Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    Selective Rights

    The Obama administration decided to pick a handful of fights that put our Bill of Rights at the center of the discussion. While I'm no fan of their liberty-crushing agenda, I'm always happy to have a discussion over the virtues of our founding documents and the rights they protect. 

    There's one part of this discussion though, that needs to be addressed. There's a blanket argument bouncing its way around lefty spheres that goes something like this: 

    Our Constution was written over 200 years ago.  The America of our founding fathers is not the America of today. Our founding fathers didn't have this type of technology, so our Constitution wasn't designed to account for it. Therefore, laws restricting your freedoms concerning the (insert amendment here) are justified.

    Interestingly enough, when this argument is employed it's always applied to the hot amendement du jour, but not the rest. Take the second amendment for example. This argument always finds its way into second amendment discussions as a way to justify restrictive laws.  But if you turn the tables and suggest this argument in the context of the first amendment, prepare yourself for wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

    While there are plenty of fallacies wrapped up in this argument, what's most concerning is the deeper suggestion that the Constitution is outdated and more laws are required to ensure a safe and civil society.  What it fails to recognize is that our Constitution has provisions to address expansion of the rights of the individual -- the thirteenth, fifteenth and nineteenth amendments being prime examples. 

    Our Constitution was designed to safeguard our natural rights from executive committees, task forces, Gangs of six and emotionally reactionary responses. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." What the Constitution does provide is a private citizenry freed from the overbearing restraint of government. That the Constitution impairs swift action was intentional.

    If we are looking at winning the long game, it's crucial we find and dismantle dishonest, fallacious arguments like this one and seize the opportunity to remind our fellow Americans of the rights no government should be able to trample.  

    2 comments
    stonestone's picture
    stone stone
    02/07/2013

    I find it ironic- this seemingly non-stop claim from right wing media that somehow, all "liberals" are "after our freedoms!!" All anyone has to do is conveniently read up on their American history to see what side of the debate conservatives have tended to stay on for a vast array of subjects and rights issues to see who in reality has and hasn't stood for our freedoms. I too also enjoy reading up occasionally on the US constitution, in particular the first amendment.

    SereCowgirl
    04/08/2013

    Stone, I would agree with you, if you are suggesting that most Republicans in our federal government (and state & local gov't as well) will usually vote with Democrats in the growing restriction of individual freedoms and natural rights of Americans.

    Because of this, I see the constantly referred-to paradigm of Dem's vs Rep's to be exhaustive, and frighteningly off target (if we are trying to identify who is to blame for this theft of our freedoms). In Hillary's immortal dismissive question, "What does it matter, really?"

    Well in our case, it really does matter, because to re-instate our lost Republic, we must realize who is taking our freedoms, how and why.

    Who do you believe are the true opposing forces in this serious struggle we are facing - liberals vs conservatives? conservatives vs tea party and/or libertarians? tyranny vs liberty? - elite vs individuals?

    Pages