Misconceptions on What Constitutes a 'Right'

In my last column on The Liberty Sphere I wrote about the principle of expansion of rights inherent in the 'originalist' or 'strict constructionism' method of Constitutional interpretation.

This brings us to the question of what, exactly, constitutes a 'right' as designated in the U.S. Constitution.

The question is of extreme importance, for it is clear that in modern society there are common misconceptions as to what constitutes a right.

Ask some of the neighbors in a 'planned community' what constitutes a right, and some may well tell you that they have the right to limit how many trees you can plant on your own property. In some inner-city communities, some may well state that they have the right to tell their neighbors they cannot possess a firearm due to the fact that they must feel 'safe.' Still others may state that they have a right to healthcare through the federal government, funded by taxpayers.

Each of these is an example of a gross misconception as to what constitutes a right.

Yet there is no small number of American politicians, who should know better, who are known to say the very same things. John Edwards, for example, when asked what he thought were the most important basic human rights, failed to mention a single issue delineated in The Bill of Rights but instead insisted that every single human being has a right to healthcare, to Internet access, and to American citizenship, among other such ridiculous and dangerous notions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have said similar things. So have Senators Obama, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry.

So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?

A right is a specific expression or example of being free, of living in a state of liberty. In addition, something cannot be considered a 'right' if it deprives one's neighbors and fellow countrymen of liberty or of being able to live free.

You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'

You do not have the right to tell me that I cannot own a handgun simply because it may give you the willies to think of your neighbors being armed. For you to be able to do such a thing deprives ME of my liberty.

You do not have an automatic right to healthcare or healthcare insurance. Everyone in this country already has access to healthcare in any emergency room in the nation, and through various and sundry other services provided to those who lack insurance or the means to pay for their care.

But to claim you have a 'right' to healthcare means that you are depriving someone else of their liberty. They must pay your bill if you cannot afford it. Taxes must be raised on the masses to cover the fact that the care you receive will not be paid for by you.

A society or nation may well decide through its elected officials or through a public vote that it wishes to pay for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured. But this is NOT a basic human right. To take something from someone else in order that you might have something you would not normally have does not constitute a 'right.'

When the electorate, politicians, and governments decide that taxpayer-funded freebies constitute rights, they are immediately engaging in double-speak. It is practically and rationally impossible to secure a right by infringing on the rights of others. The one automatically negates the other.

Thus, for the nation to implement socialized medicine that puts everyone on a waiting list that may well mean death to those who are very ill, is not securing a 'right' but imposing tyranny. Such a plan will cost you and me plenty in terms of money, swift and timely care, and the right to make medical decisions solely between patients and their doctors.

It is vital, therefore, that we not allow liberal politicians to scam us into believing these things are inherent 'rights.' A right doesn't cost anyone anything. The only cost incurred is to the individual who must take responsibility for the exercising of those rights and the willingness to pay the price to keep them.

An Interesting Constitutional Question

Liberal jurists have often referred to the principle of 'strict constructionism' with regard to Constitutional interpretation as 'old hat.' The notion that 21st century Americans must be bound by a document that was written within the context of the 18th century seems to them to be stale, antiquated, and unsuitable for modern times.

Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.

For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.

Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.

The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.

Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.

Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'

The same could be said for freedom of speech.

And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.

Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.

It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.

Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?

Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.

For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?

Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.

Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.

Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.

One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.

The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.

This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.

How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.

The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.

The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.

The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.

The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.

This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.

Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.