Constitutional Rights?

[m082844]

There are those who believe that rights of men are derived from the Constitution. Are they?

There is a certain code that life forms follow in a state of nature to further their life. What is man’s code? Let’s start with his volition. Whether God or reality granted man free-will, it doesn’t matter; man will think freely on his own effort and no one can stop him except by killing him; and no one can think for him. Actions are derived from thought; therefore, no one can act for him since no one can think for him. Others can only make it pleasant/unpleasant for him to act or not to act — they could also take away his ability to act by killing him. Man needs to take certain actions to sustain and further his life; no one can eat or drink for him and no one can make him happy. Man will live or die by his own actions and he has a natural interest in living that no one else possesses for him; therefore, he is solely responsible for sustaining his life if he is interested in living. Others may be able to take his life away, but none can live for him. How does this relate to rights?

Natural rights, which are derived from nature and reality, come from the premise that life is good — more specifically the thought that "my life is good". This view that "my life is good" allows us to set our first value — right to life. Certain conditions must exist for man’s ability to thrive and further his life; among these are his free reign to seek, acquire and maintain that which he values — i.e., food, water, shelter, and more complex values. Therefore, if life is a right, then by extension, so is liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and other such concepts which further his life. You'd see man practice those rights if he were isolated in nature; thus, the term “natural rights”.

Man leaves a state of nature to seek the benefits that society offers — free-market, free association, family, protection, etc. — which do not exist in isolation. A question remains however: is it possible to leave the state of nature and join society without conflicts of interest between men, i.e., can men live together within society without the violation of their natural rights? The answer is undeniably yes, but the scope of this paper will not cover how. If this is acomplished, then that fact creates a clear advantage for individuals who join such a society over those who remain isolated in nature.

Man’s requirements do not change once he leaves a state of nature. Man still requires his natural right to be unobstructed in order to thrive because the conditions necessary for his life remains the same — he still exists qua man. Therefore, society must integrate the natural rights of men without conflict and without contradiction if man is to thrive in society. By protecting these natural rights for each individual, the code that society sets for man is the code of life — i.e., man's ability to live freely for himself.

A common misconception about rights is the notion that they cannot be violated — they most certainly can. Rights only give us a basis for justice. It’s how we distinguish right from wrong. I hear the left claim they have a "right to a job", which is an appeal to justice. They think it unjust that they are without work; however, in order to come to that conclusion, they would have to first ignore reality to make way for their desired "reality". It is apparent that their whims and desires, not nature or reality, which crafted the so-called “right” so that they can justify making demands on others. “Right to a job” can only exists through government decree, and therefore, only through the violation of another’s natural right, who is now forced to supply said job. They know that “rights to a job” do not come from nature and they know that someone else must provide a job in order to satisfy their alleged “right”, but they don’t know and they don’t think we know that that fact matters — it without a doubt matters as a matter of life or death.

If by preserving natural rights the code that society sets for man is the code of life, what is their code which they wish to set — those who clamor "right to a job", "right to welfare", "right to a home", "right to healthcare", or "right to forfeit your property and liberty to satisfy their ‘needs’ or whims"? I'll give you a hint — it is not life.

There is also this misconception that any right can be granted or taken away by the government. That is true of course for those rights issued by government decree; but that is not true, however, for natural rights — those can never be taken away as long as they remain necessary for man to thrive. Natural rights can only be given up or surrendered by individuals themselves and only if one surrenders their right to life, at which point the only thing man can hope to achieve for himself is suffering at best, and at worst... death. If you are suffering or are depressed or are miserable and think this world is not for you, ask yourself "Have I accepted my natural right to life?"

Indeed our natural rights do not come from a piece of paper, but from reality herself — that much at least is self-evident. In fact the only proper use of phrase “Constitutional rights” is to apply it to those limited rights we granted the federal government; just enough rights to enable it to protect our other natural rights from trespass of others, of other countries, and of the government itself.

[dream_weaver]

Don't forget: Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

Just because certain rights are mentioned, a proper identification of other rights should be admissible by this seldom used clause. Properly invoked, it should embrace any and all rights from the trespass of others.

[m082844]

No, one mustn’t forget; I considered including it to demonstrate that our founding fathers thought that rights exist outside the constitution but the length was getting pretty long.