Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for February 01, 2011

Well, that clears that up! NOT!

Wonder how many dents the walls in that house have … from Dad beating his head against them in frustration …

Every few years a new pressure group wriggles out of the ground (just like the 7 year locusts) demanding a Constitutional amendment to take away somebodys rights, somewhere.

I guess it’s just Danae’s turn.

At some level, any guarantee of one right takes away another potential right. The right to avoid self-incrimination trumps the right to know what’s going on. The right to bear arms trumps the right to avoid getting shot at. And so on.

You have the Right to remain silent.

Exercise Your Rights Today! But feel free to speak out if you must.

The Constitution does not GRANT our rights, as so many want to convince us these days (saying that the govt. has the power to give and take). I know it’s just semantics, but the Constitution simply RECOGNIZES the rights with which we are born. We give up those rights upon infringement of the rights of another.

My Dad said I had the right to do what I wanted as long as I didn’t infringe on the rights of others.

then I grew my hair long.

I think he narced on me to the Selective Service to get it cut using his right as a parent.

how about the proposed 28th?

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ..”

The Constitution is a list of rules limiting the government’s behavior. The Bill of Rights enumerates individual rights, it doesn’t grant them.

If I have a “right” to do something as guaranteed by law, then every other citizen should have that same right. @ graphics, I agree completely with your statement.

The people have all the rights. The purpose of the constitution is to grant some rights to the government. The Bill of Rights is unnecessary. Read the Federalist Papers!

I don’t think I want to be around for the Danae dictatorship era.

The only way they got enough states to ratify the Constitution was by tacitly agreeing that adding the Bill of Rights would immediately follow — enough thought that the Bill of Rights was absolutely necessary, but there wasn’t unanimous agreement on which articles should go into the Constitution itself, so they kicked the can down the road. It was only one of a string of brilliant compromises that set our present form of government in motion.

Radish says, “Dad’s waiting for her to grow out of it.” Mine is over 30. I’m still waitng.

THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

WITH GUITARS!

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

For Chikuku,

Actually the Constitution says that any rights not granted to the federal government belong to the states, not the people. That’s why the Bill of Rights was so important. It limits the way the states can mess with their own citizens.

The Constitution is a lot like the Bible. Look hard enough and you can find support for just about any position you want to take. The evidence would indicate that this wasn’t an accident. The founding fathers recognized that they couldn’t anticipate everything and deliberately left a lot of wiggle room. A modern document would start with twenty pages of definitions to eliminate any possible confusion on exactly what something means.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

@jcorry: I have read the Federalist Papers and I fail to see any connection between that document and your statement that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary. Granted, some of the writers of the Federalist Papers had their doubts about the Bill of Rights being needed but considering that they were adopted rather quickly after the basic Constitution was approved would seem to indicate the larger population of the new United States thought they were a very good idea indeed.

It also is important to remember that the Federalist Papers were a series of essays by just three men stating their opinions and pushing for the adoption of the newly written Constitution. And according to the introduction to the book I read, New York state was the primary target of these articles since they were apparently the most opposed to the new Constitution.

I like it, FishStix. It’s a golden oldie, but like most such it always bears repeating.

For pdchapin:

10 Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

I guess the best we can hope for is that Danae will at least be a reasonably benevolent dictator… (Except to boys of course!)

Nabuquduriuzhur said, about 8 amendments ago: “…For example, Kagan consistently advocated Shariah law in her tenure at Harvard…”

Citation, please? I have heard any number of bizarre charges about Kagan, most of which were flat untrue or very strange interpretations of quite ordinary things (such as the charge that she somehow concealed Obama’s mythical foreign birth). Snopes yields nothing on this topic, and google links to a number of sites that seem to confuse wanting Harvard to teach about Sharia with advocating it as a legal system. To me, that’s kind of like saying we shouldn’t study bacteria because they cause disease; better to pretend they don’t exist.

FishStix: an addition to the Bill of No Rights:

XI: You do not have the right to reproduce other people’s work as if it were your own. Not even on the internet. You should at least credit Lewis Napper, who wrote the “Bill of No Rights” in 1993.

It took four words into google and three mouse clicks to find this information.

FishStix It will be spring soon, and you can get back out on the boat. In the mean time think about switching to decaf, and watch the salt intake.

I think FishStix would be happy living under Sharia law, since he believes in no rights for anyone.

The establishing of rights that we DO have inverts that premise and redirects the religiously based Constitutional Republic into a secular, Socialistic Democracy or worse. Such actions directly recreate the tyrannies of old by limiting liberties of the people, not loosing them… and often presumed new liberties damage society more than benefit them.

The assumption by this new direction of establishing rights essentially states that We, The People, have NO RIGHTS except for those granted by the “State” aka federal gov’t and various governmental branches. And why? Because government knows better than us stupid simpletons. Yes, the same pomposity that we freed ourselves from centuries ago.

Now some of you may dislike the Founder’s methodology and/or worldview and line of reasoning. Fine, that’s fair to argue against. But to be wholly ignorant of historical facts and/or to purposely twist them or create fiction about them is wholly degenerate, wicked and immoral (redundancy on purpose).

Actually, the Constitution is a mix of formation of government and establishment of certain powers and more importantly certain restrictions of Federal and State governments… so as to express and enumerate certain liberties of the people that government could not interfere with. The Constitution also states that what ever rights were not granted to the Federal government were either the rights of the sovereign states or the people.

The Bill of Rights was actually a list of negative rights. Not what rights the People were not allowed to have, but what rights the government was not allowed to infringe upon. Even Obama admitted this fact, though also stating his dislike of such a method and practice (limiting the power of government).

This is why the Declaration of Independence was so important as it set in motion the very groundwork and concept for which our rights are derived… “We behold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”

As such, rights were not granted by man, as Wiley, Danae, Obama and the entire left (and much of the Right) believe. Instead, they were granted by the ultimate authority who is God. And also as such, any and all liberties, restrictions, morals, ethics, etc., have already been declared and defined and reasoned by this God via the Bible (as EVERY founder believed - even the most non-Christian).

Hence, restrictions on government were far more necessary as American leaving a tyranny of power already did not want such tyranny recreated in this new, free country.

Amazing that those who spout the longest on what they THINK the Constitution says, or doesn’t, are those least likely to have ever actually READ it, or believed in it. (Like Scalia) MAD magazine has just as much to do with the actual content or intent of the Constitution as do the “Federalist Papers”, or for that matter the Declaration of Independence. It’s even worse than saying the Koran “explains” the Bible- though both do call for worshiping the same deity.

My two comments some how got inverted… weird.

Very few of the founding fathers were religious. They were Deists. They were pretty sure there was a god, but they didn’t subscribe to any particular religion, Jewish, Christian or otherwise.

FishStix:

I agree with you on much of the list you posted. I hardly want to admit it because just as much as you think I’m an ignorant fool, so do I think you one. Again I say! Go fishing. It is a very fine thing to do.

BTW. Nobody is talking about FREE health care. The idea is to have GOOD AFFORDABLE health care for everyone.

^^^^ dtroutma… they both vaguely call for worshiping the same God. The Koran does change some things around the opposite direction as the Torah, uplifting certain actions and people that the Bible condemns or frowns upon. Plus all the added official religious writings spit in the face of the Jewish Torah, Jews and Christians. But I understand what you meant.

Scalia, however, would eat you alive on the Constitution. Interestingly enough, most Congressmen are completely clueless… even more than some average Americans.

As far as the Federalist Papers… well the Federalist Papers have much to do with the Constitution and our government as it is a series of essays written by some of the Founders outlining how this new proposed government would operate and why it was the best choice for America.

It’s essentially historical record. And as much as supreme court rulings on interpretation of the Constitution and laws, etc., are given an authoritative place… being a historical record discussing the meanings and applications of the founding documents and government, the Federalist Papers are hugely important and hold great validity. Greater considering it was written by Framers and in that era, verses modern court decisions based on modern desired applications.

But one key aspect of Progressivism is to deconstruct (destroy) the original intent and design of this country in favor of a more socialistic, totalitarian gov’t. And as such, most modern teachings of the founding docs are skewed with little to no actual source reading/study. Certainly not in any public college that I or any of my friends had attended.

But you hear one line of rhetoric from mainstream liberal media and you run with it because you like it. I understand. Just know that for the sake of intellectual honesty, you’re wrong. Lol.

Right now Obama & Co. are trying to find a way to use international law to deny us our rights and get arround the Constitution. Remember that the next time you vote.

Varnes… I see you Progressive education has fared you well.

Try actually reading writings of the founders. You’ll find that even the most non-Christian members, of which there were quite few, advocated for a Christian religious moral framework and adhered to such ideals. This even includes the most “non-religious” believed members like Ben Franklin who not only called for the tradition of prayer before every Congressional meeting thought Sermons and prayer instrumental and necessary and, I believe, desired a national day of prayer every year in honor of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Just like much of today’s religious practice is different than ages past, so too is understanding of the concepts of deism. Franklin very much believe God directly operated in our daily affairs. Something quite different than today’s deism.

Thomas Jefferson too is considered quite the secularist or deist. However, he too believed God to be quite personable and necessary in the daily lives of the people, including himself, and was crucial for good governance for the wise teachings of the Bible. But since he wasn’t a true traditionalist with his doctrine, he has been characterized as not just being “not Christian,” but anti-Christian, Bible and religion as Ben Franklin too is often characterized.

These are both untrue, idealistic exaggerations. After all, it was much of their religious faith which guided them to fight against the practice of slavery and convicted of its abhorrent practice, much as it did with many other founders and forebearers… even in England with William Wilberforce.

You’d be surprised to find seats in churches that we designated to these supposed God haters in which they sat, dignified, for many a service.

Thomas Jefferson even approved (by signing a bill) of using the Capitol Building as a church while he was vice-president but after having been elected president.

@ Junco… well there are some people talking about gov’t provided healthcare commonly regarded as “free,” even though it is far from being free since payments for said use would be taken directly from our paychecks as taxes without our ability to choose or debate. Some people, all Dems and/or leftists, advocate for this practice.

Now the current bill doesn’t enact that practice, merely sets up the groundwork for its inevitable practice… the conscription-like aspect of this bill playing a major part.

Now you can debate on whether that kind of program is good or bad, I’m just pointing out the fact that there ARE some advocating for it… including some who stood against this bill as it “not going far enough.”

it’s a cartoon, folks. get real.

Dj: Socialistic democracy? You admit that’s possible? Wow, you are way too liberal for the rightist fringe.

And is anyone really surprised that fishstix doesn’t have any original idea of his own or that he may even THINK what he wrote is his original idea?

And i believe the amendment for prohitbition (18) is an excellent example of taking away a right in the constitution, So Wiley’s own point is nullified by the document. Governments can easily take away anything they like. Something Teaist will find to their liking for certain.

And, if we are to believe our Declaration in conjunction with the Con. Our only real rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (We might include Locke’s idea of property which is the accelerate in capitalistic craziness) but we are “endowed” with those rights so they really aren’t our own, they are given by someone else. The Meism rampant here shows the usual traces of wanting Our rights without concern for others. Danae would be proud.

Wow! This has all been quite interesting and probably the most intelligent discussion I’ve ever seen on the ‘Net. Wiley should be proud of the caliber of people who comprise his readership. Very educational, and nobody got nasty.

C’mon Fishstix.

It’s bad enough TV is full of repeats, do you have to keep beating the same old “Bill of No Rights” tune? How many times have you posted it in the last year?

(For that matter, no single posting should be that long; we’ve short attention spans here on the comics’ pages.)

Now that you’ve gotten it out of your system and posted it on Feb. 1, put it back in the file and save it for 2012. PLEASE.

No, keep going with it Wiley.

We hold these goofs to be self-evident That all men were created in error That they were endowed by their creator with certain alienable rights That among these were death, stupidity, and the pursuit of the innocent.

Hail.

Danae would probably agree with this.

Neh. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to grant rights to the citizenry but to protect those identified natural rights from the interference and intrusion of government.

just sayin’

The Constitution grants no rights. The Bill of Rights has a preamble (Did anyone know that?) which says “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (The Constitution’s) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:”.

Note. The clauses are declaratory. That means the states are telling the federal government to sit down, shut up and listen the people are about to speak.

They are restrictive - They draw a line in the sand over which the government may not step.

The underlying and eternal theory of our government is that all rights essential to the maintenance, enjoyment and defense of liberty are innate and are the property of every person by virtue of being born.

I don’t think it was the leftists who took anybody’s money – last time I checked it was largely the banking industry which is not known for leftward leanings.

Poor, poor Dad

@Destiny23 Hey!

You aren’t allowed to question guns. Does this count?