If you have a copy of the United States Constitution handy then get two highlighters of different colors. Starting at Article One, begin highlighting every occurrence of the word power with one ofthe highlighters. Continue through to the end of the Twenty-seventh Amendment with the same colored marker. Now, repeat the process except this time use the second color and highlight each occurrence of the word right or rights. (Or, if you happen to be a cyber-geek, then find the Constitution on the web and do word searches.)
Notice the pattern.
Every instance of the word power refers to an action of government. Article One, the powers of Congress are defined. Article Two, the powers of the Presidency are defined. Article Three, the powers of the judiciary are defined. Rights are not mentioned.
The first occurrence of the word right is in the First Amendment. And it refers to the people. Every occurrence of the word refers to either, person, persons, the people, the citizens, and on one occasion, the accused. Never does it refer to the government.
Notice in particular, the Tenth Amendment, commonly known as the “state’s rights amendment”. The wording actually reserves powers to the states, not rights. States, like the federal government, have no rights.
The Founding Fathers were exceedingly diligent in their drafting of the Constitution and the attached Bill of Rights. It was by deliberate thought, not mere coincidence, that they choose the word power when referring to government and rights when referring to the people. Powers are granted or delegated. Rights are retained.
Rights are retained because they do not come from government. They are inherently owned by every individual—independent--of government. That is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people.”. [Emphases mine.] And when they wrote, “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 people have both rights and power. Their power is derived from their rights and it can be delegated. But even when they delegate their power, they retain their rights. Including the right to revoke power from those who abuse it.
-- Edited by Dan L on Tuesday 29th of January 2013 09:51:22 AM
Good post, I'm not one to push books but this in one book I think should be required reading for every politician before he can assume office. The book is "A Miracle That Changed the World: The 5000 Year Leap", by W. Cleon Skousen. This book is about the founding fathers and how they intended the government be run. The book describes the founding fathers intent when they wrote the Constitution. They intended it as a timeless document. Too many people today are saying the Constitution is outdated and never intended for this day and time. I have to call them on that and in my opinion they are the ones who want to destroy this nation and turn it into a welfare state. Anyway, that anyone who loves freedom and wants the country to get back on the right path to read this book. It also should be manditory reading for every political science student.
I'd be perfectly happy if the one work every US politician had read (and understood even 1/2 as well as FOTH does!) were the US Constitution! I have no problem with the concept that there may be parts of the Constitution that become outdated and need amendment provided that people recognize that there are principles in the Constitution that define who and what our nation is and should be and those principles can never change without very, very careful consideration. Other parts -- for example, procedural sections such as those that define Presidential succession or whether women can vote -- may be "changed with the times" without jeopardizing the basic principles.
Thanks, FOTH, I guess I knew in general terms what you've discovered was explicit in the US Constitution but didn't realize in such stark form!
I agree, "5000 Year Leap" is excellent. I first read it over 20 years ago and have used it as a resource since. As to leading office holders to a better appreciation and understanding of the Constitution, I think one of the best initiatives in that direction is Hillsdale College’s online Constitutional Studies Series. They have had very good success with it in 2011 and 2012. This year they have set for themselves the goal of enrolling 50 million new “students” in the program. It’s free and takes about one hour a week of time for about ten weeks. It is for the public at large but office holders who have not had exposure to constitutional studies would especially benefit from it
-- Edited by FOTH on Saturday 9th of February 2013 08:19:29 PM
Like you, I knew for years that it was there but had not seen how clearly the concept is laid out until I was having a discussion about bureau restrictions on what officers may or may not say publically with a young police officer who I was responsible for training in the field.
I explained that police officers, who represent the executive branch of government, do not enjoy the right to freedom of expression that they have as private citizens. He was even more chest chest-fallen when I told him that police officers also do not have a Second Amendment right to carry a gun—that they must rely on the authority of the citizens they are employed by to legally carry a gun while on duty. He challenged me to show him exactly where in the Constitution that was written. I responded that I did not recall it being expressly stated in so many words, but that the overall construction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is split along the lines of delegated powers and the reservation of rights. He was not so sure that I was knew what I was talking about.
At the end of our shift I took a copy of the Constitution and re-read it looking specifically for that line of distinction between powers and rights, which I knew was there. I used highlighters (as I described earlier) to help me find it. I was surprised when I saw from the result just how clearly the principle is laid out for us. When I showed it to my trainee the next day he too became a believer.
I do have some answers to the What Now question, unfortunately I do not have time to get into that at this moment. But I will, Lord willing, within the next day or so.
In the meantime, may I ask if your political precinct has an an active Precinct Committee Officer (PCO), or are you by any chance a PCO yourself? (Some places call them Precinct Captains.)
Foth - Your information is great. Thanks for the idea of using two highlighters when reading the Constitution. It sure helps to put things into perspective.
I have no problem with the concept that there may be parts of the Constitution that become outdated and need amendment provided that people recognize that there are principles in the Constitution that define who and what our nation is and should be and those principles can never change without very, very careful consideration. Other parts -- for example, procedural sections such as those that define Presidential succession or whether women can vote -- may be "changed with the times" without jeopardizing the basic principles.