5 ms·

A quick but important note on the Constitution and rights. The Constitution was created in order to protect natural rights that exist outside of any government

A quick but important note on the Constitution and rights. The Constitution was created in order to protect natural rights that exist outside of any government, and does not grant or establish any rights themselves, but merely imparts negative rights and limitations on the government. You may think that an obvious statement, but I've been increasingly concerned at the education of the populace about the subject. Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. This is what makes America, despite its flaws, what Christopher Hitchens called "the last revolution to stand a chance", and to this day is the basis for what I consider true American exceptionalism that distinguishes us from other countries such as the UK.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
> Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. I'd go further than that; I'd say that the difference is strongly downplayed in political and educational contexts because so much Government overreach is predicated upon people not knowing, or not caring, about the difference. Also, even people who /do/ understand, often don't care. Because if they did, they'd have to concede that many Federal programmes in the US are unconstitutional, that is, they involve powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And folks want their FCC, FDA and Obamacare, so they let it slide ...
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Well said. Honestly I am a bit ashamed I didn't know about the difference sooner. A few years ago though I realized that I should probably better understand this document I swore an oath to protect. That journey has not been easy though because it has forced me to challenge popular opinion in both the public and the legal field.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Don't be ashamed - you're one of the few people who have put in the effort, and _then_ taken the bold step of challenging popular opinions as a result. Instead, be proud about keeping American ideals alive :)
kaeluka 9y ago
How would you challenge other five eyes nations spying on you and sharing the conclusions with your government? I'm not trying to point out you're wrong, it's a serious question.
- Chriky 9y ago
  People seem to misunderstand 5-EYES. The whole point of the agreement is to NOT spy on each other's citizens. Only UK can spy on Brits, on US can spy on Americans etc. This is probably the single most misunderstood point in the whole surveillance debate.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Wait what? The point was that the US was NOT allowed to spy on its own citizens, (UK too) and they got around that by spying on each other and sharing information. That was revealed in the months after the the initial Snowden leaks. The UK changed the law (Investigatory Powers Act) to allow itself to spy on and hack its own citizens.
    - Chriky 9y ago
      I know that's what you think, but you got it backwards. Countries are completely allowed to spy on their own citizens (in accordance with their own laws). They are also allowed to spy on foreigners (in accordance with their own laws, which typical have few protections for foreigners). 5-EYES is an agreement between certain countries to NOT spy on people from those other countries, and instead agree to freely exchange intelligence, and respond to each others requests etc. For example, if a suspected terrorist on a GCHQ operation turns out to be American (or Australian etc), GCHQ are NOT allowed to intercept their phone. It must be done by the NSA who have to get a warrant in accordance with the US Constitution and US laws etc. Without going into detail, I know this from experience.
      - ionised 9y ago
        So why was there such a furore in the wake of those leaks about the NSA and GCHQ spying on their own people? Clapper was questioned by congress about whether data on a Americans was swept up in the dragnet, and Clapper (lying) said no, not wittingly. Likewise, GCHQ were found to be acting illegally, hence the IPA that enshrined what they were already doing into law. > 5-EYES is an agreement between certain countries to NOT spy on people from those other countries If this is the case, then based on those leaks, it looks like both the US and UK broke this agreement. None of this makes any sense based on what you just told me.
welterde 9y ago
Can you explain to someone not from the US the impact an constitution has which only imposes limitations on the government, versus one that only imparts positive rights onto humans? Or versus one that is a hybrid between the two - the German constitution would be an example of this.
- lawnorder 9y ago
  Positive rights would have to be expressly described to have power. Therefore any rights not expressly implied would not exist. The US structure in theory limits the federal governments power to those expressly defined in the Constitution, while the humans all rights not expressly given to the federal government
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  ...impact an constitution has which only imposes limitations on the government, versus one that only imparts positive rights onto humans?" I think first you might be misunderstanding positive and negative rights. Positive rights are rights that are asserted onto others. Negative rights are rights an individual has that others may not violate. The principles of the enlightenment and individualist freedom and liberty require negative rights as part of natural law, such as what John Locke called the first right, the right to self defense. So, the importance of a system of government that primarily Madison, but others as well, took a great deal of time to research by combing through the history of government so as to "form a more perfect union." is that they realized that assertion of positive rights is often in opposition to negative rights, and that for a truly free and open society it would need to be based on negative rights. Of course implementation was not and is not perfect, but they were trying to design a system that would get better over time by encouraging freedom and liberty. In essence, America is the only country truly founded on the principles of the enlightenment and individual liberty and natural rights. This is why the British fought so hard to continually undermine us even after the revolution. Liberty is a threat to monarchy, tyranny, despotism and oligarchism around the world because it inspires people and solves problems. I'm guessing the German constitution was designed by the Allies post-WW2 primarily as a way to control the country via complex bureaucratic layers that ignore these principles. Once someone asserts positives rights over anothers negative rights it becomes so completely subjective that it is an easily corrupted process, at least in theory thats how I would see it play out, but I don't know much about German law (even though I have visited). So, you tell me, how corrupted is the German constitution and/or law? The trick in America is lawyers figured out ways to whittle things down via bad precedent, and due to corruption of all three branches, the media and education system has been training the populace to forget the fact that the government can not and does not grant any rights. Rights must exist outside of government, and the government is formed to protect those rights and for very little purpose other than that. That is why America is floundering currently. By sacrificing it's principles for a super-hardcore realpolitik it has undermined it's own bedrock foundation. The last president that tried to stand up to this though never left Dallas.

duncan_bayne 9y ago

> Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. I'd go further than that; I'd say that the difference is strongly downplayed in political and educational contexts because so much Government overreach is predicated upon people not knowing, or not caring, about the difference. Also, even people who /do/ understand, often don't care. Because if they did, they'd have to concede that many Federal programmes in the US are unconstitutional, that is, they involve powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And folks want their FCC, FDA and Obamacare, so they let it slide ...

arca_vorago 9y ago
Well said. Honestly I am a bit ashamed I didn't know about the difference sooner. A few years ago though I realized that I should probably better understand this document I swore an oath to protect. That journey has not been easy though because it has forced me to challenge popular opinion in both the public and the legal field.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  Don't be ashamed - you're one of the few people who have put in the effort, and _then_ taken the bold step of challenging popular opinions as a result. Instead, be proud about keeping American ideals alive :)

kaeluka 9y ago

How would you challenge other five eyes nations spying on you and sharing the conclusions with your government? I'm not trying to point out you're wrong, it's a serious question.

Chriky 9y ago
People seem to misunderstand 5-EYES. The whole point of the agreement is to NOT spy on each other's citizens. Only UK can spy on Brits, on US can spy on Americans etc. This is probably the single most misunderstood point in the whole surveillance debate.
- ionised 9y ago
  Wait what? The point was that the US was NOT allowed to spy on its own citizens, (UK too) and they got around that by spying on each other and sharing information. That was revealed in the months after the the initial Snowden leaks. The UK changed the law (Investigatory Powers Act) to allow itself to spy on and hack its own citizens.
  - Chriky 9y ago
    I know that's what you think, but you got it backwards. Countries are completely allowed to spy on their own citizens (in accordance with their own laws). They are also allowed to spy on foreigners (in accordance with their own laws, which typical have few protections for foreigners). 5-EYES is an agreement between certain countries to NOT spy on people from those other countries, and instead agree to freely exchange intelligence, and respond to each others requests etc. For example, if a suspected terrorist on a GCHQ operation turns out to be American (or Australian etc), GCHQ are NOT allowed to intercept their phone. It must be done by the NSA who have to get a warrant in accordance with the US Constitution and US laws etc. Without going into detail, I know this from experience.
    - ionised 9y ago
      So why was there such a furore in the wake of those leaks about the NSA and GCHQ spying on their own people? Clapper was questioned by congress about whether data on a Americans was swept up in the dragnet, and Clapper (lying) said no, not wittingly. Likewise, GCHQ were found to be acting illegally, hence the IPA that enshrined what they were already doing into law. > 5-EYES is an agreement between certain countries to NOT spy on people from those other countries If this is the case, then based on those leaks, it looks like both the US and UK broke this agreement. None of this makes any sense based on what you just told me.

welterde 9y ago

Can you explain to someone not from the US the impact an constitution has which only imposes limitations on the government, versus one that only imparts positive rights onto humans? Or versus one that is a hybrid between the two - the German constitution would be an example of this.

lawnorder 9y ago
Positive rights would have to be expressly described to have power. Therefore any rights not expressly implied would not exist. The US structure in theory limits the federal governments power to those expressly defined in the Constitution, while the humans all rights not expressly given to the federal government
arca_vorago 9y ago
...impact an constitution has which only imposes limitations on the government, versus one that only imparts positive rights onto humans?" I think first you might be misunderstanding positive and negative rights. Positive rights are rights that are asserted onto others. Negative rights are rights an individual has that others may not violate. The principles of the enlightenment and individualist freedom and liberty require negative rights as part of natural law, such as what John Locke called the first right, the right to self defense. So, the importance of a system of government that primarily Madison, but others as well, took a great deal of time to research by combing through the history of government so as to "form a more perfect union." is that they realized that assertion of positive rights is often in opposition to negative rights, and that for a truly free and open society it would need to be based on negative rights. Of course implementation was not and is not perfect, but they were trying to design a system that would get better over time by encouraging freedom and liberty. In essence, America is the only country truly founded on the principles of the enlightenment and individual liberty and natural rights. This is why the British fought so hard to continually undermine us even after the revolution. Liberty is a threat to monarchy, tyranny, despotism and oligarchism around the world because it inspires people and solves problems. I'm guessing the German constitution was designed by the Allies post-WW2 primarily as a way to control the country via complex bureaucratic layers that ignore these principles. Once someone asserts positives rights over anothers negative rights it becomes so completely subjective that it is an easily corrupted process, at least in theory thats how I would see it play out, but I don't know much about German law (even though I have visited). So, you tell me, how corrupted is the German constitution and/or law? The trick in America is lawyers figured out ways to whittle things down via bad precedent, and due to corruption of all three branches, the media and education system has been training the populace to forget the fact that the government can not and does not grant any rights. Rights must exist outside of government, and the government is formed to protect those rights and for very little purpose other than that. That is why America is floundering currently. By sacrificing it's principles for a super-hardcore realpolitik it has undermined it's own bedrock foundation. The last president that tried to stand up to this though never left Dallas.