Our Rights,what constitutes our rights?

While the legal applications of our Charters of Liberty, the US Constitution specifically and Declaration of independence and Federalist Papers, in so far as the inform and illuminate it, are crucial; they are both the terrain of the battlefield and the weapons of the war for liberty, it is helpful to bear in mind that the unalienable rights of men ( no obeisance to to perpetually aggrieved that refuse to understand that man is often used for the generic human, and not limited to the male sex) are exactly t hat, unalienable and universal.

Much division and mischief is perpetrated by those who would oppose one set of rights to another, ultimately privileging the right not to be offended above the right to speak or worship, or the right to live to “reproductive rights.” Plainly spoken, there are no things as minority rights, women’s rights, There are only those rights that are unalienable and universal and never mutually opposed.

I came across some quotes… Always looking for good quotes, and researching the who and what of them…Cicero, Plato, Washington, Jefferson, Adams… and others all have good ones…but here are a couple that actually provided a chuckle;

“‘A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.’ I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.” ~ Bruce Tiemann

and

“Suppose the Second amendment said “A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”

—Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

They do present an interesting alternative way of analyzing the Second Amendment.

Actually, I would agree with the well educated electorate being necessary for self governance is perhaps an accurate statement

The Federalists Papers made clear that Hamilton, Madison and Jay had faith that The People would take action to remove representatives who had lost touch with those they represented guaranteeing that despotism would be eradicated by limiting the terms in the House of Representatives to 2 years through biennial elections.
They also did not see the need for a Bill of Rights because everyone knew those rights could not be subsumed by the Federal Government because The People would not allow it to happen. If it did, they would quickly correct the problem in the next election.
Yet here we are! :thinking: :worried:

2 Likes

Indeed.

However, they did not foresee a time when we would have so many unable to name the three branches of government (including those elected to office like AOC who said it was the House, the Senate, and the President), or what the five rights contained in the First Amendment are, or what the process of legislation is…

They did state we must have a well informed populace and a virtuous populace.

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Note; just scrolled through the symbols… not sure how many actually know WC :wc: stands for Wniston Churchill :laughing:

Just kidding, Think Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century… perhaps even of the last 200 years or so. one of the greatest in history.