78 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Rights, Powers, Privileges, and Responsibilities

By       (Page 2 of 2 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   No comments
Message Richard Girard
Become a Fan
  (40 fans)

However, Thomas Jefferson was a learned man, and recognized that this faith in humanity, together with the concept of natural rights, were not by themselves sufficient for establishing—in a practical sense—a new nation.  Especially a nation “...conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...” as President Abraham Lincoln characterized our country at Gettysburg eighty-seven years later.            

Jefferson understood that the rights we all enjoy on a daily basis are, in a practical sense, what philosophers call “positive rights.”  Positive rights are those rights which are given to us either by legislation or contract, including the Social Contract.  Our “natural rights” as human beings, are transformed into “positive rights” by the  implicit or explicit agreement of the other members of our society as a whole, within the context of the Social Contract.  Recognizing this, Jefferson then used this fact as the practical foundation for the Declaration's third postulate: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”            

Mutual respect for one another's rights is the true basis for liberty.  Furthermore, the denial of any group's or individual's rights is inherently dangerous to everyone's liberty.  If, through the law, you (individually or as a group) can deny a group or individual some right that you now enjoy, then at sometime in the future the same logic can be used to deny you some right that you have heretofore enjoyed.              

There are limits to any exercise of individual rights, just as there should be for government powers.  The most important is that you cannot exercise your rights if they infringe upon the rights of others.  For example, I cannot set up  a lead smelter on my property, if it is next to an elementary school.  The rights to life and health for the children and teachers at that school, outweigh and take precedence over my right as a property owner.            

Thomas Jefferson implicitly states in the Declaration that an individual's natural rights are the basis for his theory of individual liberty, while positive rights are required for the proper application of that theory.  But, nowhere in the Declaration does Jefferson state that the government has rights, only powers.            

This is an important point: under Jefferson's theory, only humans (or natural persons) can have natural rights.   Governments derive their powers from the humans who agree—via the different aspects (custom, constitution, legislation, court decisions and the rest of the spectrum of legal precedents) of the Social Contract—to limit their own behavior in an effort to establish  equality, justice, and mutual benefit within the rules (both social and legal) of their society.            

Mankind's myriad institutions—governments, corporations, churches, etc.—do not have natural or positive rights, only powers and privileges.  Corporations in the United States have been extended the privilege (wrongly I believe) of enjoying the same rights under the Constitution as those enjoyed by human beings.  In other words, a non-living thing (the corporation) enjoys the same rights as living individuals.  This in turn provides certain individuals within that corporation greater protection than that enjoyed by those who are outside the “corporate umbrella.”  This means that a small group of people (primarily corporate officers), enjoy superior protection (in matters involving the corporation) under the law. This, while denying the majority of  citizens and residents (who are not part of the protected corporate class) of the United States equal protection under the law.  And this is contrary to the guarantees stated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.            

I think that we always need to be clear in our use of language.  An example of this need to be very precise in our use of language, is the use of the word “right” when we describe the actions of government or other non-human entities.  Governments have the “power,” the “authority,” or the “privilege,” to undertake any legal action, but it never has the “right.”  When the action is illegal, you should say the government  does not have the authority, power, or privilege, not that they do not have the right.  Or, you can say that the government's action is illegal, and that it violates your rights.            

This leads me to the final point of this article: the President of the United States has no special rights.            

Understand what my actual point is in this statement.  I am not saying that George W. Bush, as an American citizen, has no rights.  He of course retains his rights as a citizen—although I believe as President, he should be held to a far higher standard of responsibility (than the average citizen) when invoking those rights because of his office.  What I am saying is that George W. Bush has no additional rights because he is President of the United States, and that his authority, as expressed by his legal powers and privileges, is limited by both the Constitution and the law.            

Science Fiction author Robert A. Heinlein pointed out almost fifty years ago, in his novel Starship Troopers, that the converse of authority is responsibility.  By logical extension, any politician or bureaucrat's authority to use power—whether political, economic, social, or military—makes them responsible for the consequences of its use.  If you are President of the United States, the most powerful political office in the world, your responsibility—either directly, or through your subordinates, indirectly—is magnified a millionfold.  Or as President Truman stated, “The Buck Stops Here.”             

George W. Bush has never acted in a responsible manner in his life.  He has skated on the edge of disaster since he was a boy, putting firecrackers in frog's anuses, and bullying his siblings.  We should have taken Bush seriously when he said that governance of this nation would be easier if it were a dictatorship—providing he was the dictator.              

The office of Dictator was originally a six month long, emergency use only office in the Roman Republic.  A dictator had the power of life and death over Roman citizens, and the officeholder was immunized against prosecution for his actions as dictator.  Lucius Cornelius Sulla was the first to illegally seize the office of Dictator, and Gaius Julius Caesar was the last, and these self-appointed Dictators finished destroying the Roman Republic.            

George W. Bush is grasping for additional power that he is not entitled to.  He has used the recess appointments of political hacks to positions of responsibility in order to further his administration's nefarious agenda.  He has also conducted illegal surveillance of American citizens, used signing statements to say which parts of a law he will obey and enforce, and abused his power to issue Executive Orders in an attempt to establish an “unitary executive.”  Bush wants to make himself a dictator, because it is easier for a lazy shirker like him than the hard work required for properly managing a constitutionally limited, representative democracy.            

It is time to say no to the Bush administration.  If it were left up to me I would begin impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales for perjury and obstruction of justice the instant his Department of Justice refuses to bring charges of contempt of Congress against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers.  I would then impeach Dick Cheney for his crimes, starting with subverting the law with his energy task force, and violating national security in the case of Valerie Plame-Wilson.  Then I would impeach George W. Bush for war crimes and official malfeasance.  I would also impeach Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Ailito, and Thomas for lying under oath at their confirmations.  I would then take steps to limit the President's power in the future regarding both clemency and executive orders, starting with his abilities to: commit troops to combat without Congressional approval; and to limit the rights of any individual, citizen or no, by fiat.            

And, maybe, just maybe, a naturalized citizen of our nation will speak of this generation in the future, with the same reverence that Mr. George Uno spoke of the Declaration of Independence and our Founding Fathers to a group of children forty-four years ago.  

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Richard Girard Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Richard Girard is a polymath and autodidact whose greatest desire in life is to be his generations' Thomas Paine. He is an FDR Democrat, which probably puts him with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders in the current political spectrum. His answer to (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Great Enemy of the Truth

Into a Thousand Pieces

The Communist Takeover of America

The Judgment of History; Or Why the Breaking of the Oligarchs Avenges President Kennedy's Assassination--Part One

Social Capitalism

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend