Archive for rights
Is there still a Bill of Rights?
Posted by: |Today is the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights being passed. Cato-at-Liberty surveys the current state of these safeguards, and it is not particularly pleasant to consider how pathetic this rogue government has become.
Let’s consider each amendment in turn.
The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.
The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.
The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause here for a laugh.
The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.
The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.
The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.
The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.
The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.
Thank goodness we still have Amendment #3! The Cato Institute also posted a little video as well:
Tags: Bill of Rights, civil liberties, constitution, history, rights
The Second Amendment and Built-in Revolution
Posted by: |This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy. This column is the first segment of a three-part series dealing with application of the Second Amendment for Christians.
The Second Amendment to the American Constitution is familiar to many of us: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with the other nine initial amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was ratified by ten of the original thirteen States on December 15, 1791. (1)
The words “well regulated” mean well-equipped in terms of uniform and armament. The militia’s armament should be fully manned, sighted-in and ready. According to the U.S. Code, the word “Militia” means what is now called the “unorganized militia”, i.e., “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age… who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” (2) During Virginia’s ratification convention in 1788, Founding Father George Mason said: “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (3) Similar statements were made by Founders James Madison and Richard Henry Lee. Mason worried that someday only a privileged class of men would bear arms, resulting in tyranny. Mason also said: “the best and most effectual way to enslave” a nation is “to disarm the people.” (4)
Tags: Bible, guns, history, revolution, rights, second amendment, theology
Note: This is a provocative piece that had a lot of back-and-forth email conversation before publication here. It is an important debate to have, but should not be construed as the official position of LCC or any particular writer other than Doug Douma. Let’s start the conversation!
The central claim of libertarianism is that rights are universal. In other words, the rights of life, liberty, and property are valid for all people regardless of race, gender, culture, or the era or place in which they live. However, extending this universality to age raises challenging questions for a consistent defense of rights; specifically regarding the issue of children’s rights. Such questions include:
- Are the rights of children the same as those of adults?
- If not, how does a person transition from having the rights of a child to those of an adult?
- Are parents morally obligated to provide for children?
- Are children morally obligated to obey their parents?
- How can obligations exist without aggressing on the liberty of another?
This essay presents two competing theories popular in libertarian literature; contract theory and self-ownership. These theories attempt to address the questions above, but each has its flaws. Therefore an alternative Christian libertarian theory is presented which assumes the truth of the Bible and uses a Biblical conception of rights (which varies from the secular libertarian theory) to propose logically consistent and practically applicable answers to these questions. Read More→
Tags: Bible, christian libertarianism, libertarianism, rights, theology
Can a Christian fight?
Posted by: |This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
Standing for truth or civil rights is a scary business with dire consequences at times. It may even lead to war. But what is a “just war”? When may Christians participate in war? Who are the biggest beneficiaries of war? May Christians kill each other in self-defense at home or when in combat?
Christians may only participate in just wars (i.e., wars of self-defense rather than aggression). What ultimately determines whether a war is just is the believer’s conscience after apprehending a candid understanding of the facts—notwithstanding claims of rulers that declare a conflict to be just. The reason Christians can participate in a collective defense effort is little different than the reason why they can undertake self-defense against predators individually. They are called upon to promote peace by preserving life, liberty, and property. And sometimes that call leads them to repel predators by force.
One implication of justifiable self-defense is the sad reality that Christians might end up killing some of their brethren when they engage in collective action (i.e., war). There are always those who will try to increase chaos and misery in society by abridging fundamental rights, and Christians who cherish peace will be right to stand up for life, liberty, and property—even by force of arms. Yet, Christians must take special care to minimize or eliminate bloodshed, especially when some of their brethren’s lives may be in jeopardy. Sometimes this objective is difficult to achieve, with sinful choices of assailants leading to personal disaster at the hand of a brother defending his fundamental rights.
Tags: Bible, ethics, justice, rights, theology, war




