What are rights in America?
We in America have been at war with our public basically since our country’s founding. It is a ridiculous cycle in which one group of people (or several in some cases) is singled out as the enemy, and they are denied their rights. I refuse to believe that the Bill of Rights is a document that only guarantees the rights that are listed explicitly and only to those which the majority allows.
I believe that the rights of the people in this country (I am choosing not to use the word “citizen” intentionally) are far more extensive than that which is laid down for us in the documents. These are basic rights that cannot in any way be infringed upon, although we have seen fit to continually allow our government to do so, especially at war time when those rights become ever more important. Basic, as define by Merriam Webster means– 1:of, relating to, or forming the base or essence: FUNDAMENTAL, 2: constituting or serving as the basis or starting point. So it is reasonable to conclude that these rights are to be built upon and extended.
Therefore I argue that amendments to the Constitution such as those that grant blacks and women the right to vote are fantastic, that process was unnecessary and the strict requirements of an amendment only prolong the process. It is repetitive.
When interpreting the constitution there is no need to search for the rights of the people, or create a penumbra or shadow out of the first amendment. Nowhere in the constitution does it say or imply that any rights not listed in the constitution are non- existent, nor does it state that those listed are the only rights to be protected. The peopele of the United States must fight legislation that acts upon that which limits our ability to live without overbearing government intrusion. We need to start holding elected officials accountable for laws they are enforcing against us, and the motives behind them must be carefully watched.
Our representatives should not be limiting our rights, but acting in ways which allow us to utilize and explore them in order to pursue happiness. The courts should also be playing the role of looking at legislation critically, and the rights of citizens should be considered worth protecting always, not just in cases of discrimination.
Even this level of protection of your rights is split up into levels of importance, women you are not at the top of this list, though you are on it, homosexuals, you are not on the list an are therefore not protected if you are discriminated against based on that particular characteristic. This structural concoction of a Supreme Court Judge is bogus….ALL people should be protected under equal protection, as we are all human and therefore equal under the law. We need to start preventing our legislatures from enacting laws in the first place that violate the rights of the people in this country.
How is it then that an entire class of people can be banned from obtaining a marriage license? How is it that there is not massive uproar? I have heard legal justifications that marriage is not a constitutional right, I feel that I have addressed this issue already. (Feel free to criticize my argument or strengthen it….I am still formulating, could use the help!) The other argument is that homosexuals are not a protected class. Well, that just doesn’t make any sense to me. You should not have to show a history of being discriminated against (which homosexuals have, by the way) when you are challenging a law that is presently discriminating against you. Okay… so it is ok for us to discriminate against you today, because it’s not like we have a history of doing it? C’mon, are they kidding?!
This article was published on MSNBC:
“A ruling barring New Paltz Mayor Jason West from performing same-sex marriages has been upheld by a state appeals court. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling preventing West and other officials in the Hudson Valley village from performing marriage ceremonies without licenses.
The court said West acted beyond his authority when he presided over 24 same-sex marriages in February 2004. West was sued by a village board member and a state Supreme Court judge later issued a restraining order stopping West from presiding over any more ceremonies.
West was among the first public officials in the nation to marry same-sex couples, following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. West was charged with violating the state’s domestic relations law, but the criminal charges were later dropped.”
This country is supposedly based on freedom and the pursuit of life liberty and happiness. How can that be the case if there is no presumption that we are free? All of us. How is it that we can possibly spread our freedom around the world, if we have no understanding of what that means?
November 12th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
you have articulated, quite well I might add, exactly how I feel regarding our oppresive and intrusive government. You may want to read my “Misdirected Rage” on my blog site and I’m sure you will agree that we are of one mind on this subject. Keep up the great work!!
November 14th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Interesting Perspective Steven.
At my previous position I was privy to some of the ridiculousness of the New York State legislature. The number of bills that flow through the Assembly and Senate are too numerous to describe the silliness of all in any kind of detail, and the representatives or their aides do not read though them nearly as thoroughly as they ought to. There was a bill proposed to require ATM’s to have self-sealing envelopes. Now I can see how this might be a good initiative on the part of banks, but is it really necessary to make this a law? The legislator who was listed as the sponsor of the bill had no idea either about of his endorsement or the bill itself.
There was also the case of a fellow worker of mine (not a political figure) joining a group that wanted to require three point seatbelts on school buses. He asked me to look into the rate of accidents involving school buses (very few), the rate of injury in those accidents (not surprisingly few as well, if buses don’t crash, it is logical that people aren’t getting hurt), and if the seatbelts in questions would actually make buses safer. Now, wouldn’t this be three pretty big questions you would ask yourself before you form a commission to try to file another bill in the volumes of bull that are already smothering us?
Why is it that we are so regulation happy? Are we that bored? Maybe we need some entertainment or interaction with others (like say, some form of social space and feeling of community. But that is a rant for another time).