Thursday, September 25, 2008

King John is laughing

Even though the term ‘civil rights’ is disproportionatly linked to the struggle for equality of American blacks during the mid twentith century, the term does in fact cover much broader ground. The aim of that struggle was on its surface to cement equal protections under the law; to receive equal treatment regardless of one’s skin tone.

Civil rights are the basic legal rights an individual receives from the government. In the US those rights include personal, political, and economic rights. They are supposed to be the rights of citizens. Later discussions will cover the extreme broadening that some groups desire. Since the civil rights act of the early 90’s those rights cannot be legitimately denied to a person on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.

Martin Luthor King established what should be common ground where discrimination is concerned. But there is a broad gap in the debate over how far and how deep these principles should be implemented in law and policy.

Adding to the confusion, sub groups such as GLAD are fighting to include sexual orientation as one of the catagories covered under the law.

In 1215, the Magna Carta required King John to establish the first set of citizen rights. It forced the gentry to respect certain legal procedures and, this is the big one, accept that the king’s will could be bound by the law. It was also the first formalization of the writ of habeas corpus, forcing the gentry to prove a reason for the imprisonment of their subjects.

Our constitution owes much of its creation to the Magna Carta. The great document also established that a man’s home was essentially his castle. Regardless of the position of the guest, even in the lowliest cottage, the host had prominence. Now, due to the pressures of the ultra liberal left, with complete and willing assistence from the media and Congress, the constitution is in danger of becoming little more than a moot point, and one of the biggest weapons being used is the twisted maze of tax law.

The Democrats do not want the average working man or woman to be able to control any of the money they earn. To them, government knows far better how to handle your life and you should rely soley on Father Washington for your needs. On the Republican side Father Washington is replaced by the corporate board, and you should be happy to simply have a job and be a good little worker drone because Big Business knows best, and if a prisoner in China can do your job for less money…too bad, and if you complain about either circumstance, wait for the IRS letter.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The preamble of the constitution says:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Men who have dared to read either document in certain US Courts, and sadly, within certain halls of Congress, have been declared in contempt.

Somewhere, King John is laughing.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Make up your mind. In paragraph number two you say "Civil rights are the basic legal rights an individual receives from the government. In the US those rights include personal, political, and economic rights. They are supposed to be the rights of citizens."
But later you quote the constitution which agrees with the rest of us on the opposite formulation: civil rights are those rights that are inborn for a citizen - they start with the individual and the government is granted its powers FROM the governed. People who, as a result, retain the right to collectively oppose or alter their government. That won't work if the power came from the government in the first place. Maybe an edit is in order...

Bob Beers said...

No, no edit is in order. For those who have read and understand the lessons of history, the founders knew what they were deciding upon and intentionally seperated God-given rights from government granted rights. The argument as the whether or not the governed are also the government is a different subject entirely.

It is polite to idnetify oneself when posting.