|
You have the right to your rights By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Aug. 20, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. Rights are curious things. We are very mindful of our rights in this country, and many of us are quick to jump up to defend them when we feel our rights are being threatened.
Considering the passion we exude in defense of our rights, it is also no surprise how many things we define as a right. For instance, take health care. Common among the arguments for sweeping health care reform is what supporters call a right to health care. Outwardly, that sounds reasonable, since anyone who is sick or injured should have the right to be able to return to good health. Before his good name was tarnished in the Rod Blagojevich pay-to-play Senate seat scandal, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., introduced an amendment that sought to codify this right as part of the U.S. Constitution. The proposed amendment was very simply worded: “Section 1. All persons shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.” Sounds fair enough, and some would say its time has come. But Jackson didn’t stop with a single amendment proposal. His health care amendment was one of eight he submitted to Congress on March 2, 2005. In addition, he proposed that all persons should have the right to “public education of equal high quality,” a “clean, safe, and sustainable environment,” to “decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing,” equality of rights and reproductive rights, full employment and balanced growth, progressive taxation and, above all else, the right to vote. Wow. These all sound like rights we should all have, doesn’t it? After all, who wouldn’t want to have safe housing, an education, a job and to have a vote? From a populist standpoint, these proposals sound great, but they ignore the nature of rights in our society. Our cherished rights are not defined by our constitution or any other legal document or governmental edict. As written by our Founding Fathers, they come from our Creator. The Declaration of Independence states that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights ...” Debate has raged since our founding whether “Creator” means God or nature, but either way, the point is clear — government does not supply our rights. In fact, some of most noted Founders argued against adding a Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, fearing some would see it as a limiting measure. Alexander Hamilton argued this very point during the Constitutional Convention. “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,” Hamilton said. “They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” Hamilton and others lost the argument, and a bill of rights did become part of the constitution, but was written in such a way that I believe leaves them misnamed — in my opinion, they should be referred to as the bill of Congressional restrictions. After all, the first five words of the First Amendment are “Congress shall make no law ...” Legal scholars and law professors, however, take a different view on the nature of these stipulations. They refer to them as “negative rights.” Back in 2001, then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama referred to the U.S. constitution in that light. “[The constitution] says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf ...,” Obama said. He was speaking of the legal battles surrounding the civil rights movement in the 1950s and ‘60s, adding that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” Those oh-so inconvenient “essential constraints” are necessary because the constitution did not set out to create a society and dictate what rights are parceled out. It sought to create a government for the society that already existed — a society that already had rights. Jackson’s 2005 amendment proposals take the notion of the government doing for us on our behalf and runs away with it. If passed, the government — which is charged with defending our rights — would therefore be charged with providing each of us with a job, a house and our health. What’s more, the clause Jackson tacked on each proposal stating that “Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article” means that his amendments are more designed to give further power to the government than give rights to the people. Think about it. How would an individual actually exercise the right to a “clean, safe, and sustainable environment?” An individual cannot do so, but the government, acting on our behalf, would do so for us by limiting development and access to the environment in order for it to be sustained, as would be required by the amendment. When the government supplies our rights, the government can determine how our rights are exercised — and the government can determine when our rights are no longer ours and can be taken away. Does that still sound fair? • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
This comes as no surprise. In a land dominated by the concept of government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” our rights are the cornerstone of our society.
