Tag: unalienable rights

Categories
Quick Analysis

Independence Day’s Larger Significance

July 4, the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, is rightfully celebrated as America’s national holiday. In a larger sense, however, it is even more than that.  It marks a profound transition in human thought about the rights of each individual, implementing a concept radically different than anything that had been previously attempted.

“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 dramatic phrase repudiated the concept and practice that has existed for far too long, that individuals were mere cogs in a larger wheel of society. It is a debate that continues to this day. Far too few nations acknowledge the sovereignty of each man or woman.

Many nations (perhaps most) clearly subordinate the rights of individuals to that of the government. An Edwatch.org study provides an example from the Cuban constitution, which states:

“’Citizens have freedom of speech in keeping with the goals of the socialist society.’” The ‘good [goals] of society’ will always be defined by government, of course. For that reason, any government which says that the good of society is more important than human rights is then free to suspend the basic human rights at any time, it wishes. Human rights cease to be genuine ‘rights’ if they can be suspended by the government for any reason…”

Unfortunately, and with disturbing and growing intensity, it is a battle being fought within the United States, the very land where the concept of “Unalienable Rights” was originally instituted.  Some Left-wing journalists, politicians, and judges are engaged in a singular effort to overturn the central tenet of American rights and government, the concept of “unalienable rights” which should not be limited or abolished by elected officials.

News commentator Chris Cuomo disturbingly displayed what has become a major thrust of Progressive political philosophy. In a 2017 comment described by the  Washington Times,  CNN anchor Cuomo stated: “ ‘Our laws do not come from God…They come from man.’ Obviously, Cuomo flunked civics….The framers of the Constitution clearly understood that in order to put certain rights out of the reach of government, whose power they wished to limit, those rights had to come from a place government could not reach.”

If this exchange was an isolated incident, some might feel comfortable in ignoring it.  However, that is clearly not the case. No less a person than an It djpaulkom.tv generic viagra in stores becomes an interesting venture, and that is exactly after 24 hours or more but not before 24 hours as over dose of Kamagra can be dangerous. They are preserving their generic levitra from india vitality and attractiveness, together with expectations of an active sex life, into their fifties, and the single-barrel will then give them pleasure up to three score years and ten.’ However, medical science has invented new kind of medicine that is generic medicine. Now, the semen leakage treatment is advanced enough and this particular treatment does 100mg viagra online not offer any extra insurance from sexually transmitted illnesses including HIV. Once the course viagra prescription price is over you have to appear for an online test and once you clear it you’ll be awarded your license. incoming United States Supreme Court Justice has also expressed a similar lack of respect for the central principle behind the entire structure of American government and law. During the confirmation hearings of Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. Tom Coburn had a blunt exchange.  Coburn sought to get clarify whether she believed in the fundamental rights provision of the Declaration.  She evaded answering.

Neither Cuomo nor Kagan are isolated examples. They are emblematic of a significant domestic movement favoring the eliminating the concept of unalienable rights.

The primacy of unalienable rights in America’s governing concept is neither complex nor obscure.  The Declaration of Independence is crystal clear. It is also enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which specifically states in Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment 9 recognizes that the government only has those rights specifically provided in the Constitution. The concept of limited federal government is fortified as well by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The concept is not a Republican-partisan one.  In his extraordinary inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy stated: “…the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

A study by Lonang Institute described unalienable rights as those that are “incapable of being lost or sold. Unalienable rights are retained despite government decrees to the contrary because civil government does not grant them in the first case. Moreover, no future generation may be disenfranchised of any unalienable right by the present generation…The Declaration translated the common principles of equality and unalienable rights into positive law. Civil government was and is obliged to observe the rule of legal equality. It must recognize that all human beings enjoy certain unalienable rights from God–rights that are not created by the civil government, but which that government is nevertheless obligated to protect to the extent that the people articulate such rights in their constitutions or statutes…The modern lament is even more sweeping. Not only are there philosophers who deny these principles, but their protégés are appointed to the judicial bench, they percolate through the state legislature and through Congress, they occupy the state house and [have occupied the] White House, and they teach and are taught in the law schools.”

Photo: Independence Hall, Philadelphia.  (New York Analysis Photo)

Categories
Quick Analysis

The War on Unalienable Rights, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the war on unalienable rights.

Robert Curry, writing in The Federalist, describes why the Declaration’s “Unalienable” concept is so vital:

“Others before the American Founders had dreamed of a political order of liberty and justice, but every previous attempt ended in failure…The Declaration does not simply declare America’s independence; it declares that every government not designed and dedicated to securing the unalienable rights of its people is illegitimate…The great failing of earlier attempts at the people ruling themselves was the tendency for them to become tyrannies of the majority. That we have unalienable rights determines a fundamental feature the design of the American regime of liberty, and any legitimate regime, must have. It must be designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority because a tyranny of the majority directly threatens our unalienable rights.”

The obvious question, then, is why would anyone who professes a loyalty to the Constitution seek to oppose the concept of unalienable rights?

The answer is that to those who seek to implement a “progressive” agenda—which seeks to impose the financial and cultural views of a self-described intellectual elite on a majority that resists being told how to run their own lives and what to do with their own property—understand that their goals can only be achieved through force, and the concept if unalienable rights stands in their way.

It tends to affect the erections of the penile region during copulation.The intake of the drug is quite safe and effective even in the period of current medication then there is no need to hold back any longer; with VigRX you are always sure of getting special treat in your advancements of having something special from enhancement pills that cannot expose you to harmful health risks. viagra cialis online The muscles getting more blood cialis canada no prescription and make them relaxed. buy levitra professional Erectile dysfunction has become a very common disease these days. Depression and anxiety are also very common in these days, the majority in the men and women are living a busy life as a result of busy schedules in the life, in case you are waiting for an hour or so depending on the strength of the online prescriptions for cialis.  Matt Palumbo writes this about Progressives “In their minds, forcing people to act in accordance with their social justice ideology is perfectly fine, and not doing so actually constitutes a crime…progressives have become increasingly supportive of using the government to censor opinions they disapprove of. In nearly every case, progressive liberals are more likely to support using the coercive power of the state to force society to be structured according to their will, and yet somehow they see themselves as good and just for doing so.”

The preference by progressive politicians for authoritarian socialist governments has been noticeable for some time.  Just one example: in 2002, reports the Weekly Standard, “16 U.S. congressmen voiced their approval for [now deceased] Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Representatives Barney Frank, John Conyers, Chaka Fattah, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, and others complained in a letter to President Bush that the United States was not adequately protecting Chavez against a groundswell of internal opposition to his increasingly authoritarian rule–an upsurge that might lead to his ouster. Elected to power in 1998, Lt. Col. Chavez has hijacked democracy in Venezuela and is openly moving the country toward totalitarianism. Beyond Venezuela’s borders, he celebrates, protects, and does business with terrorists.”

 The diminishment of unalienable rights is not just a theoretical threat. The growing trend of progressive repression of the unalienable right of free speech can be seen today clearly on college campuses, where centrist and conservative speakers are kept out by force.  Llewllyn Rockwell, Jr., writing for the renowned Mises Institute  notes: “ it’s no wonder the left needs the total state…leftists who terrorize their ideological opponents are simply being faithful to the mandate of Herbert Marcuse, the 1960s leftist who argued that freedom of speech had to be restricted in the case of anti-progressive movements…”

Emmett Tyrell, Jr., , quoting William Harcourt, notes that “Liberty does not consist in making others do what you think is right. The difference between a free government and a government which is not free is principally this—that a government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free government interferes with nothing except what it must.”

Those that deny the existence of unalienable rights inevitably excuse their attacks on fundamental freedoms imbedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with rationale’s both small and large. Whatever the excuse, whatever the cause, however, the end result will be the same if progressives, through force, intimidation, or public pressure get their way: the vast diminishment of freedom.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The War on Unalienable Rights

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two-part review of the growing, and disturbing, trend to disregard the concept of unalienable rights.

Some Left-wing journalists, politicians, and judges are engaged in a singular effort to overturn the central tenet of American rights and government, the concept of “unalienable rights” which should not be limited or abolished by elected officials.

Recently, news commentator Chris Cuomo disturbingly displayed what has become a major thrust of Progressive political philosophy.

The exchange, as described in the Washington Times:  “It isn’t often that a member of the media reveals the philosophy behind his political ideology, but last week, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo outed himself. In an exchange with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore…Moore said ‘…our rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.’ Cuomo disagreed: ‘Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.’ Obviously, Cuomo flunked civics….The framers of the Constitution clearly understood that in order to put certain rights out of the reach of government, whose power they wished to limit, those rights had to come from a place government could not reach.”

If this exchange was an isolated incident, some might feel comfortable in ignoring it.  However, that is clearly not the case. No less a person than an incoming United States Supreme Court Justice has also expressed a similar lack of respect for the central principle behind the entire structure of American government and law.

During the confirmation hearings of Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. Tom Coburn had a testy exchange in which he pushed her to state her belief in fundamental rights.  She evaded answering.

Cuomo nor Kagan are not isolated examples. They are emblematic of a significant movement favoring the eliminating the concept of unalienable rights.

The primacy of unalienable rights in America’s governing concept is neither complex nor obscure.  The Declaration of Independence is crystal clear, using these unambiguous words:

Below is a short overview on these three forms- Kamagra tablets are obtained in three diverse forms of consumption that are tablets, jellies and soft tablets. viagra soft Thirdly, driving license is something that a driver must carry each time and every time buy cialis pharmacy http://amerikabulteni.com/2018/10/17/nba-kurenin-en-populer-spor-ligi-olma-yolunda/ he is out with his car, whether driving to a nearby or distant places. Yet for all the ailments and maladies we confront in this huge terrible planet, sample of viagra none have gained as much consideration, and as much restorative research subsidizing, as a basic discomfort that each man knows all too well, particularly a night later of hard drinking: a fizzling erection. Though ED might have some psychological elements, the problem is worse, especially for those men, if they want to be the best viagra fathers. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

It is also enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which specifically states in Amendment 9:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment 9 recognizes that the government only has those rights specifically provided in the Constitution. The concept of limited federal government is fortified as well by the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Nor is the concept a Republican-partisan one.  In his extraordinary inaugural address,    President John F. Kennedy stated: “…the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

A study by Lonang Institute described unalienable rights as those that are “incapable of being lost or sold. Unalienable rights are retained despite government decrees to the contrary because civil government does not grant them in the first case. Moreover, no future generation may be disenfranchised of any unalienable right by the present generation…The Declaration translated the common principles of equality and unalienable rights into positive law. Civil government was and is obliged to observe the rule of legal equality. It must recognize that all human beings enjoy certain unalienable rights from God–rights that are not created by the civil government, but which that government is nevertheless obligated to protect to the extent that the people articulate such rights in their constitutions or statutes…The modern lament is even more sweeping. Not only are there philosophers who deny these principles, but their protégés are appointed to the judicial bench, they percolate through the state legislature and through Congress, they occupy the state house and [have occupied the] White House, and they teach and are taught in the law schools.”

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Supreme Court affirms individual rights

What is the broader meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s two latest decisions?

In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act’s insurance provisions can’t be used to force closely-held companies and not-for-profits to cover procedures that violate their convictions. The specific matter in the case concerned birth control expenses.

In the Harris v. Quinn matter,  the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from Rehabilitation Program staff who do not want to join or support the union.

The system of checks and balances which has preserved freedom in America has roared back against an increasingly aggressive and power-hungry philosophy of government. The collective result of these two cases reaffirms the rights of individuals against increasingly overbearing acts of the government, either directly or through a third party.
So, make the order and be a happy, confident and lovely relation with your partner by the time you will finish the course of capsules. levitra prices The strange thing about blizzards is that they seem to bring out the best and the worst thing is that they even trigger negative side results which may have made the patient tadalafil tablets prices much more miserable. It can create anxiety, stress and cialis generic cipla depression. Person taking this medication must avoid eating fatty meals and purchasing viagra in canada alcohol consumption.
While there are many democracies in the world, what makes the United States truly exceptional is the primacy of the individual.  The Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” combined with the central concept of the Declaration of Independence, that all have “unalienable rights,” gives ultimate sovereignty to individuals.

Increasingly, that key tenet of American government has been challenged.  Indeed, during the nomination process of now-Justice Kagan, she refused to endorse the concept. Governments at all levels, federal, state and local, have sought to intrude into the private lives and decisions of citizens in ways that the Founding Fathers would have found intolerable.

These latest decisions provide a welcomed counterbalance to that disturbing trend.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Troubling Attitudes of Recent Supreme Court Appointees

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the recent case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action illustrates a significant problem with recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court justices may be from any political party or political philosophy, but they should all agree on fundamental principles. The concept that of “unalienable Rights” is perhaps the most important. A willingness to decide cases based on the facts and applicable law rather than a political agenda is also an essential quality.

Unfortunately, the mindset of recent appointees to the high court has failed to demonstrate these attributes.

The most recent illustration comes from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Schuette case.  This matter, arising in Michigan, concerned a law approved by the voters banning the practice of affirmative action in admission to state universities. Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington have similar legislation.  Justice Kennedy stated that “this case is not how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it.”

In that way Dorn Spinal Therapy has been generally known as generic price viagra downtownsault.org it can relieve infertility, digestive and breathing problems as well in their life. Other symptoms may also include such as a dull ache in forehead or back of head and pain in neck and shoulders which travels to head. 7.Heart soft pill cialis my link Disease: Chronic anxiety and mental pressure lead to persistently increased level of stress hormones. This myth is not accurate, however, as cheap levitra tablets is an outstanding treatment for age-related erectile dysfunctional problems for any affected age group. Everyone knows that to use herbs is considered the best treatment option for erectile dysfunction. cialis without prescription In the Michigan case, the electorate made a decision not to permit racial bias in the form of affirmative action in admissions to state universities.  The majority opinion held that judicial interference in the decisions of the electorate was inappropriate.  The issue voted on by the citizenry did not interfere or limit the rights of any individual or group; it forbade the use of a particular criteria in admissions that gave preference to applications based on race.

Justice Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that the electorate’s decision could only be held legal if race-sensitive admissions policies are not in the interests of minorities, and if minority status is irrelevant to voting behavior. Her concept is one based on politics, not law, and is inappropriate.

The introduction of concepts foreign to the American belief in equality under the law and unalienable rights was also made manifest in the appointment of Justice Kagan in 2010. During the confirmation process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she did believe in the concept of unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal guardian of basic freedoms.  These worrisome attitudes of recent appointees to that body are deeply troubling.