constitutional liberties vs civil liberties...
A couple articles (links below) from a small paper in NC are quoting meetup organizer Roxane Premont as saying:
"This is not really about a presidential campaign -- he is the leader of a movement that's about restoring our Constitution and our civil liberties."
before I get to the beef I want to say thank you to Roxane and everyone who has joined the movement and worked towards what we all want (constitutional government), god bless you all etc etc., ok now, with that out of the way I believe there's a major flaw in her statement, and I've seen this many times from many others, when they say they want to "restore the constitution and civil liberties". as far as I understand it, the two are incompatible, constitutional liberties are guaranteed liberties (rights) written into the constitution which cannot be easily infringed upon or revoked by government without ratification from the states (think mc hammer). civil liberties (rights) are dictated by government (or more specifically government beauracrats) and can be granted and revoked at will by any one of the seemingly limitless number of government agencies. if I'm not mistaken our "civil rights" are actually spelled out in the United States Uniform Commercial Code, under this system we are really all government property (corporate assets as it were, or subjects of the king of you prefer, really makes no difference), is this what we're working to restore? (I am for restoring constitutional law and liberties and throwing this Roman-based "civil law" system back on the scrapheap of history where it belongs, after crucifying all those who foisted it on us of course) we need to be clear on what we stand for so when we are quoted we are quoted properly (perhaps I'm nit-picking but it's tough enough to educate people with the media distorting our views)...
articles here (otherwise pretty good coverage)...
Please use the word: "RIGHTS" don't confuse the issue
by saying constitutional liberties. Just too easy to mix up with civil liberties
It is Constitutional Rights that we want to preserve.
Otherwise a good post. The constitution protects our RIGHTS but we do not get our RIGHTS from the Constitution, we are born with them.
Natural Rights
...the one's we are endowed with by our Creator.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine
You are 110% correct. Civil
You are 110% correct. Civil liberties are government granted privileges. What the government giveth, they can also taketh away. Are the words "civil liberties" found anywhere in the Constitution? The Constitution guards our natural rights, or liberties. There IS a difference, and the people need to understand, especially us, as supporters of the Constitution. People really need to understand natural law, Judge Napolitano explains it better than any I know.
http://www.pacinlaw.org/introduction.php
Andrew Neopolitano...
thanks for the link, didn't know he had a web site but there's a great youtube video of him being interviewed on Bloomberg, I clicked on one of them accidently while watching the good Dr.'s interview earlier this week (my first thought was; that sounds just like Ron Paul... 'cept it isnt!), he was spot on when he said Americans don't even understand their rights nor do they seem to care that the government (the one that's supposed to protect them) is trampling all over them! (rare to see an insider speak out against it) it's a great interview, should be able to find it by searching "bloomberg +neopolitano" on youtube if you're interested, and his book "A Nation of Sheep" sounds like a good read (and complimentary to Ron Pauls new book)...
A rule not of men, but a rule of objective laws
On July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers forged a moral and political revolution. They stated as self evident truth in the Declaration of Independence that “men are endowed by their creator by certain inalienable rights.” In other words, God gave us our rights, and that among them are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And in the very next sentence, the Founders defined the proper role of government, when they stated that “to secure these rights governments are instituted.” They declared for the first time in history that men do not exist to serve the government, but rather that the government exists to serve men -- that its proper role is to protect men's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the entire philosophic base of the founding of the United States of America.
The first ten amendments, today known as the Bill of Rights, further limited the power of government. The Bill of Rights never gave citizens “rights.” Rights are inalienable -- they may not be morally infringed upon. Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty) -and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property).
The Bill of Rights should have been named the “bill of limitations” on government. It sole purpose was to safeguard God given rights by limiting government power. Furthermore, the founders even insisted that government shall make no laws - “Congress shall make no laws about speech, religion, press, assembly, the right to petition, the rights to bear arms, etc.” The Bill of Rights additionally secured a broad range of vital liberties including immunity from unreasonable searches and various jury trial privileges. The amendments are aimed squarely at the federal government and not at the citizen.
Join the Republican Liberty Caucus www.RLC.org
PASS THE LIGHT
Yes, Naturally, this Truth is not relative nor subjective....rather it is discoverable and immutable.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/46862
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45737
This is the discussion in which we need to be engaged.