The Constitution doesn’t grant us rights. It’s the other way
around. We, the People, grant certain limited, enumerated powers to the federal
government.
There’s a reason we need to limit government power. Mainly,
it’s because governments have a long and storied history of tyranny. In other
words, governments can’t be trusted to limit their power.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, were added before the Constitution itself was ratified. The original
Constitution didn’t include them, not because there was any question about the importance
of those rights. It didn’t include them because they were self-evident; they
were so widely understood to exist that they went without saying.
Then the representatives of several of the states spoke up.
What if there came a time when these things weren’t still understood? Maybe
some of them needed to be spelled out, just as an additional guarantee. This
included Virginia’s George Mason, who had proposed major portions of the
Constitution, but was suddenly saying he wouldn’t vote for the Constitution
unless it contained these guarantees.
What is a right? In the context of the Bill of Rights, we’re
talking about natural rights. That means the rights you’re born with. You’re
granted these by God, because you are a human being.
There are five listed in the First Amendment. Most of these
have to do with freedom to think, or express ideas:
·
Right of Freedom of Religion
·
Right of Free Speech
·
Right of Freedom of the Press
·
Right to Peaceably Assemble
·
Right to Petition the Government for redress of
grievances
So, you can believe what you want, and live your religion,
even in public. You can say what you believe. You can publish what you believe.
You can gather together with other like-minded people. And, if there’s any
disagreement about government infringing on your rights, you can sue to hold
the government accountable.
We’ve had plenty of contrasting evidence, much of it in the
past century, showing what harm comes to the people when government tyranny
steps on these rights.
The Second Amendment concerns the right to protect yourself.
The main proper role of government is to protect us—our lives, liberty, and
property. We hire government to take on this role so that we don’t have to
spend all our time and energy protecting ourselves. But that doesn’t mean we
give up our right to protect ourselves as well.
It’s like any other service. If you hire someone to clean
your house, that relieves you of much of the need to do it yourself, but you
don’t give up the right and ability to do some additional cleaning yourself
whenever you feel like it. If your kid spills cereal all over the floor, you’re
not required to leave it there until the cleaning service arrives.
If you’re receiving particular threats, you might hire your
own extra security team, in addition to the local, state, and federal police
forces. They’re busy spreading their protective force across the whole
population, so you might not feel confident they’ll be on hand when you’re
vulnerable. You retain the right to protect yourself. If someone tries to
attack you, physically or with a weapon, you have a right to protect yourself—even
physically or with a weapon.
There’s an extra, historical meaning attached to the Second
Amendment. It has to do with defense against
government. The founders knew, because they’d had to break free from tyranny,
that they needed weapons to prevent that tyranny from coercing them into
submission. The Constitution prevents government from getting out of hand—but only
if government is held to obedience. Government could come and threaten your
life, liberty, or property as easily as any thug. Maybe easier, since a thug
may have to face prosecution. Who do you appeal to if government is the
perpetrator?
Anyway, foreseeing the possibility, because they’d lived
through it before, the founders guaranteed the right to self-protection from
both outlaws and government.
We could go through the rest of the amendments as well. But
let’s summarize by pointing out that the Ninth Amendment says that, just
because it isn’t enumerated here doesn’t mean the people don’t have other
rights. And the Tenth Amendment says those powers not delegated to the federal
government are still held by the states and the people.
It’s troubling when people, in ignorance, start saying
things like, “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” as former
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said a couple of weeks ago. Is a former
justice ignorant? Apparently. Did he fail to read the
Ninth Amendment? Because we would still have the right to self-defense whether
it is written in the Constitution or not.
Pretending that “common sense gun laws” that restrict
law-abiding citizens doesn’t interfere with the right of self-defense is
disingenuous. It’s not a matter of weapon availability. People have said,
partly in jest, that if they took all our guns (if they even could), murderers
would still get them. And if, in an invented world, criminals couldn’t get
guns, they would use knives. What are you going to do, outlaw knives?
And then, following a series of knife attacks in London, Mayor Sadiq Khan outlaws knives. He tweeted, “There is never a reason to carry a
knife.”
I can think of reasons. Like, if I’m going to a friend’s
house to help cook. (I have better cooking knives than most of my friends.) I
carry a knife with me when I travel, because I have to take care of most of my
own food because of allergies. If I were going to do a project at a charity
that required opening boxes, I’d consider bringing my own box cutter. If I were
going fishing, I’d carry a knife for gutting the fish. If I went shopping and
found an excellent cooking knife, I’d need to carry that home. So, those are
all logical and common reasons to carry a knife. But, being who I am, no one
around me would be less safe because of my carrying a knife.
Oh, one more reason: if you’re living in a city where they’re
having a spate of knife attacks, and you weren’t allowed to carry a gun, you’d
want a knife for self-defense.
Remember that moment from the movie Crocodile Dundee, when
he’s in New York and some thug mugs them at knife point? And Dundee says, “You
call that a knife?” And then he pulls out his own, bigger near-machete, and the
thug runs off. No one is injured. No one is robbed. That’s what non-criminals
can do with a weapon. It’s not the weapon that is the problem; it’s the person
wielding it. And if it’s a bad guy, you need a way to defend yourself.
Back to that First Amendment. We’ve been listening to Senate
hearings with Mark Zuckerberg, about Facebook’s use of private information, and
about its policies to prevent conservative messages from getting through.
In his questioning of Zuckerberg, Senator Ted Cruz asked him about purposeful and routine
suppression of conservative ideas from trending stories. And he listed CPAC,
Mitt Romney, Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal, Glenn Beck, Chick-Fil-A Customer
Appreciation Day page, a Fox News reporter’s page, more than two dozen Catholic
pages, and Diamond and Silk’s page (two sisters, black, who support Pres.
Trump). Diamond and Silk were told their content—which is clean and
pro-American—is dangerous to the community.
Cruz went on to ask if he was aware of any suppression of
stories for Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, or any Democratic candidate’s page.
Zuckerberg claimed to be unaware of any of these. He claimed
his personal goal was to have a free place for all these ideas—with exceptions
we can all agree on such as terrorism, self-harm, or human trafficking. I want
to believe him. But, if his company is doing this censoring, he’s responsible
whether he’s personally aware of it or not.
In Cruz’s list was the IRS targeting. I got an update email
this week from Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, which trained me in poll
watching here in Houston. She brought us up to date on recent results. Besides the nonprofit being held up
illegally by the IRS—even though it was what ought to be considered politically
neutral, in favor of free and fair elections—her personal business was targeted
by the FBI and multiple other agencies, preventing her and her family from
making a living. This week things were supposed to have been settled finally.
But the result has been essentially nothing. No one is held accountable. And
anyone in those organizations just got carte blanche to target anyone they want
in the future. And we’re left wondering what good it does to oust a corrupt
regime if the new regime is too timid to stand up.
Senator Ben Sasse, in his questioning of Zuckerberg, asked about the
definition of hate speech, which Zuckerberg was hard pressed to define. There
are large categories we can agree on, such as calling for violence. But Senator
Sasse was more concerned about the “psychological categories.”
Sasse: “You use language of safety and protection earlier. We see this happening on college campuses all across the country. It’s dangerous. 40% of Americans under age 35 tell pollsters they think the First Amendment is dangerous, because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else’s feelings.
Those are frightening and discouraging statistics.
YouTube is another supposedly neutral online platform—i.e.,
a non-news site, accepting all views (with the exceptions of those terrorist,
violent, or other illegal activities we already agree on)—that has been
censoring content based on political leanings. PragerU is involved in a lawsuit
because YouTube deemed a number of their short information videos “unsafe for
the community.” No profanity. No sketchy images. Nothing that couldn’t safely
be watched by a 10-year-old. There seemed to be no standard by which certain
videos were disallowed, so there was no way to “correct,” if there had been
errors. But in the end, it looks like they were censored for having
conservative political views.
Conservative comedians Steven Crowder and Owen Benjamin have
been YouTube censored for much the same reasons. Owen Benjamin was on with
Andrew Klavan today, and he quoted comedian George Carlin as saying, “Political
correctness is fascism disguised as politeness.”
Fascism is statist tyranny. Snowflakes worried about hurt
feelings need to get a clue: they’re line of thinking is what led to millions
of people being killed by their own governments in the last century. But, then,
I also read this today:
According to a new survey released on Thursday by the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, fully 41 percent of
Americans don’t know what Auschwitz was, including two-thirds of Millennials.
Approximately 22 percent of Millennials had not heard of the Holocaust, and 41
percent of Millennials thought 2 million or fewer Jews were murdered during the
Holocaust.
Ignorance is probably the result of “political correctness,”
or, if you will, fascism, running amok in our education system. But it’s no
excuse. We don’t have to get along with people who want to tyrannize us; we
just need to stand up to the bullies. And educate them if there’s any openness
in their minds to allow for it.
Why were those first Ten Amendments put in the Constitution?
Because the founders had the foresight to envision a time such as ours, when people
have forgotten what was supposed to be self-evident.
No comments:
Post a Comment