Posts Tagged ‘rights’

New Constitutional Amendment Denies Bill of Rights

Posted by Troy on 21st April 2012 in Current Events, Political

On the heels of the Citizens United case, the Democrats are now pushing an Amendment to the Constitution that will deny that corporations (profit or otherwise) have any rights under the Constitution (but Unions, I’m sure, are still cool).  That is to say, that only individuals have rights.

First of all, I would like to point out that the Democrats likely have an issue with Citizen’s United SOLELY due to the fact that corporations tend to favor Republicans.  I have a feeling, if it was the other way around, they would be defending the rights of corporations.

Second, corporations are made up of individuals.  They hire individuals.  They sell goods and services to individuals.  They should have every right in the world to defend their interest as long as they are not giving out false information.  If they are found giving out false information, they should be liable the same as any individual.  Here’s a question for ya: a demagogue launches into a tirade about how a factory is polluting the air and the water and that you should elect them so they can force the factory out of town.  Shouldn’t the corporation have the right to buy ads that show that the candidate has ties to a competing company?  Shouldn’t they be able to defend their interest and point out how the local economy depends upon this factory?  If not, then the demagogue wins, boots out the factory, and the town dies as the economy evaporates.

Third, corporations clearly have rights.  Under the proposed Amendment, corporations would have no rights before the law, to searches and seizures, or to speech.  What about the right to gather peacefully?  We could go on an on.  Clearly corporations have rights.

Fourth, this Amendment could set up a police state scenario.  Since news organizations are owned by corporations, a strict reading of the law would give the government a complete right to censure the news.  This is particularly concerning since the First Amendment states that Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Finally, I would like to point out that I do actually commend the Democrats for actually following Congressional law and trying to get what they want by the Amendment process.  They usually just ignore the Constitution and do it anyway.

The cure is worse than the disease in this case.  The current laws are enough to deal with the situation.  What is the liability for libel which causes someone to lose a Presidential election?  It’s huge.  You have the wages lost during the Presidency, book deals, speaking engagements, and the increased earnings after the job.  A few libel suits of this nature would ruin all but the most massive corporations.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real-news-from-the-blaze-on-citizens-united-and-congressional-democrats-move-to-amend-the-constitution/

Is Marriage a Right? / Bill O’Reilly is an idiot

Posted by Troy on 7th February 2012 in Current Events

In discussing the defeat of Proposition 8 (dealing with gay marriage), O’Reilly asked the question, “Do you have a right to be married?”  To this question, his response was “Of course not.”

I disagree!  Per the Tenth Amendment, any right not given to the Federal government is granted to the states and the people themselves.  My memory may be fuzzy, but I don’t think that there is an Article giving the right to be married to the Federal government.  Ergo, this right must rest with the people themselves.  You may also ask questions like, do we have the right to eat?  Do we have the right to breathe?  Do we have the right to learn?  Do we have the right to have hobbies?  Do we have the right to own pets?  Yes, of course we do.  The state may regulate things, but the right still exists.  To deny that we have a right just because you are against something (in this case, gay marriage) is foolhardy.  If I don’t want people to be able to exercise because it makes me feel bad about how I look, I would be foolish to claim that they have no right to do so  it because it is not spelled out in the Constitution.  That argument could give the government room to argue that I have no right to pick what foods I eat because that’s not spelled out in the Constitution.

This is where I am going to get into trouble.  The fact of the matter is that the California government granted the ability of gays to marry.  The state has the right to regulate the affairs of their state.  They can state that first cousins may or may not marry and the like.  This is a fair use of their powers.  However, the people do have the right to overrule their government by use of referendums and other measures.  This should be a defeat of the bill, and gays should dust themselves off and try again.

I am a Libertarian at heart.  I am also a Tenther (a person that believes in the Tenth Amendment).  I believe that states have the power to decide who may and may not be married in their states.  I don’t believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in the matter.  If people want to enter into a strong, committed relationship, then I believe that is their right (regardless of whatever whoever calls it).  If you and your lover call yourself married and live as such, then you are married (losing the married filing joint status anyway).  However, I feel like this issue is fashionable.  I think people want the aura of marriage and aren’t thinking about the total commitment it takes.  If you are for this issue because you enjoy acting self-righteous, then you are a fool.  If you are against it because you think that it will cheapen marriage, then you are also a fool.  A committed gay couple does good for the institution of marriage.  What cheapens it are spouses that cheat, divorces at a drop of a hat, marriages of convenience, and all the other travesties that we have applied to marriage in the last fifty years.

Long Live the Constitution!

Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed/Assassinated/Executed

Posted by Troy on 3rd October 2011 in Current Events

I have always said that American citizens must have Constitutional rights.  So, where do I come down on Anwar Al-Awlaki?

1)  He is a US citizen with full rights thereof.

2)  He was involved with various plots to kill other US citizens.

3)  He fled to another country to escape justice.

Okay, first off, one could make the argument that Anwar Al-Awlaki was either a traitor or actively in a state of war with America.  There are problems with this.  Even if he was a traitor (and he was), Congress still has to find him guilty of it.  That leaves the “State of War” issue.  That one we could argue until we are blue in the face as to what constitutes a war.  Typically, this is between two countries.  However, is it not possible to have a state of war of two nations (nations being a different concept here) such as in the Crusades when all Christians and all Muslims were “at war?”  I think he could qualify as such.  If someone is shooting at soldiers in a fire-fight, do they have to verify which ones are American-born and arrest them?  Of course not.

The fact of the matter is that, even with all this, he should have been arrested and tried.  However, this is idealistic at best and dumb as hell at worse.  What were we going to do?  Invade a country?  Fight a war in which he would probably escape.  Stay there for decades?  Or could we just pop him with a bomb and save billions of dollars and thousands of lives (on both sides)?  Then again, I’ve always been a fan of assassination in war (see my post in defense of assassination).

We romantize it often, but how is this any different than the old west’s “Dead or Alive?”

In this case, I agree with the President.  Bombs away.

Ummmm…Long Live the Constitution?

Collective Rights

Posted by Troy on 16th February 2011 in Political

We keep hearing phrases like “Women’s Rights” and “Children’s Rights” and “Rights of the Community.”  These are all lies.  There’s no such thing.  There are only individual rights.  Individuals have rights.  Communities and groups may have needs or desires, but they have no rights.  A woman’s rights are the same as a man’s rights.  A black man’s rights are the same as a white man’s right, and so forth.  This is because we are all individuals.  Belonging to any group or subgroup does not entitle you to any additional or fewer rights as any other group.

We need to stop “granting rights” to groups.  Instead, we should be concerned with ensuring that each individual is not denied the rights which we are all entitled to.  When they divide us up into these groups, they are dividing us.  We start to view each other as enemy camps.  Women and Men, Black and White, Immigrants and Native Born, these are all tools which divide.  All citizens deserve the same protection under the Constitution of the United States of America.  No more, no less.

Long live the Constitution!

Consolidation

Posted by Troy on 26th January 2011 in Political

One thing Obama discussed in his 2011 State of the Union address that worries me is Consolidation of power inside the government.  Now, there are two possible outcomes from the consolidation of powers.  The possible good outcome is that they are able to consolidate powers, reduce departments, cut federal jobs, streamline procedures, and reduce duplication of duties and costs.  What could also happen is that it ends up creating federal departments which are so powerful they can rule by executive fiat.  They are already trying to expand the powers of the EPA and other departments to circumvent the Constitution and rob people of their rights.  If we make them larger and more powerful, this aim will be easier to achieve.