The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them.
When liberals claim they have a right to health care from the federal government, cite Federalist 84 and watch the deer in the headlights.
Anytime I discuss the first ten amendments to the Constitution, I always refer to them as the “Bill of Prohibitions”. As correctly stated above, no government can grant rights. Governments often do their best to suppress natural rights, and the “Bill of Prohibitions” lists rights that our government is specifically prohibited from trampling upon.
I’d never thought about the dangers of specifically listing these prohibitions, but then again, I’m constantly amazed at how timeless the thoughts and actions of our founders were.
If we had followed the Constitution any of our present socialists laws would of had to be done by amendment. How far Commie would we of gone if all this crap had to be ratified by 2/3 of State legislatures. No we had a good system. Unfortunatly it is history. None of this Communism would be possible if we had of stayed with the us Constitution. We are going to pay a terrible price. There is no good outcome possible at this point.
The Ninth and Tenth SHOULD have covered everything he was worried about.
Notice something in the present debates over health care and cap & tax -
NO ONE is arguing that the fedgov is not Constitutionally authorized to do these things. It’s as if the Constitution is now a dead letter... which, indeed, it is in the minds of the statists.
I’ve given this a lot of thought over the years, and I’ve concluded that we were screwed either way. The only safeguard against the gubmint is a populace that jealously and vigilantly guards and preserves its own freedom. Short of that, scheming politicians, lawyers, and thieves will always find a way to have their way.
everyone should watch this video
A soldier is telling his senator he wants an apology for supporting the health care bill.
he knows his stuff.
God bless this guy
However, the other reason--a foundation for other rights--is right on target. An enumeration of rights could not but eventually be interpreted as a granting of rights, and if government grants these rights, why not more?
Plus the "Bill of Rights" has been for about sixty years or so the number one excuse for centralizing all power in the Federal Government--specifically the US Supreme Court, allowing it to sit in judgment on ever local ordinance in the country. And conservatives are at fault as well as liberals (though not so egregiously). But if a high school principal is "violating the First Amendment" by censoring the "f-word" out of a student newspaper, of course universities are "violating the First Amendment" by enacting speech codes. In other words, only the Federal Government can violate the "Bill of Rights." Conservatives who want to apply them to universities are as wrong as liberals who want to apply them to high school football prayers.
We'd have been much better off without a "Bill of Rights."
Hamilton was right on many points. He was wrong on some too. There has yet to be a man since Jesus who was always right.