An Example of How Judges Subvert the Constitution ("Make Law")
The concept of rights is central to the meaning of America and Americanism and central to concepts of freedom from aggressors, whether individuals, groups, or mega-groups such as governments. Efforts to transform America into just another tyranny, in large measure, are being orchestrated by means of perverting rights--meaning the Rights of Man.
On 6th Column Against Jihad (see note at end of this article for information), we tackled the supposedly sacrosanct United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to show how this document destroys rights and replaces freedom with socialism. Tragically, too many people on the correct side of the anti-jihad movement still give support glibly to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as though this document represents mankind's best thinking. In fact, what they are supporting is as anti-mankind as Storm Troopers or Jihadists marching down the streets. Their support is literally thoughtless (i.e., without thought). They do not understand the nature of rights, so their well-meaningness becomes another step furthering their own destruction and ours via the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Be careful what you ask for! You might get it.
But, this kind of foolish ignorance is not the only assault on rights themselves and all they mean.
Recently, a New York judge assailed the concept of rights in a deadly fashion, one somewhat different from supporting and furthering the UN's UDHR. However, both have the same outcome. To date, I have found no protest from Americans about this judge's deadly move.
(I have put the most damaging language from the judge in bold type.)
Either the judge knows what rights are and choses not to honor the definition and concept, or he is utterly ignorant. If the first case, then he is working an evil agenda. If the second case, then his ignorance should disqualify him from ruling on these issues. In either case, the judge's ruling shows just how activist judiciaries undercut and change the meanings of our Constitution and its key concepts. This is how activist judges "make law." They do it by "getting away with" judgements like this which then become precedents for future cases.
The whole issue of anti-smoking fascism in New York, driven by Republican Mayor Blumenthal, massively tramples rights of citizens. When this judge supports an anti-smoking "Gestapo," over the rights of owners and their clienteles, he upholds the principle of the supremacy of the state over the citizen, the group over the individual, and the will of the collective over the sovereign rights of individuals.
When this judge stated, "Individuals have no `fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco...," he put another torpedo into the fundamental rights of all humans.
Rights (see endnote) come from the nature of humans, and they formulate the freedom of action principles necessary for humans to support and further their lives on earth--not that there is anywhere else to do so. Nobody can or did give anyone rights, and nobody can take them away. A person's rights belong to him because he is human, and he was born with his full set of fundamental rights: Rights to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are no other fundamental rights.
Fundamental rights mean that people may pursue actions on their behalf, but they have no guarantee of success. Only the action is guaranteed, and it is the proper government which exists solely to preserve and protect these sovereign rights of all of its citizens. Only individuals have rights; there are no "group rights" of any kind whatsoever.
Rights cannot be given nor taken away or even given away. The can, however, be violated, as has happened in most of the history of most of mankind. We call this "violation of rights." Some call it "abrogation of rights." And, the only way that rights can be violated is for individuals or groups to initiate physical force or its equivalents (e.g., fraud) against other individuals.
Rights authorize people to act on their own behalf. That entails the possibility of error and people doing some damned stupid things. However, as long as any person does not violate the sovereign, fundamental rights of other citizens, he or she is free to do the bright or the stupid, the helpful or the self-destructive, etc. And which, is nobody's business, particularly the state.
The only responsibility entailed in rights concerns taking responsibility for one's actions. Mother Nature commands each of us to be responsibile for ourselves, to be concerned with our own welfare as our primary, and not to try to default that responsibility onto others.
The use of tobacco is not one of the bright or healthful things people can do, but they have the right to use it. They own their own bodies, and that ownership gives them the use and disposal of any and all of their bodies, as they may choose to use them. You can disapprove of their actions, but, if they aren't trampling your rights, butt out and leave them alone.
The judge could not have been more wrong: People DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSUME TOBACCO! In a situation involving voluntary association, they may light up cigars, pipes, cigarettes, and stuff snuff and tobacco shreds into their noses and buccal pouches, in permitting private establishments and among consenting adults. Any private business has the right to permit tobacco use, in a free society--or not, in a free society. Clienteles not wanting to put up with the use, or the prohibition of use, of tobacco are free to go elsewhere.
The relevant rights to use tobacco are the three MOST FUNDAMENTAL: the rights to life, to property, and to freedom of action.
This New York judge said that "...the smoking bans target[ed] conduct _ smoking in certain places _ rather than speech, association or assembly, which are not regulated by the statutes." This is either profound ignorance or Leftist activism. To mean this with sincerity, this judge would have to support the Hegelian notion that reality consists of nothing but conflicts--that A is both A and not A, in the same respects, and at the same times. Well, reality never conformed to Hegel or any of the others who try to twist reality to their wishes, although they never cease trying to make the unworkable work.
The judge also says, "While individuals' freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech merit constitutional protection, there is no basis for concluding that the smoking bans infringe those rights." Think of just what this judge means: that the rights to life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, all FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, are trumped by derivative "rights." We all have rights derived from the fundamentals, but we must have the fundamentals first. This is an inversion so dark that I cannot think that this judge did not intend to strike another blow against the Constitution with these statements.
So, here is an elegant example of how activist judges are trying to turn us into some socialist, postmodernist "paradise." IF YOU LET THEM. IF YOU LET THEM.
No one can afford to remain ignorant about the nature and proper application of rights because the attacks come ceaselessly from every perspective. Just as no one can afford to be comfortable supporting the socialist document of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no one can afford detecting and thwarting direct attacks on rights or the subtle "conditioning" of us to accept government entitlements as rights. No one can afford any longer to fail to distinguish fundamental rights from derivative rights, to legal rights and optional rights. Our freedom is what the anti-rights crowd want, and we must not give an inch.
-------------
NB: In our article, (Do Not Support the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we discuss the definition, derivation, and meanings of fundamental rights, and we invite the reader to go there for a fuller discussion of rights.
On 6th Column Against Jihad (see note at end of this article for information), we tackled the supposedly sacrosanct United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to show how this document destroys rights and replaces freedom with socialism. Tragically, too many people on the correct side of the anti-jihad movement still give support glibly to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as though this document represents mankind's best thinking. In fact, what they are supporting is as anti-mankind as Storm Troopers or Jihadists marching down the streets. Their support is literally thoughtless (i.e., without thought). They do not understand the nature of rights, so their well-meaningness becomes another step furthering their own destruction and ours via the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Be careful what you ask for! You might get it.
But, this kind of foolish ignorance is not the only assault on rights themselves and all they mean.
Recently, a New York judge assailed the concept of rights in a deadly fashion, one somewhat different from supporting and furthering the UN's UDHR. However, both have the same outcome. To date, I have found no protest from Americans about this judge's deadly move.
Newsday.com: Judge upholds NY smoking bans after private Players Club sues to defend pipe ceremony:
Judge upholds NY smoking bans after private Players Club sues to defend pipe ceremony, By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer, May 25, 2005, 9:21 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A judge has tossed out a lawsuit brought by a 115-year-old private club that sought to strike down smoking bans so it could continue to honor its members _ who include Walter Cronkite and Carol Burnett _ with pipe ceremonies.
The Players Club is no more entitled to special privileges with city and state health inspectors enforcing the smoking bans than are pro-tobacco organizations that tried unsuccessfully to overturn the laws, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said Wednesday.
"Individuals have no `fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote. "While individuals' freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech merit constitutional protection, there is no basis for concluding that the smoking bans infringe those rights." He said the smoking bans target conduct _ smoking in certain places _ rather than speech, association or assembly, which are not regulated by the statutes.
(I have put the most damaging language from the judge in bold type.)
Either the judge knows what rights are and choses not to honor the definition and concept, or he is utterly ignorant. If the first case, then he is working an evil agenda. If the second case, then his ignorance should disqualify him from ruling on these issues. In either case, the judge's ruling shows just how activist judiciaries undercut and change the meanings of our Constitution and its key concepts. This is how activist judges "make law." They do it by "getting away with" judgements like this which then become precedents for future cases.
The whole issue of anti-smoking fascism in New York, driven by Republican Mayor Blumenthal, massively tramples rights of citizens. When this judge supports an anti-smoking "Gestapo," over the rights of owners and their clienteles, he upholds the principle of the supremacy of the state over the citizen, the group over the individual, and the will of the collective over the sovereign rights of individuals.
When this judge stated, "Individuals have no `fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco...," he put another torpedo into the fundamental rights of all humans.
Rights (see endnote) come from the nature of humans, and they formulate the freedom of action principles necessary for humans to support and further their lives on earth--not that there is anywhere else to do so. Nobody can or did give anyone rights, and nobody can take them away. A person's rights belong to him because he is human, and he was born with his full set of fundamental rights: Rights to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are no other fundamental rights.
Fundamental rights mean that people may pursue actions on their behalf, but they have no guarantee of success. Only the action is guaranteed, and it is the proper government which exists solely to preserve and protect these sovereign rights of all of its citizens. Only individuals have rights; there are no "group rights" of any kind whatsoever.
Rights cannot be given nor taken away or even given away. The can, however, be violated, as has happened in most of the history of most of mankind. We call this "violation of rights." Some call it "abrogation of rights." And, the only way that rights can be violated is for individuals or groups to initiate physical force or its equivalents (e.g., fraud) against other individuals.
Rights authorize people to act on their own behalf. That entails the possibility of error and people doing some damned stupid things. However, as long as any person does not violate the sovereign, fundamental rights of other citizens, he or she is free to do the bright or the stupid, the helpful or the self-destructive, etc. And which, is nobody's business, particularly the state.
The only responsibility entailed in rights concerns taking responsibility for one's actions. Mother Nature commands each of us to be responsibile for ourselves, to be concerned with our own welfare as our primary, and not to try to default that responsibility onto others.
The use of tobacco is not one of the bright or healthful things people can do, but they have the right to use it. They own their own bodies, and that ownership gives them the use and disposal of any and all of their bodies, as they may choose to use them. You can disapprove of their actions, but, if they aren't trampling your rights, butt out and leave them alone.
The judge could not have been more wrong: People DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSUME TOBACCO! In a situation involving voluntary association, they may light up cigars, pipes, cigarettes, and stuff snuff and tobacco shreds into their noses and buccal pouches, in permitting private establishments and among consenting adults. Any private business has the right to permit tobacco use, in a free society--or not, in a free society. Clienteles not wanting to put up with the use, or the prohibition of use, of tobacco are free to go elsewhere.
The relevant rights to use tobacco are the three MOST FUNDAMENTAL: the rights to life, to property, and to freedom of action.
This New York judge said that "...the smoking bans target[ed] conduct _ smoking in certain places _ rather than speech, association or assembly, which are not regulated by the statutes." This is either profound ignorance or Leftist activism. To mean this with sincerity, this judge would have to support the Hegelian notion that reality consists of nothing but conflicts--that A is both A and not A, in the same respects, and at the same times. Well, reality never conformed to Hegel or any of the others who try to twist reality to their wishes, although they never cease trying to make the unworkable work.
The judge also says, "While individuals' freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech merit constitutional protection, there is no basis for concluding that the smoking bans infringe those rights." Think of just what this judge means: that the rights to life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, all FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, are trumped by derivative "rights." We all have rights derived from the fundamentals, but we must have the fundamentals first. This is an inversion so dark that I cannot think that this judge did not intend to strike another blow against the Constitution with these statements.
So, here is an elegant example of how activist judges are trying to turn us into some socialist, postmodernist "paradise." IF YOU LET THEM. IF YOU LET THEM.
No one can afford to remain ignorant about the nature and proper application of rights because the attacks come ceaselessly from every perspective. Just as no one can afford to be comfortable supporting the socialist document of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no one can afford detecting and thwarting direct attacks on rights or the subtle "conditioning" of us to accept government entitlements as rights. No one can afford any longer to fail to distinguish fundamental rights from derivative rights, to legal rights and optional rights. Our freedom is what the anti-rights crowd want, and we must not give an inch.
-------------
NB: In our article, (Do Not Support the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we discuss the definition, derivation, and meanings of fundamental rights, and we invite the reader to go there for a fuller discussion of rights.
posted by George Mason @ 6/01/2005 08:10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home