The following story illustrates the erosion in our society’s understanding of the difference between Natural and Human Rights:

This Obama Nominee Questioned If the Constitution Even Matters

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights,” Stengel wrote.

Stengel went on to write, “The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

I wish I could write that I believe Stengel does not understand the difference between the notion of Natural Rights upon which our Constitution was founded and the notion of Human Rights to which he desires to change our system – but I can’t.  The man does know the difference, and it turns everything he writes about our Constitution into a study on political deception.  Human Rights are not the same as Natural Rights.  The first is a natural enemy of the latter.

The first point is this: the Constitution was written to protect the people from government tyranny.  The founders were very clear about this.  They stated that they expected our government to become what it has become, and that the Constitution was constructed in such a manner as to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.  When they did so, they had men such as Stengel in mind.  Therefore, it is not the people who protect the Constitution as Stengel claims, but the Constitution which protects the people from their government – exactly as the framers said.

Which leads us to the next point: the spirit of liberty can be found only in our framers’ understanding of Natural Rights and Natural Law.  It is not and will never be found in the system of Human Rights Stengel advocates.  This point was never more clearly illustrated than in the difference between the Declaration of Independence and American Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the French Revolution.  It was the difference between these two understandings of liberty that prevented our founders from sending children to the guillotine, but not so much the French.

The distinction here is important because the Constitution was designed to protect and preserve the liberty of a moral people.  Again, this is not my opinion, but the clear assertion of the men who framed our Constitution.  But we are no longer such a people.  If we were, we would reject the claim that health care is a Natural Right.  It is not.  Nor does a globalized economic system have anything to do with protecting the Natural Rights of this nation’s citizens.  In fact, the goals are actually at odds with one another: a free and self-governing people cannot remain so if bound by treaty to other nations whose government is founded on a system of Human Rights because Human Rights are based on human law and not Natural Law.  They are natural enemies of one and other.  This is clearly asserted by Stengel when he says we have an “evolving sense of civil and political rights.”  What this man means is we are succumbing to those who wish to dominate and control, not to the preservation of individual rights and liberty.

Our founders asserted that the Natural Rights of man are fixed, not “evolving.”  Those who argue otherwise are betraying an ulterior motive.  Though their words may sound as though they support individual rights and liberty, the truth is they are advocating slavery.  Their deception lies in the fact that what they promise cannot be delivered without first forcing others to act against their will.  Health care cannot be made a right unless others are forced to work to give it to you.  That is the antithesis of liberty.  Civil and political rights are equally deceptive terms.  They mean special rights, which means preferential treatment by the government.  This is a clear violation of the spirit of our own Constitution and of the American Revolution.  Again, it is the antithesis of individual liberty, but it is the sibling of Communism, Fascism and every other corrupt form of dictatorship ever known to man.

This brings us to the last point I wish to make about this story.  If this man is confirmed, after he has clearly expressed a disdain for the Constitution, it will confirm that this disdain is shared by the members of the Senate who vote to confirm him.  Our founders said that a system of oaths is essential to holding people to account.  They said this system of oaths rested upon the sincere belief by the person taking the oath in a Creator and in judgment day.  The founders said that, without such a system, we would eventually end up with people who do not think twice about lying when they take their oath of office, and that such people would eventually force the people to chose between slavery or fighting another revolution – this time against their own government.  Dear reader, I submit that that moment is now at hand.

Natural Law does not depend on the will of the majority.  It exists independent of the opinion of the masses.  In fact, the majority opinion is quite often opposed to the dictates of Natural Law.  Our founders understood this.  It is why they rejected the notion of a democracy and chose instead to create a republican form of government, where the rule of law could be relied upon to preserve individual rights and liberty:

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”

–John Adams

Our founders realized that democracy is a natural enemy of Natural Law and, had they created a democracy, they would be subjecting future generations to the inevitable tyranny of the majority.  However, if it is designed to protect and preserve Natural Rights, the rule of law – represented by a republican form of government – is the natural ally of Natural Law.  It can protect and preserve individual rights and liberty independently of any democratic participation from the people.  In fact, had they chosen to do so, our founders could have just as easily designed our Constitution without any direct input from the people and it would have functioned just as well as it ever has – possibly even better.

If you will read the text of the Constitution, you will find it only requires a vote for two Constitutional offices: that of the President and Vice President.  It does not require that State Senators and Representatives be elected by majority vote of the people of their States.  It does direct that the manner of selecting these positions be left to the people of the States and their State governments, but it does not require they be elected.  They could just as easily be appointed by some other means to which the people of a given State agree.  The same applies to the Electors who actually vote for the President.  The Electors can also be appointed by the States.  In truth, the founders mandated only one vote in the entire Constitution: that for President.

If the truth be told, so long as the people of the States so desired, our republic could actually function by drawing lots to fill the various Constitutional positions.  Rather than elections, every so many years, as dictated by the Constitution, instead of elections, we could hold a draft.  If your number is drawn, you leave your life to go serve your State or Country for whatever period of time is defined, then you return home and the next person is drafted to take your place.  This would have the added benefit of providing a real incentive to properly educating our children while – at the same time e—taking money out of politics.  In fact, it would even end partisan politics and return the governance of this nation to something more in line with what our founders originally envisioned.

So, what does this mean?  It means that the Constitution can function properly without a single American citizen ever voting for any Constitutional office.  What’s more, we might not even notice a difference.  The Federal government would run exactly the same (or better) as it does today.  The rule of law would operate exactly the same as our founders intended it to function.  Individual rights and liberty would be as protected without a vote as they are with it – possibly even more so.  Most likely, we wouldn’t even have as much trouble with corruption in government as we have today.  Thus, we can conclude that democracy is not an essential element to the preservation of individual rights and liberty.

This leaves us with this question:  if it is a known enemy of Natural Law (and it is), then why do so many people push so hard to establish a link between democracy and liberty?  The answer to that question is simple: in a democracy, the ‘will’ of the people can be bought with their own money:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

–Benjamin Franklin

The Constitution Cannot Be Amended By Changing The Meaning Of Words

The Constitution of the United States defines two methods by which it can be changed: by Amendment and by Constitutional Convention.  In both cases, two thirds of the States must accept the changes in order for them to be ratified and become a permanent part of our Constitution.  Any attempt to change the Constitution outside of these two methods is – by definition – unconstitutional.  This means it is not law and the people have no moral obligation to hold themselves bound by the change.  In fact, an attempt to alter or change the Constitution by any means other than the amendment or convention process constitutes subversion, which every citizen has a moral obligation to resist.  This applies to Congress’ latest attempt to nullify the 1^st Amendment:

Bill to protect journalists clears Senate panel

The Senate Judiciary Committee approves a media shield bill to keep ‘real reporters’ from having to testify on their work.

On the surface, this story makes it sound as though Congress is trying to protect the 1^st Amendment, but, as with so many things in Washington, the reality is just the opposite.  This story is about Congress establishing control over the 1^st Amendment by giving itself the power to define the meaning of words:

Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a ‘Journalist’

The 1^st Amendment reads:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But notice: these stories are about a bill addressing journalism, not the press.  This is the first deliberate attempt at deception.  It provides Congress with a false defense.  They will claim they did not write a law concerning the press, therefore, they did not violate the 1^st Amendment.  But they cannot get away with this if we know the truth behind the words of the 1^st Amendment.  The definition of press reads as follows:

Definition of PRESS

b :  the act or the process of printing

c :  a printing or publishing establishment

7a :  the gathering and publishing or broadcasting of news :  journalism

b :  newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting

c :  news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters

d :  comment or notice in newspapers and periodicals <is getting a good press>

Notice, journalism is only one aspect of the definition of ‘press.’  Now, in our founders’ time, this was not the definition they used.  Thomas Paine, the man who wrote “Common Sense” and several other pamphlets responsible for helping to launch the American Revolution, was not a journalist: he was a pamphleteer, a commentator, and opinion man.  In other words, he was the equivalent of a Revolutionary-age blogger.  This is what our founder’s meant when they said Congress has no authority over the press.

But there’s more.  Notice these words in the 1^st Amendment:

 “…or abridging the freedom of speech,…”

This is a guarantee to every individual, and it is yet another place where Congress and the courts have altered the Constitution without amending it or going through the convention process.  The right to free speech never extended to the right to say whatever we feel like, and it definitely did not extend to actions.  Actions are not speech, but we have given them the equivalent of speech under our laws.  This is a bastardization of the law.  What our founders intended to protect was political speech; the ability to object to our government and to the policies of those in government without fear of reprisal from that government.  This is exactly what the ‘Journalism Shield’ law is all about: a reprisal against those who are objecting to those in power.

Under this new law, only the people our government decides it will recognize as journalists will be afforded their Constitutional protections.  Anyone outside the government definition of journalist will be subject to differential treatment under the law – another violation of the Constitution (this time, the 14^th Amendment).  By any objective standard, this is a clear act of subversion: it is the deceitful dismantling of our 1^st Amendment protections.  Simply stated, this is an act of tyranny.

Before leaving this subject, let’s remind ourselves that this is how slavery was justified and the Holocaust, too: by re-defining who is and who is not human.  If they can do that to human beings simply by changing the definition of words, then what is to stop them from doing whatever they wish – except opposition from you and I?

This story is an indication of how far we have strayed from the society which founded this nation:

Google’s Eric Schmidt says government spying is ‘the nature of our society’

Tech giant’s executive chairman calls for greater transparency but declines to ‘pass judgment’ on spying operations

Our nation was founded upon the principles of Natural Law, Natural Rights and the Social Contract – as Locke understood them.  Under this understanding – the understanding of our founding fathers – the government can have no authority to do anything that you and I do not have.  In other words, government can never become greater than any of its individual creators.  Government is a servant and never the master.  Therefore, unless you and I can claim a Natural Right to spy on each other – which we cannot do under Natural Law – then the government cannot claim such a right.  The best we can do is to grant a civil authorization to government to do so and even then, only under very narrowly defined conditions.  This is why we have a 4^th Amendment: to define these narrow conditions.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Essentially, the right to be secure in our person, property, papers and effects is the right to privacy.  The nature of a ‘reasonable’ search depends upon the evidence that we have violated an essential term of the Social Contract.  Government’s power to look into our private affairs comes from the reason for the Social Contract: to protect individual rights and liberty.  If there is no indication that a citizen has actually harmed another person or caused monetary damage to the private property of another person, then there can be no authority for government to infringe on that person’s Natural Right to privacy.  The government cannot first look for that evidence and then claim authority; the evidence must be presented before government can claim the authority to look into our private affairs.  This is why the 4^th Amendment stipulates that someone must swear an oath or affirmation of what it is I am said to have done and what the government is supposed to look for and where the government should look to find it.  Any search or discovery outside the thing(s) this oath alleges would not be within government’s power to investigate – period.

In this sense, a government search is the transfer of our collective Natural Right of self-defense to the government.  We have no Natural Right to invade each other’s privacy.  However, if we know that another person has caused harm, or we have reasonable cause to suspect another person has caused harm, then we do have a Natural Right to defend ourselves and our neighbors from that harm.  This would then give us a Natural Right to investigate the person suspected of having caused the harm – but not before or without reasonable cause.  When we enter into a society (i.e. agree to the Social Contract which formed that society), we agree to transfer the majority of our Natural Right to self defense to the government.  However, under Natural Law – as our founders understood it – the government is still bound by the same restrictions as each of us is individually.  Thus, the government still needs a citizen or citizens to present the evidence that justifies a search.  We cannot just ‘spy’ on each other until we find evidence, then go back and use the results of our spying against that person after the fact because, before the evidence is presented, it is we who are violating Natural Law.  And, in the case of government spying before hand, the government is violating both Natural Law and the Social Contract.

This is why the NSA and other domestic spying programs is such an egregious offense.  It amounts to a total reversal of the foundation of this nation.  Hobbes is the one who argued that our rights come from government.  The European model is the system of justice where a person is assumed guilty and must prove they are innocent.  None of this is “American” in nature.  None of this is in accordance with the principles of individual rights and liberty.

Nor can we claim that a violation of the Social Contract/Natural Law is allowable in the name of security.  The government mandate to protect and defend is not a mandate of ordered importance.  In other words, it is not above the government’s mandate to protect the Natural Rights of every individual.  If this means our society is put at risk in order to protect the individual rights of our citizens, then this is simply the price that a free society must be willing to pay.  To claim otherwise is to claim society is greater than the sum of its parts, thereby rendering the Social Contract null and void. Republican government and the rule of law cannot recognize an artificial entity as having more rights than any of the real persons who created that artificial entity.  At the point where the rights of society (artificial) are asserted to be greater than the rights of any one citizen (real), liberty and the rule of law end and tyranny begins.