|
|
|
|
|
Okey-dokey. I'm in a debate on another blog, and I made the following statement (quoting myself):
The government has the right to nothing not specifically allowed by the constitution. The vast majority of constitutions allow the citizenry rights, the US Constitution allows the government rights. Big difference. Critical distinction.
One person tells me that I have it 'precisely wrong' and that 'reality is the exact opposite'.
Am I brain dead? Did I state it as badly as that? Looking at it, I think maybe I did. What I didn't expressly say - but meant - was that most constitutions assume that the State has supreme power, whereas the US Constitution assumes that that people have supreme power.
Go on. Fling stuff at me. Spears and arrows of derision, or support and encouragement. Suggestions for getting this point across better than I have. Cash. Whatever.
Update: Agreement was reached after adding that one clarifying statement about supreme power. It's good to not be stupid, accidentally or otherwise. Thanks for the input.
Posted by Ted at October 1, 2003 05:59 AMAs far as I can tell, your mistake is that you would even suggest that governments have Rights at all. The Constitution is based on the principle that People have Rights,and governments have Powers, and only those powers specifically granted to it by the People. Most other constitutions proscribe all authority to the Government except for that authority that It "grants" to the People.
Most constitutions are written by persons in power who wish to keep it, i.e.: tyrants.