|
| |
A
Balance of Rights
Nancy Salvato |
August 13, 2004
- At the Center for Civic Education’s "We The
People Institute” held at Illinois State University, I was privileged to
attend the lectures of five outstanding scholars; all of whom addressed the
influences of classical republicanism and natural rights philosophy inherent
to our political system. Most contemporary political debate can be traced
back to the two philosophies. When focusing on each of the candidates
talking points in the race for the presidency, it might be helpful to think
of their arguments framed in that great creation of our founding fathers,
the Constitution.
Classical republicanism refers to the idea that individuals should put the
needs of the community before self-interest. In natural rights philosophy
(modern liberalism), the purpose of government is to protect individual
rights. The ideal government achieves and maintains a balance between the
two ideas. The key word here is balance, there was no either/or intended
when the framers wrote the United States Constitution. It was suggested by
one of the speakers that we need to cultivate the capacity to hold
contradictory ideas simultaneously and that we cannot become terrorized by
dichotomies.
We were reminded that the constitution is a brief document and that aside
from the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government, it is
essentially a negative rights document…what isn’t specifically listed under
the domain of the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government
was left to the states. The Bill of Rights contains the only positive rights
listed in the document. The problem with positive rights is that you might
forget to list a right, which some of the founders feared could be taken to
mean that the right was not given. Our state constitutions are much longer
and difficult to navigate because of all the positive rights written into
them. Does an amendment about marriage belong in the U.S. Constitution?
The idea that if any revolution is to succeed, it needs people who are
unhappy with the status quo and willing to fight for a new form of
government. If most of the colonists had nothing to lose, why would they
want to revolt from England? The revolution had to be framed in a way that
commoners had a personal stake in the outcome, therefore the word property
was deliberately omitted and happiness was inserted into the line, "…life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” At the time of the revolution, the
people with the most to lose from the King’s policy of taxation were those
who owned land and
businesses. But the U.S. Constitution was not set up to
protect our happiness; it was set up to protect our property. Are
we no
longer self governing, sovereign nation, but instead subject to the members
of a global governing body?
Our country was founded as a republic, not a democracy but its interesting
to note we have a preamble that says, "We the people” instead of "We the
states”. This is because the people are citizens of their states and their
country. It is difficult for other countries to understand our form of
government. To us, it’s natural because we have grown up with it. Can our
country help other nations set up governments which get their sovereignty
from the people and which protect the basic freedoms of life, liberty, and
happiness (property)?
The idea of a Constitution test, "In God We Trust”, and "Under God” were all
responses to Communism. Today, we’re trying to eliminate these references
and yet we’re fighting communist ideology all over again. There must be a
distinction made between the American tradition of equality: by virtue of
being human there is equality of liberty, and Socialism: equality of
outcomes. Did Hillary Clinton misspeak when she suggested to supporters
attending a Democratic fundraiser that, "We’re going to take things away
from you on behalf of the common good.” The American people would need to
expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if the
Democrats win the White House and control Congress.
There is a difference between the establishment of religion in general and
the promotion of one religion over another. There is nothing in the U.S.
Constitution that says there is to be a separation of church and state. Many
of the founders were religious. They did not want one religion promoted over
another religion. Most appreciated the morals promoted by Judeo Christian
faith. They did not want the freedom to choose a faith influenced by the
government. They did not want an official religion. Should religious ideas
be excluded by our institutions?
Many are saying that never before in history has our country been so
divided, except during the Civil War (contrary to what the mainstream media
is saying; that we’ve never been more divided than now). The issues at stake
back then were related to a) the economy, b) states’ rights, and c) the
freedom of all people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness or c) property,
if you did not consider those under another’s control persons needing to be
freed, not unlike today.
Should the federal judiciary rule on same sex marriage? Should the
government take care of the people by redistributing income? Do vouchers to
attend better schools allow disadvantaged students a better future to pursue
happiness and property? Should we "free” those around the world, i.e. Iraq,
Sudan, Liberia, and Somalia, subjected to abuses under dictatorships?
The founding fathers would have decided these and other questions through
articulate, civil debate; they wouldn’t have accused each other of being
liars, blasphemed the church, or told one another to "shove it”. A duel
probably would have ensued. Most likely, these questions would have been
left to the states. People can always move. Some seem to have forgotten
that.
|
|
