HOME              ARCHIVES INDEX

 
 

Bad Government

 
 

Archives

 

Saturday, July 05, 2003

The Rights of Citizens of the United States Are in Jeopardy

The rights of the people of the United States of America are in jeopardy. Our rights are in jeopardy because some members of the Supreme Court, some members of Congress, the President, and many Citizens don’t understand what the Constitution of the United States is all about.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote a note to James Madison about the future possibility of a president who didn’t understand the principles on which America was founded. “The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present,” he wrote, “and will be for many years. That of the executive (the president) will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period.” It now appears that the remote period Jefferson wrote about has arrived.

Conservatives claim the right to violate citizens’ private lives because there is no “right to privacy” in the United States. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in 1965 “I could find no general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas (George W. Bush’s role model for future Supreme Court nominees) agrees. In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Thomas wrote, “just like Justice Stewart, I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”

The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to eat, or to read, or to have children. Yet do we doubt these are rights we have?

The reality is that there are many rights that are not specified in the constitution, but which we enjoy daily and they cannot be taken away from us by the government.

The Constitution wasn’t written to grant us rights. We don’t derive our rights from the Constitution.

Rather in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable – inseparable – from humans themselves. We are born with rights by the simple fact of existence. As written by Thomas Jefferson “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the founders wrote. Humans are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The job of the constitution was to define a legal framework within which government and business could operate in a manner least intrusive to “We, The People,” who are the holders of the rights. In its first draft it didn’t even have a Bill of Rights, because the Framers felt it wasn’t necessary to state out loud that human rights came from something greater, larger, and older than government. They all knew this; it was simply obvious.

There had been discussion among the delegates to the constitutional convention about weather they should go to the trouble of enumerating the human rights they had held up to the world with the Declaration of Independence, but the consensus had been that it was unnecessary.

The Declaration of Independence, the writings of many of the Founders and Framers, and no shortage of other documents made amply clear the Founders’ and the Framers’ sentiments that human rights were solely the province of humans, and that governments don’t grant rights but, rather, that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic We, The People – the holders of the rights – grant to our governments what ever privileges our government may need to function (while keeping the rights for ourselves).

This is the fundamental difference between kingdoms, theocracies, feudal states, and democratic republic. In the former three, people must beg for their rights at the pleasure of the rulers. In the latter, the republic derives its legitimacy from the people, the sole holders of rights.

Although the purpose of the Constitution wasn’t to grant rights to people, as kings and popes and feudal lords had done in the past, Jefferson felt it was a necessary to be absolutely unambiguous about the solid reality that humans are the sole holders of rights, and that in no way was the Constitution or the new government of the United States to ever be allowed to infringe on those rights.

A letter written by Jefferson to Madison in 1787 said “To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary, might do for the audience to which it was addressed but it wasn’t enough. Human rights may be well know to those writing the constitution, they may all agree that governments may not infringe on human rights but, nonetheless, we must not trust that simply inferring this truth is enough for future generations who have not so carefully read history or who may foolishly elect leaders inclined toward tyranny. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

There’s good reason to believe – as the majority of the Supreme Court did in the Texas sodomy case and at least a dozen others – that the Founders and Framers did write a right to privacy into the Constitution. However, living in the 18th century, they never would have actually used the word privacy out loud or in writing. A search, for example, of all 16,000 of Thomas Jefferson’s letters and writings produces not a single use of the word “privacy.” Nor does Adams use the word in his writings.

The reason is simple: “privacy” in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, “I need a moment of privacy” as a way of excusing themselves to go use the “privy” or outhouse. The chamber pots around the house were referred to as “the privates,” a phrase also used to describe genitals.

It wasn’t until 1898 that Thomas Crapper began marketing the flush toilet and discussion of toilet functions became relatively acceptable. Prior to then, saying somebody had a “right to privacy” would have meant “a right to excrete.” This was, of course, a right that was taken for granted and thus the Framers felt no need to specify it in the Constitution.

Instead, the word of the day was “security,” and in many ways it meant what we today mean when we say “privacy.” Consider, for example, the Fourth Amendment: “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Similarly, “liberty” was also understood in one of its dimensions, to mean something close to what today we’d call “privacy.” The Fifth Amendment talks about how “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property” and the Fourteenth Amendment adds that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” And of course, the Declaration of Independence itself proclaims that all “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nobody, not the Supreme Court Justices, the President, the Congress or anybody else has the right to invade the privacy of the citizens of this country.

Our leaders ignorant of or ignoring the history of this nation’s founding make a parody of liberty and with the so called “Patriot Act,” flaunt their challenges even to those rights explicitly defined in the Constitution.

Four of the nine Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court believe that government has the right to invade the privacy rights of Americans. If any of the present Justices of the Supreme Court retire President Bush will appoint another neo-conservative judge. With the appointment of another neo-conservative judge the neo-conservative judges will be in the majority and the American people stand to loose more of their rights. Once our rights are lost it is very hard to get them back.

Parts of this article are excerpted from an article written by Thom Hartmann entitled Dear Clarence Thomas: It Happened on July 4, 1776. The entire article can be read here
Dear Clarence Thomas

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," and a nationally syndicated daily talk show host. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.


::: posted by Alan at 5:08 PM

HOME              ARCHIVES INDEX