Unenumerated Rights

[ZeSpectre]

Not directly gun related, but related to our rights and the attitude that keeps them in play.

Mods if you disagree feel free to remove.

Backwoods Home Magazine

Our "unenumerated" rights

By John Silveira


I received this question in an e-mail from my younger brother, Mike: "Jack, the other day a friend asked me where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to freedom of travel. Do you know where I would find that...?

My reply was as follows:

I tell people this again and again, but it falls on deaf ears: There is no place in the Constitution that says we have the right to travel, the right to privacy, etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights, which "mentions" some, and only some, of our rights, almost wasn't included in the Constitution. The Democrats, led by Thomas Jefferson, wanted a Bill of Rights included because they were afraid if we didn't explicitly say we have Natural, God-given, or unalienable (that's the word they used, not inalienable) rights, it would someday be assumed they didn't exist. On the other hand, the Federalists were afraid that if a Bill of Rights was included, it would be assumed that the government could now control them, i.e., that our rights would be viewed as "constitutional rights," such as Canada, Great Britain, and many other countries have today, which in those countries are thought to exist at the pleasure of the government.

As a safety, so that it would not appear that the enumerated rights were the only ones we have, the Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. What does it say? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What does it mean? It means that only "some" of our rights are listed. It was meant to acknowledge that we have many others besides the one listed.

The idea of the government being the wellspring of our rights makes no sense if we read the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers. Both were written before the Constitution and both assume our rights exist apart from the government.

What's happened, of course, is that the worst case scenarios of both the Democrats and the Federalists have come home to roost because, as the years rolled by, any rights not included in the Bill of Rights are often deemed not to exist, while all the rights that are mentioned are now considered gifts from politicians and bureaucrats.

Here's the truth: The Constitution was written to limit our government, not to control the people. So, the real question is not, "Where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to travel?" but "Where in the Constitution did the People grant to the Federal government the power to take away our right to travel?"

Read Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. There, the powers granted to the Federal government are plainly spelled out. Where does it say the government can limit travel? It doesn't.

Then read the Tenth Amendment, in the so-called Bill of Rights. It says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means it is not on me to prove the Constitution has granted me the right to travel; it means the onus is on the government to prove that there is a phrase or a clause in the Constitution granting it the right to infringe on my right to travel. It isn't there.

It's a sad commentary on the state of what is supposed to be the freest country that ever existed that there are now millions of Americans who can ask the question your friend asked. It's sad that so many of us think that the rights meant to protect us from the government are now considered to be a gift from the government and not from Nature or God.

Why didn't the Founding Fathers include a "right to travel?" It never occurred to them that politicians and bureaucrats would act as if it didn't exist. However, though it wasn't explicitly included in the first eight Amendments, it is implicitly included under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments—and, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states cannot violate any of our rights, either.

By the way, you might ask your friend what he thinks Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, or any of the other Founding Fathers, who had just defeated what was then the world's greatest superpower in a Revolutionary War to win their freedom and ensure these Natural or God-given rights were in place, would have said if they came back today and the Federal government tried to limit their freedom to travel? Better yet, what would they call your friend who now thinks there's no right to travel unless it's granted by the government?

The word "idiot" comes to mind.

 

[Titan6]

Generally travel rights are included under the fifth not the ninth and tenth.

Aznavorian urges that the freedom of international travel is basically equivalent to the constitutional right to interstate travel, recognized by this Court for over 100 years. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97, 29 S.Ct. 14, 18, 53 L.Ed. 97; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 129, 45 L.Ed. 186; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44, 18 L.Ed. 744; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492, 12 L.Ed. 702 (Taney, C. J., dissenting). But this Court has often pointed out the crucial difference between the freedom to travel internationally and the right of interstate travel.

20
"The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified, United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-758, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1177-1178, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105-106, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1799-1800, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). By contrast the 'right' of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As such this 'right,' the Court has held, can be regulated within the bounds of due process." (Citations omitted.) Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 4 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 906, 908, 55 L.Ed.2d 65.

21
See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 643 n. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1336, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (concurring opinion). Thus, legislation which is said to infringe the freedom to travel abroad is not to be judged by the same standard applied to laws that penalize the right of interstate travel, such as durational residency requirements imposed by the States. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254-262, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080-1084, 39 L.Ed.2d 306; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 338-342, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001-1003, 31 L.Ed.2d 274; Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, 394 U.S., at 634, 89 S.Ct., at 1331.

I don't know why they would think that a government would not put a ban on travel in place. Dozens of countries currently had them in place.

 

[Kentucky]

Excellent article.

 

[cambeul41]

Massad Ayoob wrtes a regular column "Ayoob on Firearms" for Backwoods Home.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/ayoob_index.html

Now we are on topic!

 

[R127]

You have no rights, only government granted privileges. This country does not follow the constitution even a little bit. If you want to keep your guns then you need to do something to change that.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

R127

While I agree with you on the extent to which this country ignores the Constitution, making such a statement on this forum will surely get this thread closed. Somehow there seems to be a misconception about the reality that human rights include gun ownership rights.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Grandpa Shooter,

If what R127 says is true, what does it matter if it gets the thread closed? If nobody believes in the rights enumerated in the constitution, or the unenumerated rights, then citing a document with words on it is meaningless.

I think everyone should take a good hard look at what R127 said. If those in government don't care about the constitution, what it meant, and the rights it was intended to protect, (and they don't,) there's no point in bringing the document up. Those who have power always find a way to twist the words of the document (or else the minds of the people) to get what they want. The "common man" never wins when they play their games. I'm done playing on their playground. I'm tired of appealing to documents they don't believe in. Words they can distort and edit at will. It's a cavalcade of word games and power plays. I want nothing to do with it. No more citing and quoting ignored documents for me. I appeal to my Creator now. He is the source of my rights.

The real mission is now to convince people that their rights come from God (or from their human nature,) no matter what any document says.

Then, and not until then, will they will live freely.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Standing Wolf]

What's happened, of course, is that the worst case scenarios of both the Democrats and the Federalists have come home to roost because, as the years rolled by, any rights not included in the Bill of Rights are often deemed not to exist, while all the rights that are mentioned are now considered gifts from politicians and bureaucrats.

Shortest history of the republic I've ever read.

 

[ZeSpectre]

You have no rights, only government granted privileges. This country does not follow the constitution even a little bit. If you want to keep your guns then you need to do something to change that.

You know, none of this has ever (for me) been specifically about "keeping my guns". Yes, I like guns, I like to shoot, but keeping them really has been simply a good indicator of the status of my real goal which is preserving and living my rights.

 

[Titan6]

You know, none of this has ever (for me) been specifically about "keeping my guns". Yes, I like guns, I like to shoot, but keeping them really has been simply a good indicator of the status of my real goal which is preserving and living my rights.

Is this not the intent?

 

[ZeSpectre]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the situation is a whole lot bigger than -just- "keeping my guns" and too narrow a focus can be as bad as one that is too diffused.

I don't feel like I'm making my point too clearly though <sigh>. Not a good day for words for me apparently.

 

[Titan6]

The mods on this site do not like to focus on more than the one topic. But it all goes back to the same thing in the end.

Guns in of themself are of very limited value other than for a few particular purposes. This is one of the reasons that ownership rates of say telephones and automobiles are much higher.

Still some items that are of even more limited value such as TV's have the highest ownership rates. But TVs have not branded tools of the devil, although perhaps they should.

 

[paramedic70002]

Here's what I don't understand (and no I am not a Constitutional scholar):

Why is it that states rights got trampled in 1865, but federal rights (like 2A) don't apply to the states, but...

I am a citizen of my state AND country.

This just seems to be overly complicated when it should be quite simple.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Paramedic,

Before 1865, it was widely recognized that the Constitution existed to enumerate the respective powers of the State and Federal governments. The Bill of Rights was intended to be a restriction on the power of the Federal government, in a vain attempt to prevent it from impinging upon the powers of the state governments and the rights of the people living under those state governments. The state governments could pass legislation against any of the things enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And they did. State governments chose official state religions, passed laws against certain kinds of firearms, etc. That is why states had their own constitutions, intended to protect the rights of the people living under the state government from the state government. State governments could do things that the Federal government could not.

People today? People, especially politicians, judges, prosecutors and lawyers, don't care what is written on a piece of parchment. As well they shouldn't. They should realize that their rights are not dependent upon ink written on parchment, or how many people believe in the ideas behind them. They should realize that God is the source of all their rights, including the right to self-defense with the best means in existence. That right (and all other rights not created by voluntary contract) come from God. Your rights come from no government, are protected by no document, and are not dependent on being recognized by any other person to actually be real, actual rights. Unalienable by any government or man. Infringeable, yes. But unalienable.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Catherine]

Good thread. Shame if it gets closed.

I read that magazine on and off along with my books.

GUN rights and ALL other liberty rights come from God. Freedom of movement, you name it! My opinion and no offense to those that do not believe how I believe. We all have the right to defend ourselves with ANY tool or object. We have the right to travel by foot, vehicle, horse, train, etc. (Flying is another matter with some of those new rules/regs. Ugh.)

Your God given right to defend yourself, your loved ones, a stranger and/or your country from foreign and domestic enemies, criminals, rapists, etc. are not only for Americans but for any other person worldwide.

I believe that those God given rights are backed up by the Second Amendment (Constitution.) since I live in the US of A. I think that the Second means exactly what it says NO matter what "state" you live in or in any other county, township, city or village.

Unfortunately you have higher ups who pass laws that do not abide by what your Founding Fathers wrote, fought for and died for.

Too many of them ignore what was written so many years ago. You have ordinary citizens and the powers that be go on and on and on... making something so very simple - so VERY complicated too! Ugh.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine

 

[R127]

While I agree with you on the extent to which this country ignores the Constitution, making such a statement on this forum will surely get this thread closed. Somehow there seems to be a misconception about the reality that human rights include gun ownership rights.

My comment was purely legal in nature. Last I checked the discussion of law was still legal on THR. I do not believe fear of thread lock is warranted in this case. The government opperates outside the purview of the law therefore appealing to ignored laws is fruitless. You can seek remmedy through a number of channels such as the court system, voting and elections but the great weight of history has shown that being in compliance with ignored laws is no defense against outlaws.

 

[RP88]

The argument of God-given is pointless. God did not tell me jack s--t about what I had the right to do and what not to do.

The point is that this country was founded on the basis of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the guidelines to those three things and how they are to be practiced in society in a fair, compromising and defensive way are framed on that piece of parchment. If the government decides to take that out of that parchment and decide that the individuals of this nation do not have the rights that the government wants to keep from us for whatever reason, then we can kill them off and put it back in.

The statement saying that we have the right to overthrow a government that we deem as corrupt or oppressive is, in my opinion, the best part of the constitution, and should have been highlighted and written in capital letters to place emphasis. That is pretty much the failsafe to that piece of parchment, and it'll always be there, even if the government somehow gets big enough to re-write the constitution to their liking.