John Locke described the principle of inalienable rights and the Founding Fathers embraced the concept. The idea is that some rights are inherent in our humanity. They are not the bestowal of a benevolent and all-powerful government. These rights exist before government and government can neither grant them to us nor take them away.
The phrase that Locke used was "life, liberty and pursuit of property" but Jefferson's substitution of "happiness" doesn't lessen the concept in the slightest.
The Founders not only believed in this trilogy, they knew and understood that there were many more rights which we possessed which were not the grant of our government. They insured that the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution spelled that out.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
So, why does Supreme Court Justice-nominee Kagan not find these truths to be self-evident?
It doesn't seem like a stretch to ask that she acknowledge the self-evidence of the principle. Even if she can't make that leap, at least she could accept that the Ninth Amendment supports the principle.
This woman is way too devious.
2 comments:
She is simply incapable of actually answering a question. She has no grasp of the concept of a simple "yes" or "no" answer....because she knows she could not get appointed if she actually voiced the views that she actually has. Everyone in the hearings knows this, and yet they act like its not the elephant in the room. It is this "lawyerly" answer to all questions that has completely corrupted our Gorvernment process.
It may not answer your question, Ed, but I don't think that the guy that nominated her embraces the concept, either. The sad part is I don't think he could because he seems not to understand it.
Bluemax 36
Post a Comment