I've found that even the most staunch advocates of "conservatism" and "small government" often speak of things such as the First Amendment as if the Constitution itself, and on behalf of the government, grants us rights. This is in direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence, and, to the best of my knowledge, the intent of the authors. I have both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers in my reading queue, but consider the Declaration itself:
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...The Constitution is intended to set forth laws for how the government operates. The Bill of Rights is not there to reflect the government's goodwill to its citizens. It is there to reinforce the limits which are imposed on government. We the people naturally have a right to free speech. The government does not give us this right. The Constitution does not give us this right. We have it. The Constitution and its amendments are intended to reinforce our natural rights and ensure that the government cannot take them away.
I would contend that there is no such thing as a Constitutional right. We give the government its power and its our responsibility to ensure that they do not abuse it. I think that we've failed. I think that, over time, the perspective has changed in that most people no longer hold the view that the government receives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," and that the government in its glorious generosity grants us our rights, such as free speech, provided that we don't abuse such rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment