Friday, June 13, 2008

A Written Bill of Rights is a bad thing?

More stupidity from the UK, via Armed & Safe

Sadly, I've come to expect such mindless idiocy from the UK. Their minds have been poisoned by socialist nanny-statists. They now live in what pretty much resembles a police state. Rights? British subjects have no rights, although they do have a "patients bill of rights"via the National Health Service. Whoopty doo.

The truly scary thing is that there are many in the U.S. who share this man's view, and with our educational system spreading liberal propaganda that eschews the idea of inherent, inalienable individual rights such a perverted mindset is sure to grow.

This perversion of the definition of "rights" is in my opinion, the biggest danger we face today. Once this perversion is complete in the minds of the citizenry, government can take away rights (or render them meaningless) and the public won't even take notice. Think I'm crazy? Look at the UK. Only now are some people going "Whoa! what happened?" and protesting the loss of their freedoms. Sadly it's damn near impossible to get rights restored once the government has taken them. Sure, the citizenry can protest and petition, and the government can summarily ignore them. Not only that, but you can't fight in the courts if they're not on your side either.

Hell, why did we fight a revolution against the British? Because we wanted freedom! Because our protests and petitions were rejected by the British. Eventually, armed revolution became our only recourse. Then, because of the abuses perpetrated against the colonists by the British crown, a Constitution that protected the rights of the people was drafted in our fledgling nation. It specifically meant to protect and declare inviolate those very rights which the founders had been denied. They were written down, and their purpose made explicitly clear, so that they would not be violated by the new American government (nor future governments) as they had been by the British.

The Mr. Robinson says the following,

"America is governed by a written constitution. A series of amendments cast in stone - like the Commandments handed to Moses.The UK is governed by an unwritten constitution. The UK's laws are not easily changed, but if a law becomes archaic, out-dated or unworkable, it can be changed. You've got more chance of hell freezing over than you have of changing the US constitution."

Look at how useful that "unwritten Constitution" has been for UK subjects. Their Constitution sure means alot, and has yet to be trampled upon by the UK government. Looking at the loss of freedoms occuring across the pond I'd say our founders were quite prescient and did a damn good job drafting a Constitution with specific rights and powers. They made it hard to change because they didn't want individual rights violated, not by a tyrannous government nor an ignorant mob. They didn't want the government to be able to just disregard any Constitutional provision they didn't like. The Constitution wouldn't be much of a limitation on government power if they could do that. What good are rules if the people those rules are imposed against can change them on a whim?

And by the way, as Armed & Safe points out, we've changed the Constitution many times. There's a specific, Constitutionally outlined process by which this can occur. Oh, and Mr. Robinson, we usually amend the Constitution to expand individual rights and make them more inclusive. We don't amend the Constitution in order to take away rights, and even if we did that wouldn't change things, since those rights (like the 2nd Amendment) are inherent, natural rights that don't depend on parchment and ink for their existence.

No comments: