Shared Pool of Knowledge

Steve Clyburn’s comment, imported from Facebook: The first thing to discover is what we have in common. My first offering is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I believe that our Founding Fathers were extremely insightful when they crafted those documents. I further believe that they are NOT “living documents” to be changed and misconstrued by those trying to make them fit their ideals, but rather a very concise set of documents meant to stand the test of time.

Mike Clyburn’s reply: If it is not a living document, is the alternative a dead document? I think you would agree with the statement that the Constitution does not grant rights to us. Rather, it says the government cannot infringe upon our God-given rights. The Declaration of Independence says these are inalienable rights endowed to all people by our Creator, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly you agree those are not our only three God-given rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates other inalienable rights – to bear arms, to free speech, to freely worship as we believe is right, the right to privacy in our own homes, the right to have none of these taken away without due process of law. So, when the Supreme Court finds another right protected by the Constitution – the right to burn the flag as a method of political speech, or other rights the Court has elucidated, that is not necessarily changing or misconstruing, it is only recognizing another right among those that are given by our Creator and inalienable.

SC: Obviously I disagree vociferously with the burning of the flag being accepted as “free speech” just the same as I disagree with nude dancing as protected “free speech”. If the second amendment had been bastardized in the same manner as the first amendment, we would all have nuclear weapons and ICBM’s. I also do not agree with jurists who legislate from the bench, or who twist the law to fit their own agenda.

MC: But you do agree that we have inalienable rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

SC: “IF” I did agree, whom is qualified to determine those “inalienable rights”?

MC: The Supreme Court – they are not legislating from the bench, they are identifying statutes that interfere with our individual rights.

SC: OK, for example, to you think that burning the American Flag should be protected as “free speech”? How about nude dancing?

That is the extent of our recent discussion on Facebook. I will provide a response to continue our discussion here. But, first, I am going to post this as a new blog post because I am apparently struggling to remember how to do things here in WordPress.