Natural, Self-Evident, Inalienable: No Constitution Required

I have been surprised over the last day or so seeing the diaries about whether we have rights or not, whether they are granted or not and by whom, and who decides about them.  For such a bunch of liberals, it is pretty funny that we don't have the bedrock liberal philosophy down (even me).  So, while I am not a philosopher (not even close!) I wanted to touch on some important issues that liberal thought is based on - mainly because the ideas are what have set us free, and the subsequent documents articulated the details.  

Jump with me for more on our liberal thought-forefathers.

The documents (the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, and other important documents) were an outgrowth of liberal thinking, not the other way around.  Inalienable rights didn't happen after the Declaration and the Constitution, we always had them.

Where did the ideas for the Constitution come from?  Where did these radicals come up with such an idea that the rabble could rule themselves?

Liberal:  

The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"). It is widely associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom.

 I have noted a tagline like this around these parts, so there are undoubtedly some who know much more than I do about philosophy.

The core of liberal thought is generally traced back to Locke, though he was only the most recent of many philosophers who wrote about natural law.  What were Locke's main ideas, you ask?  His ideas can be distilled into three fundamental rights for a member of society:  Life, Liberty, and Property.  

Sound familiar?  They should.  They are the very same "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson gets credit, but he was merely rephrasing what Locke had written before.  

So, what's the point?  The point is that no document gave you the right to Liberty.  And not just you.  According to liberal thought, all people, not just American citizens, have natural rights, including Liberty.  And Liberty means no imprisonment without process, no suspension of habeas corpus.  And you were born with it.

By going against the liberal idea that habeas corpus has to be granted, or that it was given in the Constitution, or that it can be suspended goes against the very idea of natural rights - which was the fundamental basis of English Common Law, our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  I realize that there is wording for suspension of habeas is in the Constitution, but the point here is that liberal thought and natural rights are not granted.  They are inherent in your status as a human being.

So, the next time you see some bogus argument about what rights you are granted and who grants them, remember this:

Your status as a human being grants you natural rights, including Life, Liberty, and Property.  No document gave them to you, and no one can take them away without violating your natural rights.  All the supporting documents, including the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and others, are merely icing on the cake.  

•  Tips for Liberty

  Thanks!

  by Prof Dave on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 11:49:58 PM PDT

•  I don't see any daylight

  between the two King Georges.  And I'm not talking about their names.  The Divine Right of Kings is indeed the operating political philosophy of the executive branch today.

  Also, for all those conservatives who attack "self-hating liberals," liberalism is in fact grounded in self-regard.  Per lucid:

  The very idea of selfishness is what spawned liberalism. All early liberal texts extoll the virtue of an idea of 'selfish self-awareness' - an idea that we do for ourselves, however, we cannot do for ourselves if we are not in a collective of people 'doing for themselves'...
  So how do we organize this community of people 'doing for themselves'?
  The self is the founding idea of humanism. We simply need to work out how that works in a world with many selves.

  by Simplify on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:00:32 AM PDT

  •  There's

    plenty to be proud of in the liberal tradition.

    The ideas that conservatives wrap themselves in have all been created by liberals.  Every last one of them.  And to let conservatives claim them as their own is a concession that no liberal should make.  Granted, liberals now and then aren't relly the same, but liberals then would be on our side pushing for more rights and protections if they were around now, not less.

    by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:10:47 AM PDT

•  Gotta go with the "original"

  John Locke. OK, so he might not be original, but his wording got the most traction and led to Jefferson's own assertions of life, liberty and happiness.

  His notions are of one piece. You must have life in order to have both liberty and property. You must have liberty to be secure in your life and property. And you must have property in order to have a good, free life. Interpret the extent of that as you will, but in any case, one must have property of a sort for personal enjoyment and/or investment.

  Update that notion to include everyone living, and you have modern liberalism. Strip that notion, like the Executive Bloodthirster and his band of brigands are working so hard to do, and you have fascist neo-feudalism.

  If they're not stopped, we'll be calling them "Lord."

  by Hirsch on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:01:14 AM PDT

  •  You are right on point

    And I agree.

    The three "co-equal" rights are all necessary for society to work properly.

    We do need to put a stop to these authoritarian notions.  I personally would like to gut a sizable portion of the military to reduce the power of the executive, but at least getting a warmonger out of the office would be a good start.

    by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:07:37 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Sometimes I think that the executive branch has become a shadow, a government unto itself. It is tied to the military-industrial complex, and as we've seen since the end of World War II, no cost is too small, no liberty too sacred to sacrifice on the phantom altar of "national security."

      The executive branch must be stripped before Bush or someone even worse later on turns it into the sole apparatus of American government.

      by Hirsch on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:14:50 AM PDT

      •  "Thanks" to

        the National Security act of 1947 which put the USA into a permanant war footing, thereby giving the Executive too much power.

        Massive government funding of the weapons manufacturers sure didn't help either.

        by offgrid on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:46:29 AM PDT

•  Hey, Prof Dave

  Thanks for writing this very succinct explanation of our natural, human rights.

  This can not be spoken often enough.

  by offgrid on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:02:08 AM PDT

  •  Thanks! I agree. n/t

    by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:04:33 AM PDT

•  Locke's right of property is the basis

  for the rule of law ... you could have liberty and anarchy, but to have the right to own something - that requires law.
  The right to liberty - self-governing, moral independence; inherent, intrinsic, intuitively obvious - no wonder they regarded it as a natural law that each member of society had a right to liberty.
  "Self-evident" - except to moral idiots like Bush and Gonzales.

  by mskitty on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:07:10 AM PDT

  •  Self-evident

    requires some level of honesty with one's self, I suppose, because Bush and Gonzales certainly should know better.  

    Anyone who doesn't believe in the liberal basis of our founding documents, such as natural law, is simply not in tune with our Founding Fathers.  

    by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:12:43 AM PDT

  •  as I remember

    Locke was quite conservative, and Jefferson consciously rejected Locke's characterization of property as a natural right rather than a construction extended by the consent of the governed.  I'll take Jefferson over Locke.  We do not need to go along with having Cheney or Halliburton acquire endlessly and exponentially until they own the whole world and control us without recourse.  Property is that which the government is willing to enforce people's claims on.  And what the government is willing to enforce is up to the people.

    by clyde on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:03:03 AM PDT

•  More generally, the entire Constitution sets out

  the parameters for the government's freedom of movement, not that of the people. It says, "the government can go this far, but no further." Gonzales, Bush, etc., advocate the incorrect notion that the Constitution says, "these are your rights, but you get no more."

  Years and years ago, I did a college paper comparing our Constitution to that of a handful of communist nations, including Cuba. The part that struck me most was that these other nations were much more carte blanche in their approach to governmental powers, as in, "the government shouldn't do this, but it isn't prohibited."

  So in a peculiar way, these guys are saying that the Creator got it wrong and Castro got it right.

  by VetGrl on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:14:31 AM PDT

  •  There is no doubt

    that the current Administration thinks in authoritarian ways with a lot of similarities to (insert inflammatory authoritarian here).

    (I don't want to go down the path of Godwin's Law or the derivatives thereof...)

    by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:18:04 AM PDT

    •  It just blows my mind that, with all their talk

      of religion and the extent to which they play on people's faith to win elections, it's the "endowed by their Creator" part that gets dumped in the trash can.

      But then, if I had a dollar for every time the words "blows my mind" pass through my head in relating to BushCo activities, I'd be a wealthy woman.

      by VetGrl on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:28:27 AM PDT

      •  No kidding

        I couldn't be more diametrically opposed to these guys if I made it up in a story.  

        Literally, they are my polar opposite on every issue.  EVERY ISSUE.

        How the hell does that happen in a non-Bizzaro world???

        by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:30:49 AM PDT

        •  It is Bizzaro World

          haven't you noticed?

          by offgrid on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:49:25 AM PDT

•  Prof Dave, comment on right to bodily integrity?

  Particularly, the right of a human to retain his or her full sexual organ as endowed by nature?

  by RealityBias on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:40:57 AM PDT

•  Jefferson

  said it best:

  the government is best which governs least

  Especially, in our age of corruption.

  by txlosthorn on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 12:41:51 AM PDT

  •  Not sure if that's snark, but I noticed that

    many who echo Jefferson's sentiment are the ones who mercilessly violate it every time.

    I just want one of them to explain to me how one can cut taxes, wage a two-front war, spend billions on unconstitutional surveillance and declare it "governs least."

    Oh wait, they can't.

    by Hirsch on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:18:44 AM PDT

•  Thank you, Prof Dave.

  Your diary hit the nail on the head, and the comments up to this point both reinforce and expound upon it with logic and demonstrable veracity.

  It is my view that government, particularly the Executive, but government in general, has grown so large and detached from its citizens who bestow its very legitimacy, that it has taken on, assumed (under its own supposed legitimacy) a life of its own, as if it has a separate life and separate rights that are superior to and need not be overly concerned with the lives and rights of its subjects.  This may seem an extreme view, but it is one I think warranted if one only closely examines the last six years!

  The fact is, the government is not -- none of its branches, even -- reasonably responsive to the governed.  The Courts?  How many agree with the Kelso decision on emminent domain?  The Congress?  How many think the Patriot Act and its reauthorization were and are seriously flawed and primarily served to further the goals of the Executive?  The Executive?  How many agree with warrantless wiretapping, and an attempt to add the veneer of legality after the fact?  How many agree with indefinite imprisonment without charge or recourse to the courts?  And the list goes on, and on, and on.

  It is not just GWB that undermines natural law and the inalienable rights of men; the Courts and the Congress are complicit, as well.  Granted, not all of this happened in the course of only six years; some of it is the result of accretion, of 'death by a thousand cuts'.  But as I see it, that is how things stand today.  I know many, if not most readers will not share this view, which is fair enough.

  Thanks for an excellent diary.  Cheers:)

  by wgard on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:20:33 AM PDT

  •  Here's a nice court quote for you

    I'm not saying there's not a problem with complicity, especially when you consider how many radical judges Bush has managed to appoint to the federal bench. But sometimes one will remind us that they understand what's going on:

    Arrested by ICE agents on September 13, 2004, his procedural and substantive due process rights violated, Frank Enwonwu has today endured 303 days of imprisonment even though there are no criminal charges pending against him. He seeks the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus established in clause 39 of Magna Carta (1215) and enshrined in our own United States Constitution. For 217 years, through boom and bust, insurgency, civil war, and terrorist attack, this Court -- the oldest United States District Court in America -- has carefully and prudentially administered the Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure the rights of the individual against overreaching by the executive.

    Mr. Enwonwu commenced his action in this Court on March 17, 2005, had an initial hearing 25 days later, and a full evidentiary hearing two weeks after that. This Court took the matter under advisement and commenced a detailed and reflective analysis of an evidentiary record both complex and deeply disturbing.

    Then on May 11, 2005, the Congress stripped this Court of jurisdiction to act in this pending case and all others like it. Though such direct congressional interference in a pending case is virtually unprecedented in all our history, this surprising mandate has gone utterly unnoticed by our people. Evidently, only where an American jury sits to validate the separation of powers among the three branches is trial court jurisdiction immune from such peremptory congressional action.

    How can this be in modern day America?
    Mr. Enwonwu is an immigrant alien.

    He has no right to trial by jury in this type of case and Congress does not much care about immigrant aliens, even those who, after endangering themselves assisting our law enforcement efforts to stem the international drug trade, are deported into the hands of the very drug traders upon whom they have informed.

    Does this shock your conscience as an American? If so, read on and dispassionately judge for yourself[.]

    The case citation is Enwonwu v. Chertoff, 376 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D. Mass. 2005). The quote above is what the court opened with, even blockquoting it and putting it in bold. I ran across this some time ago and I'm glad I finally got a chance to quote it!

    by VetGrl on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:38:38 AM PDT

    •  Beautiful catch!

      You go further than I do, though.  I do not even say there is complicity, at least not on a conscious level.  But even at a level less than complicity, because of the origins of authority of each and the fact that their primary regards are relative to the structure and power of government, complicity is often the end result... the individual is left out in the cold, left 'out to dry', in spite of stated principles that sound high-minded, in spite of everything.  

      I think your example is only one of many, more extreme than some, not so extreme as others.  But the fact remains; the individual is basically at the whim of government... and to me, that is not right.  And if the individual suffers, to any degree, due to the excesses or assumed powers of government, that is both in principle and in fact, unjustifiable.  OMO.

      Good catch.  Cheers:)

      by wgard on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 02:20:51 AM PDT

•  Great job here

  it proves how much one can say without being verbose.

  I would add that the right of habeus corpus is a natural extension of the notion that we have a natural right to liberty.  Detention without cause is antithetical to the notion of an inalienable right to liberty.

  by mattinla on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 01:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    I should have explicitly said that habeas corpus was an extension of Liberty, I certainly meant it as one.  Good catch, thanks fo reading.

    by Prof Dave on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 07:02:34 AM PDT