Liberals Re-Writing The Constitution, Re-Defining Rights

Ken McCracken • July 22, 2007

The buzzword on the left nowadays is “tolerance” for those with different lifestyles — like cross-dressers — but almost everything that these folks want to do, liberals won’t tolerate. One smoker lamented that if “gays were discriminated against today the way smokers are, there would be an uproar.” Gun owners have reason to be fearful too. In a recent blog interview on Moveon.org, John Edwards of North Carolina proclaimed that health care, child care, a livable wage and a clean environment are “rights,” but owning a gun is a “privilege.” The men and women who gathered in Kiowa would like to send him a copy of the Constitution.

David Harsanyi sent that link along to me, and also pointed out this YouTube video of Edward proclaiming a living wage, a college education and…internet access as “rights,” but gun ownership as a privilege:

Transcript of the pertinent part where Edwards is answering questions about what is and is not a right:

Question: A college education?
Edwards: Right.
Q: Health care?
E: Right.
Q: A livable wage?
E: Right.
Q: Owning a handgun?
E: Privilege.
…
Q: Access to the Internet?
E: That should be a right.

Just to review: Health care, a “living wage” and internet acccess (none of which appears in the Constitution) are “rights.” But owning a firearm, something that is explicitly named as a right in the Constitution – it has it’s own amendment for crying out loud, even free speech and free assembly, etc. were lumped together in the 1st – is now a “privilege” according to Edwards.
It’s almost as if people like Edwards have absolutely no respect for what the Constitution actually says, or the methods by which we establish those things that are and are not “rights.”

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Guns, Nanny State, Politics

http://Array Bat One

Neiman,

Your comment above, detailing the thoughts of our Founding Fathers, is pretty much wasted on idiot liberals like Mr. John Foland. After all, those august gentlemen swore an oath, mutually pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their scared honor. That sort of devotion to principle is well beyond the capacity of any liberal, including Foland.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

Ahh! Proof, you sound like a natural politician
Neiman

A lawyer assumes there are no absolutes, that the law only means what they can convince the court at any moment in time and under different circumstances that it means. So, Edwards starts with the belief he can sway the people to hear his definitions of things and support his case.

Liberals believe the Constitution is a living document and absent the Constitutionally mandated Amendment process, activist legislators and jurists can interpret the meaning based on changing social mores, international norms and in any way that advances their political agenda. They rail at any attempt to appeal to Original Intent of the Framers and they show positive contempt for those Rights not in line with their agenda and they are constantly advancing unenumerated rights and enshrining them into settled case law.

Therefore, one should not be surprised that Edwards sees rights in the Constitution that are not specifically enumerated and denies rights that are, I would be shocked to see him recognize anything in the Bill of Rights, at keast as written.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Health care, a “living wage” and internet access (none of which appears in the Constitution) are “rights.” But owning a firearm, something that is explicitly named as a right in the Constitution…is now a “privilege” according to Edwards.

Please remember that Monsieur Edwards is a lawyer. He ought to know better! (That is the reason his attack on Judge Charles Pickering was so reprehensible.) The alternatives are that he is an incompetent lawyer or a world class liar. I would not trust this man’s opinion on a parking ticket violation!
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Any “right” that can be taken away is a privilege

Not just “life”, HG, but “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness”. All our freedoms are merely “privileges according to John Faux-land…

Get real and stay there.

Freedom in the land of reality is safeguarded by individuals who take the Second Amendment seriously. Rights must be secured, because they can be taken away.
I’m glad you have Internet capability on your planet. Write often!

Oh, and for future reference:

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…

(At least our folly is pure! )
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

you sound like a natural politician

As opposed to an un -natural politician? What would that be? One who told the truth?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

BTW, If little Johnnie Breck Girl were to swear to uphold the Constitution, exactly what would he be swearing to uphold???
HG

You can vote for change, you can revolt as a last resort, but to believe that your so-called rights are somehow god-given and unchangeable is pure folly.

So then human beings have no moral responsibility to one another except that which some human being defines in a written document that then becomes law?
robert108

Bat: Well, you know; everything is relative, man. /sarcasm
John Foland

Any “right” that can be taken away is a privilege. A constitution, a promise on paper or written in stone, a play on words cannot alter that fact. You can vote for change, you can revolt as a last resort, but to believe that your so-called rights are somehow god-given and unchangeable is pure folly. Get real and stay there.
redwolf

living wage ? if you want a living wage get a living job! stop expecting a caddilac salary for a chevy of a job!
HG

Any “right” that can be taken away is a privilege.

Your ability to breathe can be taken away by a murderer, does that make life a privelege?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

He would be swearing to uphold that living, breathing, evolving document that can be read to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Ah! I had a rubber ruler like that once! I could always stretch it to make the dimensions fit!
Neiman

Bat One: Well said!
Bat One

Given a choice… we still have that, don’t we?… I’ll stick with those specific inalienable Rights with which I’ve been endowed by the Creator.

Those liberals who think it would be just a swell idea to let John Edwards (or anyone else) change those Rights, ought to try real, real hard to think first. ‘Cause if its okay for John Edwards to change ‘em, there’s no reason that George Bush, or Dick Cheney, couldn’t change ‘em as well.
robert108

When lefties say “rights” they actually mean “entitlements”, not “responsibilities”. If you know this fact, you can then understand why they seem to be so focused on “rights”. Funny thing: all of their “rights” involve taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who haven’t earned it. I guess that’s also a leftie “right”.
Neiman

John Foland in ignorance said: “but to believe that your so-called rights are somehow god-given and unchangeable is pure folly.”

Well guess what Johnny boy, that is exactly what Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our Founding Father’s believed:

“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.”

They said that when they enumerated these basic human rights in our National Laws and By-Laws (Constitution), a thing called the Bill of Rights, these rights were granted by and only as long as we recognized our Creator, were guaranteed by Him. The government, with the consent of the governed then instituted laws (Constitution) to establish the existence of those basic human rights.

These same men provided a lawful means to amend that Constitution and they anticipated that when the government took it upon themselves to change it without the consent of the governed, they recognized the right of the governed to take up arms and overthrow that government.

If you and people like you choose to change the Constitution absent the Constitutional process and the consent of the governed, you are committing suicide in that your own rights will in the end by denied to you as well.
http://icallbs.net/ Elisa

If little Johnnie Breck Girl were to swear to uphold the Constitution, exactly what would he be swearing to uphold???

He would be swearing to uphold that living, breathing, evolving document that can be read to mean whatever you want it to mean.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Remember, Edwards grew up and went to school after they went to pot. Literally. To change the second amendment would take 3/4ths of the state legislature’s approval.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Any “right” that can be taken away is a privilege.

But all rights can be taken away, even those explicitly provided for in the Constitution. In fact, the 5th amendment points toward the only requirement standing between us and our rights being taken away: Due process of law.

You can be denied life and liberty, as long as those doing it provide you with due process.

But that doesn’t make guns a privilege any more than it makes free speech a privilege.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Liberals Re-Writing The Constitution, Re-Defining Rights

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments