Comment: Language Use: Constitutional Rights or Constitutional...?

(See in situ)

Language Use: Constitutional Rights or Constitutional...?

First, great article and video. Good job, you journalists (as opposed to what most media persons are, slot fillers and propagandists). And, Hernandez family members and supporters, you exhibit a champion's attitude and fortitude.

Next, from the article:

"Steve Hernandez stated, '[A]s part of the accommodation my daughter and I would have to agree to stop criticizing the program and publicly support … it. I told [the Deputy Superintendent] that was unacceptable because it would imply an endorsement of the district’s policy and my daughter and I should not have to give up our constitutional rights to speak out against a program that we feel is wrong.'"

I put constitutional rights in bold because it's time that phrase be discarded and the correct one used. Using "constitutional rights" makes freedom weak. What should be said is what is unequivocal to all its receivers or at least prompts thinking in the form of, Wait, what did I just hear, what? The message that's unequivocal: protection of what is n-a-t-u-r-a-l. What is natural? Rights.

Starting today, each of us should abandon constitutional rights for: constitutional protections.

Rights -- abilities that enable self performance -- are inherent in each human. They are not removable, they are nontransferable and they are incapable of growing in number and size and are incapable of reduction in number and size. They are steady, constant, continuous and always.

Each human has his or her right to his life, freedom and -- I know what I'm going to say will be unsettling to some people -- happiness.

Briefly, why I say happiness rather than "pursuit of happiness" is the human is a happy being, not a dour, sour being. In other words, innately, or biologically, our constitution is happiness. You can disagree with my assessment of course, but if you do, still I'd believe you to be or want to be happy instead of unhappy. (I understand the argument between what I stated and "pursuit of happiness." I believe the latter phrase is from a material standpoint, not a biological standpoint.)

In a sense, my assessment of rights can be summed up in "what is right naturally," the operative word being naturally, as in what is natural, what is from nature, what is biological. Therefore, I say it is right that once you are alive you live your life until you cease naturally; that it is right you do whatever you want provided you commit no harm and that if you do harm you resolve it with the person(s) you harmed; and that it is right to be happy, content, relaxed -- again, happy.

I've wrestled with the phrase constitutional guarantees. Might guarantees be preferable to constitutional protections? On the face of this argument, I'd say no, but wouldn't protections not convey but imply guarantees? If protections does that, however, this question: Would guarantees mean something besides the individual, instead of he for himself, ensures he is in certain conditions, and wouldn't that dynamic be offensive (read: constrictive and controlled) rather than defensive (read: able, flexible, forgiving, continuance)?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.