Remember that the Bill of Rights clearly is a list of prohibitions against the government, NOT an enumeration of rights granted (the name is quite misleading).Īnd the problem is that no part of government has shown any inclination to obey this duty, and hasn’t for 150 years or more. The unavoidable conclusion is that it isn’t the job of the government to protect our rights so much as it is to keep from infringing them. For example, I really wonder if Madison actually believed his bizarre argument about the meaning of semicolons in Federalist #41 (his claim that Article 1 Section 8 doesn’t grant unlimited power to tax). Or perhaps more accurately, expressing arguments intended to make the ratifying voters believe it. The Framers pretended that this could be done the Federalist Papers are a set of marketing documents expressing that belief. Instead, the supposed purpose of the Constitution is to create a strong national government while at the same time preventing it from infringing on our inalienable rights. (Certainly Hamilton did not intend it to.) But interestingly enough, the Constitution does not. The Declaration of Independence says that this is the purpose of government.
A general duty to prevent invasion, sure but a specific duty to protect a specific person from the consequences of invasion is a different matter.Īs for how can the government protect our inalienable rights? That’s a great question. I would expect the existing reasoning that says the police have no such duty to be applied to that other case as well. That doesn’t directly amount to an obligation to protect any one person, I suspect. You’re right, the government does have a Constitutional duty to repel invasion, and to guarantee to each state a republican government. The reason we should be able to carry guns is that we have that right and it is therefore outside the jurisdiction of government to interfere. The original quote says that the reason we should be able to carry guns is that the government is failing in its responsibility to protect us. “…That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men” The only protection a government can provide legitimately is the protection of rights. Progressives are of course dangerously insane. That is exactly how they perceive the “right” to birth control, for example.
REASON AND ARGUMENT FELDMAN PDF FREE FREE
The Progressive interpretation of the above quote would be that government is violating our rights if we don’t receive free weapons, free ammunition, free training and a government-provided training and practice facility. The original quote doesn’t seem to acknowledge an unalienable right, but asserts a government responsibility to “keep us safe” (which doesn’t exist).
The issue of whether government can protect us, or the extent to which government can or will protect us, is irrelevant. “A government has no right denying the means to protect themselves.”ĭenying that human right would not become acceptable if government were providing each and every one of us a team of expert body guards.
0 kommentar(er)
