which it serves, where the One in the Many, is actually found.

Good Walls Build Good Neighbors
It is important to also keep in mind that Rights are the societal recognition of barriers between individuals, which must not be crossed without invitation and consent, they are the political equivalents of walls and doors, and breaching them either individually or on the part of society (which would then reclassify itself as a mob - collective action without reason) should be viewed in the same light as physical trespassers and burglars.

More so. The violation of Rights, properly understood, is not just a violation of custom, but of reasoned rationality itself, to the safety and well being of the polity, and opposition to reality and its requirements. Rights are not permissions, having to ask permission to exercise your rights - the requirements of human life - makes you less than human in your attributes, and yielding them makes you a slave.

Where Law unites all of societies individuals into One body, Rights provide the separation which preserves them as Individuals, the Many.""

Your presence in society, as opposed to living secluded in a cave, is your private assent and signature to that societal contract.

"Wha?! I didn't sign anything?!"

, yes, you did, and no it doesn't require your physical signature, anymore than you need to explain to each person you meet

"Hi! I've chosen not to not punch you in the face."

, it is the default, if you are going to live amongst others it is 'self-evident' that you must do so reasonably and peacefully, it doesn't require your acknowledgment, only your implied consent.

And the maintenance of that contract, as the long pitiable history of man has shown, had better be carefully tended to by those entrusted with societies power, the government, and by those members of society who entrust government with their power - or that power will be abused. Individuals have Rights, States have Powers, and through carefully written, clear laws, their balance must be maintained, or Power will seek to serve itself at the people's expense.

The nature of Power is violence. The nature of those possessing Power, is the urge to use it, for 'good reasons'. As the apocryphal saying goes,

'Power, like fire, is a useful servant, but a fearful master."

Recap - Our Rights come to us, through us
We are not given our Rights by legislators, philosophers or prophets, they are written by the author of Man into our very nature as human beings. Man, by nature, has free will, he Must choose in order to live and his reason enables him to, and requires him to do so, and for his choices to be effective, they must be in accordance with what is in reality, true - when that is understood, then certain truths do become self-evident:

"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. "

It would be as offensive to the laws of 'natures God' to pluck the wings from birds, as to forcibly deprive a man of his choice to act, speak, associate, produce and preserve what his very nature requires of him, what "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", to be able to do in order to live a fully human life.

It doesn't get much more God given than that, and not believing in God is no escape from realizing it; it is just as clearly spelled out for the scientist & Darwinist to see in the empirical nature of man, as can be grasped by the philosopher's concepts and principles, or through the words of the Bible.

To choose to breathe water is to choose to die, and though its impact isn't as immediately visible, to choose to live a life that denies or mocks morality, whether it comes from the Ten Commandments or the philosophers Ethics, is to make the very same choice - they aren't true because they were written, they were written because they were true - to turn away from that... even in a secular world, the wages of sin is slavery and death.

What was never theirs to give, the legislators, philosophers and prophets have been doing their very best to take away from us, attempting to transform our Rights into simple entitlements, benefits and privileges, which is exactly what modernism does, and the first casualty of modernity was Free Will , then Private Property, then Knowledge, and then Morality - next on their agenda, are our Rights, and we will find out today, with the Supreme Court decision on ObamaoCare, how successful they've been.

Next post, how Modernity made such a fine mess of things.

You have No 'Constitutional Rights'. None. Nada.

You have No 'Constitutional Rights'. That's right. That's what I said. As an American citizen, you have no 'Constitutional Rights', none, zero, nada.

You do, however, have Rights by virtue of being a rational human being, and some of those Rights have been singled out for protection within the borders of the United States of America by the Constitution with which its government was formed and which it takes its jurisdiction from, and by way of that same Constitution, and some of the amendments to it, which include, but are not limited to, the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, Individuals are able to become citizens of the United States of America, and enjoy having their Individual Rights protected by those laws which derive their power from that same Constitution, of the United States of America.

Why do I bother to say it that way? Because it is important to. Why? Because if you think that you have 'constitutional rights', rights granted to you by the Constitution, then you have NO Rights at all. None, zero, nada.

Why? Because if you think that your Rights were granted to you by the law, then legislators who write the laws, can revoke or gut those rights, by passing still other laws. If the legislator's pen is where you got your Rights from, then you in fact have no 'rights' at all, but only such allowances which your friendly neighborhood legislator is pleased to extend to you. Such things, which may go by the name of 'Rights', are in actuality, nothing of the sort, they are simply privileges.

Nothing more.

Not Rights.

Why say this now, and in this way?

Because in a couple days time the Supreme Court of the United States is going to announce the result of their deliberations upon the constitutionality of ObamaoCare, and I am saying this in this way, because it is being reported that the SCOTUS is deciding whether or not Americans have a Right to Healthcare.

Which is a ridiculous idea.

Of course you have a Right to Healthcare. You absolutely have a Right to receive healthcare, should someone agree to provide it to you, either for free, or for a fee - you have a right to receive quality healthcare, just as those who are able to provide it to you, have a right to do so. What you do not have, and no one else does either, is a right to force others to provide that healthcare to you, against their will, either physically, or financially.

No law can change that, because no law and no constitution ever granted you any of your Rights in the first place. The SCOTUS might very well approve ObamaoCare as a law, but that will neither make a Right, or make the law right.

They have the power to call it a law - just as Justice Taney's SCOTUS had the power to declare Dred Scott to be only 'property' and not a man - there is little doubting their power to do that, but they do not have the Right to. No one does, and declaring it to be so does not make it so, anymore than declaring Dred Scott to be less than a man, made him any less of a man.

No man can grant a Right to another; no lawgiver, no philosopher, no prophet, no majority of men, have a right to take away a Right, or to make a right either. They may acquire the power to impose such a law upon us (should We The People be careless enough to allow it), in the same way that any robber who is bold and brutish enough can impose his will upon you, taking what they desire by force, in violation of your Rights.

But such a demonstration of power will never create a Right, or make it right, even if they pass a law that says so.

Our Laws do not give us our Rights. They protect them. Or violate them.

Nothing more.

The Founding Fathers gave us no Rights
In fact it wasn't even the Framers of the Constitution who singled out those few particular Rights we normally think of as 'our Rights', it was instead We The People who demanded that the legislature draft a Bill of Rights to protect our Rights, as a condition of the Constitution being ratified, and the Government of the United States of America, as we know it, being formed at all.

In framing the constitution, the majority of the Founders felt that they needed only refer to a few Rights, and those only in passing as needed in framing the Constitution - that of Contract, Representation, to live in a Republic, protection of our Intellectual Property Rights (patents) and other particulars of law, thinking that the rest of the Rights of We The People would be secure by virtue of the fact that they gave no explicit power to the government through the constitution, to abridge them, and so, they thought, our individual rights would in effect remain secure by being absent from the powers they gave the Constitution.

We The People, disagreed.

In debating the merits of ratifying the constitution (see the Federalist, and anti-Federalist papers) it became apparent that We The People were not very well assured that enough of our Rights were secured by the constitution as it stood, and as a condition of ratification, a promise was made that the incoming legislature would see to it that a number of our Individual Rights would be specifically recognized and amended to the Constitution, as the law of the land, and some, Patrick Henry for instance, were not very satisfied with even that.

"Does it not insult your judgments to tell you, Adopt first, and then amend! Is your rage for novelty so great, that you are first to sign and seal, and then to retract? Is it possible to conceive a greater solecism? I am at a loss what to say. You agree to bind yourselves hand and foot — for the sake of what? Of being unbound. You go into a dungeon — for what? To get out. Is there no danger, when you go in, that the bolts of federal authority shall shut you in? Human nature never will part from power. Look for an example of a voluntary relinquishment of power, from one end of the globe to another: you will find none. Nine tenths of our fellowmen have been, and are now, depressed by the most intolerable slavery, in the different parts of the world, because the strong hand of power has bolted them in the dungeon of despotism." - Patrick Henry (Speech to the Virginia ratifying assembly 1788)

, and Henry was very nearly right - the legislature delayed and balked at the idea of producing a Bill of Rights. It was James Madison, then a member of the House of Representatives, who insisted that they fulfill their obligation, and wrote the rough draft for the Bill of Rights himself and insisted that they be debated, even though Madison, the father of the Constitution, was leery of a Bill of Rights as well.

Most of the states already had their own bills, and he was concerned that in naming a few critical Rights, it would have the effect of reducing our rights to those few that were specifically noted. There is much in Madison's argument that is worth your consideration, it certainly consumed much of his consideration, for he wasn't worried about 'granting' too many Rights, but with losing more than could be written down,

"..., the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2 because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of Conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests opened a door for Jews Turks & infidels. 3. because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other. 4 because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

IOW, what he understood, was that we have many, many Rights, too many to be noted and defined and protected - and the attempt to do so, no matter how voluminous they might be, would still come up short (for instance, if you say 'you have a right to free speech' a slick lawyer can say 'you were granted the right to speak, but not a right to write'), in ways that might not yet even be realized in his time.

Madison, however, in giving the matter careful consideration, felt that he came upon a way in which he might be able to secure the unlimited nature of our rights, without naming and reducing them to only those few ones named. His brilliant innovaitons were what formed the core of what eventually became the 9th and 10th amendments:

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

Article X - 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.

Does that sound like the Rights and Powers of We The People are something which comes from the Legislator's pen?... or something which the legislator needs to take careful pains not to abbrogate?

It's also worth noting what usually is never taken note of, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, because it makes it clear that our Rights were not privileges granted to us by our govt as if they were simply conveniences cited in order to 'provide for the general welfare', as the 'living(dead) document' proponents would have it, no, the Preamble makes it clear that they were meant as restrictions upon government which were imposed upon it by We The People; the same We The People who created that government, through its constitution. And that is likely the chief reason why this Preamble is rarely, if ever, mentioned in any textbook, school or seat of government - for as Patrick Henry noted above, power seeks to preserve and increase its power, it doesn't like having to admit to any limitations of its power.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights :

"Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,--

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

IOW We The People, in order to prevent our government from abusing its powers and infringing upon our Rights, insisted that some of our essential political rights, essential to thwarting the rise of tyranny, be recognized and defended by law, at the source of our laws - the Constitution.

Our Govt did not grant us our Rights. In fact that first legislature, one of the finest ever, did not want to follow through on its promise of  legislating a Bill of Rights. Govt, power, always feels itself above obligations to those it 'serves', it trusts itself; it is up to us, We The People, to continually remind our Govt that it serves us, not the other way around.

So we have our Rights protected in the foundations of our laws, because We The People demanded that they be recognized by law, but... that doesn't really tell us what is being recognized, does it? The fact that we demanded that our Rights be recognized doesn't tell us the nature of what Rights are, does it, it simply lets you know that you have a bunch of something being protected for you... but a bunch of what? Why? Where from do they come?

One thing we can say unequivocally about our Rights at this point, is that we are not given them by legislators, philosophers or prophets, they come from a much more unimpeachable source than that.

What they are and where they come from, tomorrow.