7 ms·

There seems to be an ongoing confusion in American political discussions that our rights are derived from the Constitution, but this could not be further from t

There seems to be an ongoing confusion in American political discussions that our rights are derived from the Constitution, but this could not be further from the truth. The Founding Fathers made it clear that our rights are granted by God (whatever that means to you) and the Constitution is there to limit the powers of the government. There was much debate about whether the Bill of Rights would cause more harm than good because it would likely (and has been) interpreted as some enumeration of rights, when it was added as a compromise to make it clear to the power-hungry among us that these rights were granted by God and that the government has no right to infringe upon them, even via so-called "public-private partnerships" (a not-so-clever rewording of Mussolini's apocryphal definition of fascism).

johnchristopher 4y ago
> There seems to be an ongoing confusion in American political discussions that our rights are derived from the Constitution, but this could not be further from the truth. The Founding Fathers made it clear that our rights are granted by God (whatever that means to you) and the Constitution is there to limit the powers of the government. Does the constitution also references a God or is it only in the declaration of independence ?
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Quick googling seems to indicate no (other than the use of "Year of our Lord," an expression to refer to dates). Apparently all of the state constitutions do, so this was obviously an intentional omission.
- Kye 4y ago
  Nope. The fact that it doesn't when the people who wrote it had some inkling that one existed always seemed like strong evidence to me that they intended to keep government and church from meddling in each other's affairs. It seems like they always intended for us mere mortals (religious or not, and regardless of religion) to be responsible for figuring out right from wrong and making sure the Constitution reflected that evolving understanding.
- junofan 4y ago
  It’s founded in natural law, not modern conceptions of positive law. The framers wouldn’t understand why the answer to your question would matter.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Contrary to many other nations, the Constitution of the US is a rather plain organizational description. There is literally zero ideological, logical, or other sorts of rationale contained. That rationale rests within a number of places including the Declaration of Independence and in the rather extensive writings of the Founding Fathers, who notably made many statements such as, "And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. " It is perhaps telling that had Jefferson made such comments in the media of today where anybody could actually read it, he would likely be actively censored - his comments and his person alongside. And his receiving a visit from men in black would not be a surprise either, especially if he somehow managed to still keep communicating with society at large in spite of the censorship efforts. Somehow I suspect this scenario is not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when seeking to enshrine Free Speech in this country. You can read the original here: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... Full context on the Tree of Liberty quote: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0348 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0...
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > It is perhaps telling that had Jefferson made such comments in the media of today where anybody could actually read it, he would likely be actively censored - his comments and his person alongside. And his receiving a visit from men in black would not be a surprise either, especially if he somehow managed to still keep communicating with society at large in spite of the censorship efforts. Possibly. The government of the time was fundamentally different from the modern one. At the time, Adams administration and that Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, granting broad authority to punish treasonous speech. Jefferson and Madison responded by spearheading laws in Virginia to basically say those Acts were void. Of course, then there was a civil war and states don't have that authority anymore (with good reason). https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-a...
- rgrieselhuber 4y ago
  The Constitution is lower in the ontology than the origin of the natural rights of human beings, so it’s really irrelevant whether it is documented in this downstream position or not. The break with the tyranny of the monarchy happened in the Declaration Independence and even that was documenting where the rights originate.
behaveEc0n00 4y ago
The Founding Fathers were hardly of a single mind on what should go in the Constitution so claiming “they” felt that way is a bit much. Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison clearly the dead have no say over the living, and laws of the land should be decided by contemporary thought; he sought a provision to rewrite the Constitution every 19 years. Madison wrote at Tripoli the United States is not a “Christian nation.” But Madison also wanted a Senate to protect the moneyed interests from the public. He was a typical aristocrat first. “God” was an individuals self awareness as we might call it. The prevailing notion was that awareness should not be interfered with. Self motivated learning an discovery we’re sacrosanct and the monopolization of agency by private power was immoral. None of those men were more than typical men. The fealty we bestow on them is disgusting and clearly being leveraged to manipulate.
- rgrieselhuber 4y ago
  And yet they had the courage to break away from the continental monarchy.
  - behaveEc0n00 4y ago
    By contemporary standards they’d be guerillas and terrorists. But sure; they broke off from England. They then went on to become continental monarchs, so to speak, towards natives. Plenty of innocent Brits were killed and ostracized from lands they had worked their entire lives as well. Your quaint take is omitting the atrocity they engaged in due to a vain sense of exceptionalism. Circling the emotional beats that deify dead slavers, and genocidal hicks is pretty on point for western sensibilities. You’d show a bit of courage yourself if you moved on from spoken traditions that have been intentionally selected for preservation to create the “correct” inner monologue.
    - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
      England itself, by this time, had already been enslaved by usurper monarchs for centuries. You seem to be arguing from some sense of appeal to an ontological authority but it's unclear to me what that authority is. Care to clarify?

johnchristopher 4y ago

> There seems to be an ongoing confusion in American political discussions that our rights are derived from the Constitution, but this could not be further from the truth. The Founding Fathers made it clear that our rights are granted by God (whatever that means to you) and the Constitution is there to limit the powers of the government. Does the constitution also references a God or is it only in the declaration of independence ?

bee_rider 4y ago
Quick googling seems to indicate no (other than the use of "Year of our Lord," an expression to refer to dates). Apparently all of the state constitutions do, so this was obviously an intentional omission.
Kye 4y ago
Nope. The fact that it doesn't when the people who wrote it had some inkling that one existed always seemed like strong evidence to me that they intended to keep government and church from meddling in each other's affairs. It seems like they always intended for us mere mortals (religious or not, and regardless of religion) to be responsible for figuring out right from wrong and making sure the Constitution reflected that evolving understanding.
junofan 4y ago
It’s founded in natural law, not modern conceptions of positive law. The framers wouldn’t understand why the answer to your question would matter.
somenameforme 4y ago
Contrary to many other nations, the Constitution of the US is a rather plain organizational description. There is literally zero ideological, logical, or other sorts of rationale contained. That rationale rests within a number of places including the Declaration of Independence and in the rather extensive writings of the Founding Fathers, who notably made many statements such as, "And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. " It is perhaps telling that had Jefferson made such comments in the media of today where anybody could actually read it, he would likely be actively censored - his comments and his person alongside. And his receiving a visit from men in black would not be a surprise either, especially if he somehow managed to still keep communicating with society at large in spite of the censorship efforts. Somehow I suspect this scenario is not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when seeking to enshrine Free Speech in this country. You can read the original here: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... Full context on the Tree of Liberty quote: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0348 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0...
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > It is perhaps telling that had Jefferson made such comments in the media of today where anybody could actually read it, he would likely be actively censored - his comments and his person alongside. And his receiving a visit from men in black would not be a surprise either, especially if he somehow managed to still keep communicating with society at large in spite of the censorship efforts. Possibly. The government of the time was fundamentally different from the modern one. At the time, Adams administration and that Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, granting broad authority to punish treasonous speech. Jefferson and Madison responded by spearheading laws in Virginia to basically say those Acts were void. Of course, then there was a civil war and states don't have that authority anymore (with good reason). https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-a...
rgrieselhuber 4y ago
The Constitution is lower in the ontology than the origin of the natural rights of human beings, so it’s really irrelevant whether it is documented in this downstream position or not. The break with the tyranny of the monarchy happened in the Declaration Independence and even that was documenting where the rights originate.

behaveEc0n00 4y ago

The Founding Fathers were hardly of a single mind on what should go in the Constitution so claiming “they” felt that way is a bit much. Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison clearly the dead have no say over the living, and laws of the land should be decided by contemporary thought; he sought a provision to rewrite the Constitution every 19 years. Madison wrote at Tripoli the United States is not a “Christian nation.” But Madison also wanted a Senate to protect the moneyed interests from the public. He was a typical aristocrat first. “God” was an individuals self awareness as we might call it. The prevailing notion was that awareness should not be interfered with. Self motivated learning an discovery we’re sacrosanct and the monopolization of agency by private power was immoral. None of those men were more than typical men. The fealty we bestow on them is disgusting and clearly being leveraged to manipulate.

rgrieselhuber 4y ago
And yet they had the courage to break away from the continental monarchy.
- behaveEc0n00 4y ago
  By contemporary standards they’d be guerillas and terrorists. But sure; they broke off from England. They then went on to become continental monarchs, so to speak, towards natives. Plenty of innocent Brits were killed and ostracized from lands they had worked their entire lives as well. Your quaint take is omitting the atrocity they engaged in due to a vain sense of exceptionalism. Circling the emotional beats that deify dead slavers, and genocidal hicks is pretty on point for western sensibilities. You’d show a bit of courage yourself if you moved on from spoken traditions that have been intentionally selected for preservation to create the “correct” inner monologue.
  - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
    England itself, by this time, had already been enslaved by usurper monarchs for centuries. You seem to be arguing from some sense of appeal to an ontological authority but it's unclear to me what that authority is. Care to clarify?