Should We Be Defending Constitutional Rights Anymore?

Natural Rights Vs. Constitutional Rights

We often refer to the Constitution when we argue that our rights are being violated, whether they are being violated by the state or by individuals advocating for the state to do it on their behalf. But is the Constitution? It's a document written by men and disregarded by men. 

People have been indoctrinated to believe that the government has unlimited authority over our lives; yet exists to protect their rights. 

Well, which one is it? Which role would you prefer the government take? 

The Constitution lays out the powers of the U.S. Government. When it was first written on September 17, 1787, in Boston, it did not include the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was formed because the Anti-Federalists were bullied into creating a new Constitution. The compromise was to add the Bill of Rights. James Madison has been credited for authoring them. Still, he and many other Federalists opposed them, stating that it was unnecessary and dangerous. It was the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and George Mason that argued for them to be included. Let me share an example of one of the Federalist arguments opposing them and why:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575--81

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

What are your thoughts on this argument? Did Hamilton say the U.S. Federal government wasn't granted the power to decide on our rights?

Fast forward to today, we have the Bill of Rights, and the men and women in the office have ignored them. Imagine the damage they would have done without them. So, the Anti-Federalists were right. Make sure you go back and read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. They are critical to understanding the author's intentions for the Constitution because the courts and politicians have made up their interpretations. After all, they know most of the country is unaware of the truth. 

So, outsourcing our rights to be protected by Democrats and Republicans, who have been the same parties infringing on our Constitutional rights, makes ZERO SENSE. As Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, "it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government."

Now, this brings us to the point of our natural rights. What are we fighting for? We are fighting to be sovereign over our lives and not to be forced to sacrifice our values for the benefit of others. People should be able to live, protect liberties and property, and pursue happiness without government interference. 

We need to have the same attitude as Lysander Spooner

"A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government."

What are our natural rights?

Natural rights are fundamental rights and freedoms considered inherent to all human beings by their existence rather than being granted by governments or other institutions. These rights are often called "unalienable" or "inalienable," meaning they cannot be taken away or surrendered.

The concept of natural rights dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. Still, it was most fully articulated in the Enlightenment era of the 17th and 18th centuries. The most famous formulation of natural rights is the Declaration of Independence, which asserts that "all men are created equal" and endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Short descriptions of each of these natural rights:

1. Life: The right to life is the most basic of all natural rights. It means that every human being has the inherent right to exist and to live without the threat of violence, harm, or discrimination.

2. Liberty: The right to liberty refers to the freedom to act, think, and express oneself without interference from others or the government. This includes but is not limited to: the right to defend ourselves, free speech, assembly, religion, and movement.

3. Pursuit of Happiness: The right to pursue happiness is often interpreted as seeking personal fulfillment and satisfaction through efforts without undue interference from others or the government. This might include choosing one's career, pursuing one's interests and hobbies, and living a fulfilling and meaningful life.

4. Property: The property right is the natural right that individuals have to acquire, own, use, and dispose of the property as they see fit, without interference from others or the government. This includes tangible property, such as land, buildings, animals, and personal possessions, as well as intangible property, such as intellectual property rights. Historically, property right has been a contentious issue, as it has sometimes come into conflict with the rights of others, such as in cases where property rights have been used to justify unequal distribution of resources or exploit vulnerable groups. Property rights remain an essential principle in many legal and political systems worldwide.

The idea of property as a natural right was also crucial to many Enlightenment thinkers, including John Locke, who argued that individuals have a right to acquire and own property due to their labor and industry.

The concept of natural rights remains essential to political philosophy and human rights discourse today. It is often invoked as a justification for various social and political movements seeking to advance individual freedom and equality.

Let's suggest we start declaring “our natural rights are being infringed on" versus those printed by men. Wouldn't it be more effective to defend something that can't be taken away by mere human beings because they have zero authority over our Creator?

This is certainly something to consider when we argue against the state's authority to rule over us. Let's change the conversation and use our rhetoric—the more of us, the merrier. Get this out to everyone on your platforms and text it to your family and friends. They have their army, and we have ours.