Constitutional Rights

I often hear government officials, lawyers, politicians and others talking of our "Constitutional Rights." It is common for the average person to refer to their rights as "Constitutional" because so many have used this term for so long.  However, if the people of America in the early days of our nation heard this they would be appalled and justifiably angry at any who used this term.

Frequently I have asked friends, coworkers and others I meet and talk with to name a "constitutional right."  While some are leery to answer fearing a "trick question" others might say the right to free speech or right to bear arms, a very few might bring up the right from self incrimination, speedy trial or others.  For each of these responses I have to inform them that they are wrong.  These are not "constitutional rights."

We do not have any "constitutional rights" at all.  None, zip, zero.  And this is where the founding generation would take offense.  Our rights are "inalienable" not "constitutional."  Why is this so important you might ask.   Well when you consider that words matter, it is extremely important.  First let's consider what the difference is.  Constitutional rights would be rights that are granted to the people from the constitution.  Inalienable rights are those granted by our creator; for religious folks this is God, for secular folks this might be nature or rights inherent in just being alive and human.  Either way they do not come from the US Constitution by any means.

Once you understand the difference you can then consider why it's important.  For this let me give you and scenario to illustrate my point. In the US military commanders can impose Non-Judicial Punishment on subordinates within their command for wrongdoings.  This punishment is called Article-15's or Captains Mast (Navy) which is the chapter in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Now under this a commander who is a Captain (Lieutenant in the Navy) in rank or below can take away rank of enlisted subordinates in the pay grades of E-4 or below.  Commanders with the rank of Major to Colonel (Lieutenant Commander to Captain in the Navy) can take away rank from enlisted subordinates in the pay grades of E-6 or below.  General officers and Admirals can take away rank from any enlisted subordinate in a courts martial.  Why the distinction you might ask; in the military they have a saying "you can't take what you can't give."  What this means is that Captains can promote subordinates up to the pay grade of E-4 but not higher, Majors-Colonels manage promotion aspects up to E-6, while General officers manage promotion aspects through the senior enlisted grades.  Thus if you can't grant it you can't take it.

Now let's consider this in the light of our "rights."  If those in power can redefine our rights as being granted by the US Constitution then they can modify or illuminate them through modifying the Constitution.  The early Americans would be up in arms at this concept because they strongly believed that our rights are given to us by our creator and they guarded them religiously as such.  The reality is that the Constitution does not grant or define our rights.  The only thing it does is limit the government in doing anything to "infringe' upon those rights that are inalienable to every man, woman and child.

However, today it seems Americans are willing to let those in power redefine their rights and thus allow them to be taken away.  Unless we return to the thinking of our found generations and recognize that we have "inalienable Rights" and it is government that is restricted from doing anything in violation of those rights, Americans are doomed to eventual servitude and slavery under a tyrannical government.  History has proven this to be a fact in that never in the worlds history has the facts ever been otherwise.