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
Life. Liberty. Happiness.
We hold these truths to be self evident.
Great words, great ideals, especially when youre telling a king to stick it up his ass.
We hold these truths to be self evident.
Except for that that part, of course, where those truths werent self evident.
Not at all.
The men who wrote that letter to King George may have found certain inalienable rights to be self evident, but they were in the minority. King George III certainly didnt find those rights to be self evident, nor did his governors in the colonies, nor the nobles of the British Empire, nor did most American colonists for that matter.
It turned out that there was nothing self evident about any of it, as the Founders themselves found out once theyd won their independence and set themselves down to write the Constitution . That lack of evidence is one of the reasons the words in the Constitution are very, very different from those in the Declaration.
Even after the Constitution was hammered out, those truths were anything but self evident. For the better part of 1787 the Framers locked themselves in the Pennsylvania State House and shouted at each other, arguing over whether or not an enumerated bill of rights should be included. George Mason and Elbridge Gerry demanded a formal list of rights, but others such as James Wilson passionately argued that incorporation any specific rights in the Constitution was a bad idea because it directly implied that any rights not explicitly enumerated did not legally exist inalienable though they may be.
Turns out, both sides were correct.
Two centuries later, youll find Americans declaring with a straight face that citizens have a God given right to carry a full military arsenal into the toy section of Target and gun down whomever they perceive to be a threat but not the right to vote or even a minimum degree of healthcare.
If rights are not specifically spelled out in the fabric of the countrys governing document, then its not long before some pinch-faced self-involved jackass decides those rights dont exist, or that they apply only to a certain segment of the population. If you say all men are created equal when what you really meant was all human beings regardless of sex, creed, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, age, ability, height, weight, dexterity, eye color, ear size, attractiveness, income bracket, military service, pacifism, reading ability, bilateral symmetry, political affiliation, taste in music, and any other bullshit category we divide people up into then what will inevitably happen is that somebody, somewhere will argue that those rights dont apply to people they dont like.
And that, Folks, that right there, is just about the only self evident truth.
Ironically enough, that is also exactly what the Founding Fathers were talking about in their declaration to King George.
The Framers corrected their naivet in fairly short order. Those today who would enshrine the Constitution as holy writ, handed down from their deity inviolate and Divine, ignore the fact that the very men who wrote the Constitution considered it a flawed and imperfect product of human endeavor right from the very beginning and many said so, loudly. And they not only included in the very fabric of the Constitution itself a mechanism for change and update, they themselves set about making modifications and corrections almost immediately.
The Bill of Rights is one of those changes the first ten changes in point of fact, if you want to get technical about it.
Those Amendments addressed certain truths that werent self evident to all.
But it wasnt enough.
It took a Civil War and another modification to the Constitution to force the nation to acknowledge certain rights, rights that should have been self evident but werent and apparently still arent to a significant fraction of the population. Womens Suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, the battle for Gay Rights, these struggles exist because for far too many Americans, Americans who should damned know better by now, the truth of human rights just isnt all that self evident.
And the fundamental problem is this: For Americans, our rights come without responsibilities.
The Founding Fathers apparently had a much higher opinion of us than we deserve. As such they overlooked this simple self evident truth: rights must come with accountability otherwise, for a population increasingly without reason and prone to extremism, rights become less about individualism and more a license for violent ideology and unhinged fanaticism without consequence.
And you dont have to look very far to find proof of what Im talking about here.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of religion was intended as exactly that, the personal freedom to believe or not without the government imposing belief, or not, upon you. Its as simple as that, if you believe, fine, then go believe. Go to your church, say the hosannas, sing the hymns, drink the wine, fondle the snakes (or the priests, whatever), shake, dance, and rock and roll. But the First Amendment does not give you the right to use your goddamned religion as a club to beat the rest of us about the head and shoulders. You have no right, no right at all, none, to threaten the rest of us with your God. Fuck you. You have no right, no right at all, none, to tell the rest of us who we can marry or how to manage our own reproduction or to demand equal time with science in the classroom. Freedom of religion was intended to keep your god out of my government, and my government out of your church, not so you can go around acting like a raving jackass or so that TV personalities can grow insanely rich tax free or so that corporations can make healthcare choices for their employees in the name of their CEOs small and selfish god. If you claim that the earth is 6000 years old and you demand creationism be taught in public schools in direct conflict with everything we know about how the universe works, then before youre allowed to damage the next generation you should have to prove your silly nonsense to the same exact level of scientific rigor we demand from any field of science. If you claim that same-sex marriage will destroy the fabric of society then the burden of proof is on you and you alone, you should have to prove your statement in a court of law in no uncertain terms. Freedom of religion wasnt enumerated in the Bill of Rights so you could use it to deny everybody else their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For far too many Americans that is exactly what Freedom of Religion has become a club to beat others with.
Freedom of speech was intended to allow each citizen to express themselves without fear of a king lopping off their head. But it doesnt mean that you can go around saying any stupid-assed thing you like without consequence or without taking responsibility for your idiotic nonsense. Freedom of speech wasnt intended to protect you from getting punched in the nose when you say something stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, homophobic, jingoistic, demeaning, insulting, hateful, inflammatory, or so you can just keep flogging your pet conspiracy theory over and over and over no matter how many times its been soundly debunked. Its one thing for some drooling nut with a bad comb-over to call the president a communist Muslim from Kenya, its another thing entirely for a sitting Congresswoman to do so over and over without consequence.
Freedom of speech was intended to ensure individual liberty, not to tear the country apart for a political agenda or to enshrine booger-eating paranoid stupidity as some kind of virtue.
Freedom of the press was intended to ensure that the people had multiple sources of independent information about their world and an avenue of inspection into their government. The Framers werent so nave as to expect unbiased truth from the press, but they intended Freedom of the Press to provide an independent check upon the excesses of government power. Freedom of the Press was never intended to allow media moguls and pundits and corporations to become pretty tyrants themselves. Like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press was intended to preserve the Union not tear it asunder, it was intended to preserve liberty not to destroy it under an avalanche of hate and fear and falsehoods in the name of profit and politics.
Freedom of the Press was intended to give the people a voice, not to put words into their mouths.
Freedom of Assembly was intended to allow people to gather together, in celebration, in communication, in worship, in concern, in defense, in petition, in whatever peaceable manner they choose up to and especially in criticism of government. Freedom of Assembly wasnt intended to allow a bunch of gun waving racists and haters to gather together and threaten to shoot down the government and snarl at their neighbors because they dont want to pay their fair share or because they refuse to acknowledge the rights of other Americans. We settled that, long ago, we called it the Civil War.
Freedom of Assembly was intended to facilitate direct communication between the people and their government, not so the raging mindless mob could burn our nation down and squat in the ruins.
Freedom to Petition the Government For Redress of Grievances was intended to do exactly what it says, to allow each citizen to face the government on a equal footing in court and demand legal satisfaction for violation of their rights and liberty. Freedom to petition the government is similar to Freedom of Assembly, the difference being that Assembly is a direct form of communication and Redress is through the government itself via the Judicial Branch. Freedom to Petition applies to business as well as individuals but it was never intended to allow business to dictate individual rights.
Freedom to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances was intended to preserve individual liberty, not so business or the church could use the courts to force their version of morality upon the rest of us.
And theres this:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If there is any right enumerated or assumed that we Americans have perverted beyond all rational recognition, its this one. If ever there was a right Americans demand free of any responsibility whatsoever, its this one. The right to keep and bear arms was intended so that every American could muster to the defense of the nation in time of crises, not so a bunch of dimwitted paranoid droolers with tiny brains and even smaller dicks could carry an arsenal of automatic weaponry into restaurants and the toy section of their local department store. The right to keep and bear arms was never ever intended to allow thirty thousand Americans to die or be injured every single goddamned year in firearms related violence. The right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated in the Constitution so that a bunch of irresponsible government hating religious nuts could go around threatening to kill the rest of us. Crazy fanatics with guns is not the price of freedom.
The right to Keep and Bear Arms was intended to secure liberty, not to make Americans afraid in their own communities.
And so it goes, from the First Amendment to the Tenth.
Two and half centuries ago Americans fought for freedom from the tyranny of a foreign king.
They fought for the rights we now take for granted, that we take as our birthright and our due as Americans without effort or responsibility or thought for the consequences of our abuse.
As I sit here, on July 4th, 2014, it seems to me that the inalienable truths that were so obvious to our Founders are no more self evident for many Americans today than they were to the King of England 238 years ago.
It is long past time to shout down the crazies and the haters and those to whom the truth of life, liberty, and the promise of happiness for all human beings, whoever and wherever they are, is not self evident.
It is long past time for we Americans to start living up to the promise of our founding.
Happy 4th of July.
Now, get to work.
In the US we have the freedom to become unemployed . The rest of the rights don't matter after that .
Correct. And, in fact, that has been stated, and re-stated by the Supremes in numerous opinions.
Another example:
Lots more HERE
Excellent article ambiv.
It really makes some great points.
Good read. I liked that. Thanks.
Excellent article, dear Ambi!!!
Wonderful article amb.. A good reminder ofour history Thanks for posting this.....
This statement, to me, seems rather non-self-evident. Are you proposing that we have a "Bill of Responsibilities"?
Tom Jefferson had a way of appealing to the common man . That way was offering freebies . Sound familiar ?
There is much discussion concerning rights, but I see little in the media concerning how those rights are derived. But leaving that aside for the moment, I fail to see how an individual could claim a right and still have no moral sense of responsibility also.
We have all acted irresponsible at some time in our lives, but does that act negate the right?
What we really need, in my view, is to quickly work through the screaming phase and get to the thinking phase of society. If one wishes to live in a society made up of millions of people, there must be much discussion and much give and take, just as there was in Independence Hall.
I've been in the unemployed part. Think I will take the rights.
What were the freebies? I might want some.
Back then it was all about the expansion of human rights . That was all the rage in philosophical circles in Europe . Now it would be about personal economics ...
Aren't you already on medicaid ?
Also there's this :
Seems it still is today. The problem is, we don't have any discussion about it. A right is suddenly declared from thin air and no discussion was had. That could lead to war, it has in the past.
Please elaborate ...
Everyone seems to have an opinion as to what is legally protected free speech-- and what isn't. (And most opinions I've heard are wrong). So many people have their opinions of what should be covered....and so many people believe they know what's legal because they feel that "everyone knows" what should be the law.
Of curse the problem with what any individual thinks the law "should" be is that some other person thinks it "should' be different than what you or I might think. And of course the fact that someone else might have a different opinion freaks a lot of people out...lol
What is allowed under freedom of speech is broader here than just about any other country in the world. Occasionally the Court makes a ruling that changes something a bit. But like it or not, under our current form of government , the Court has the ultimate say in interpreting the laws.
You might be right. What changes in the law would you suggest to remedy this alleged oversight on their part?
I wonder. Sometimes, reading NT and/or watching TV news and the buffoons we've elected, I think there may be too much discussion.
Well, actually it may be the level of discussion...often the discussion is superficial-- people on both sides of the aisle blindly parroting what Fox or MSNBC (or Common Dreams, RT, David Duke, al jazeera, etc etc has told them).
And sometimes the discussions mainly take the form of placing blame or complaining about what's wrong (nothing wrong with that as a starting point)-- without ever focusing on solutions.
Too much cursing the darkness perhaps-- without lighting any candles?
Definitely.
Polls indicate that a very high percentage of Americans are disgusted with Congress, and Obama's approval rating has plummeted.
"Income inequality" is increasing (that's not just someone's perception-- lots of data bears that out). In fact, the middle class is actually shrinking...it seems that if we continue at this rate, the country will consist of very wealthy-- and very poor-- with almost no middle class.
While there are still some diehard Democrats and diehard republicans, it seems that more and more people blame both parties and don't have a preference. And-- not sure if this is true-- but I believe the bulk of the Republican party has gotten much more extreme than in the past (hard to believe now, but there used to be some moderate Republicans). Both parties used to be more open to compromise.
People are sick of war, yet the government send more American kids to Iraq...
It seems to me that bigotry and stereotyping of groups is on the rise. Muslims? Some people feel that they are all evil terrorists, others feel that they are generally more upright than others and should be excused from acts that would be criticized in other groups. Some folks seem to believe that all our problems are due to blacks and Hispanics-- other seem to feel that all whites are evil.
People are frustrated (although I've noticed that most people are very unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. (Even the "obesity epidemic"-- some people feel it just "happens to them"-- they have no control over their weight-- and can't understand why it happens. (despite heavy consumption of junk food, and being couch potatoes-- golly gee, I can't understand why I weigh 300 lbs..its a mystery to me! And then they get "old age" diseases early in life...)
Perhaps that would explain why Katy Perry pulled a pvt Benkamin in her last video :
Is it really a discussion or just loud hyperbole?
That is what I see.
I certainly understand the need to vent, I do enough of it at work every day. In the end though, to ease the frustration, I still have to sit face to face with the people and tell them what I need and why what they are doing is frustrating.
At some point, and for America I fear it needs to be sooner rather than later, we need to get to beyond the venting in order to actually build something that works for all.
The right to health care: I may have a need for health care, but do I really have a right to it? If it is a right, why am I being forced to pay for it, even if I don't want it?
The government seems to be dressing mandates in rights clothing, and that can only end badly I fear.
I like that summary ...
Agreed.
But while it may indeed behoove us to do that, my observation is that most Americans are unwilling to "grok" the concept--let alone take any responsibility for what they are creating with their consciousness.
There seems to be "Critical mass" of a certain vibration, of a certain "level of consciosness" as it were-- and that level is not too high, if ya catch my drift...
Yup. And it sure is on a whole 'nother level than the usual drivel than some of the nonsensical meaningless garbage that is sometimes attempted to be passed off here in the pretense that it has anything meaningful to say.
Wonderful article Ambi!
I spent the 4th at my friends house watching the series "John Adams". It so well depicted how you describe our founding fathers. They, themselves felt that the Constitution was flawed. They bickered over almost every detail of it. They also showed how Machiavellian people like Hamilton, Jefferson, and others were to Adams. The behind the scenes dirty work that would lead to his one term. These were not the demigods that we now make them. Just men trying to achieve something that had never been done before; a child country breaking away from the parent.
It is still a wonderful document as is our Declaration..... unique in history from brilliant yet flawed humans.
Thank you for reminding us of that.