I started listening to Glenn Beck’s speech today and noticed he was on Fox in a discussion group. A room full of college kids they are discussing our government with a lot about our founders. His guestDavid Barton of Wallbuilders makes this claim about the Declaration. He mentions 5 points two of which that
1 there is a creator and
2 that’s the source of our inalienable rights.
the discussion they are having has a lot to do America returning to it’s religious roots. They associate the Bill of Rights to the original Declaration that there is a creator that grants us these rights. They claim the New Testament is a big source for the concepts and there is no mention of Deism or The Enlightenment. Barton quotes something from Jefferson about the foundation holding up these rights and claims that’s a reference to God.
Glenn looks into the camera and asks the question in the thread title. From reviews of Glenn’s speech and this discussion I think what we’ll see is him stressing religion, not just worship but organized religion and a return to church in order to return our country to it’s foundational roots. So,
As we become more and more diverse , where do we find the foundation of our rights. In mankind’s history and ongoing quest for human rights, or is there something else. I have no problem with people believing their personal is God but inferring that there is no foundation without god belief bothers me.
So, without God, where do our foundational beliefs, the inalienable rights mentioned in our Declaration , come from?
Those rights seem plenty alienable to me. There are lots of places where people are denied them. Blacks were denied them here for over a century. Gays lack some rights now.
To the extent they exist, they come from an agreement we have to live according to them.
The same place they do if there IS a God? Why would there being a god or gods make rights any more or less inalienable?
As for where they come from IMHO; the collective good and desires of humanity. Pretty much everyone wants free speech for themselves, after all. Just like older laws against things like theft and murder; no one wants to be robbed or murdered, so the obviously fair thing to do is outlaw such behavior for everyone.
It’s “unalienable”, not “inalienable”, if you’re quoting the DoI.
There is no such thing as an “unalienable right”. Every right we have was voted on in some way shape or form, or could be voted out of existence through the political process. We like to maintain the polite fiction that it isn’t so, but it is.
There is no nexus between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The DOI is legally irrelevant, so the question is meaningless. The Constitution doesn’t say our rights come from a “Creator.” It says they come from “we the people.” Next question.
Not really. The constitution comes from “we the people”, but it’s unclear where the writers think rights come from. Thomas Paine, who certainly had his share of influence on the writers, would absolutely disagree that rights are ultimately derived from the constitution itself.
THAt’s kinda what I was looking for. Why would you say historically there is no nexus between the DoI and the Constitution? Where are folks like BArton going wrong in insisting on some connection?
Then Thomas Paine would be wrong. The Consitution makes it clear that only the people can decided what their rights are ging to be. The Consitution does not say that any right is “unaliable,” and certainly does not say that they come from a sky fairy.
Because the DOI established no law and no rights. It is of no legal significance.
They are wrong in presuming there is any connection whatsoever. There is none. They had completely different functions. The DOI was not intended to establish any official government positions on the law or the rights of the people. It was also not ratified or voted on by the people.
Nexus means “connection”, as I’m sure you know. Since there are several common signers of both documents, there is a considerable connection.
Well, I agree with you, but I was talking about the Founders. Since you are quoting their words in support of your argument, it is of little matter what you or I think. But I’m open to changing your mind. Can you point to the part of the constitution where it says that only the people can decide what their rights are going to be?
ETA: I’ll have to remember this the next time the SCOTUS finds a new right that we possess.
It says it in the parts where it enumerates how the Constitution can be amended. It does not say that any other entity has the power to alter rights but the people themselves. It also doesn’t say that any right can’t be changed by the people. We could repeal the entire Bill of Rights if we wanted to.
Thomas Paine’s opinion is legally irrelevant, not to mention factually wrong, since the Constitution does give the people the power to revoke rights if enough of them want to do it.
That’s not the same thing. It also explicitly says that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In that case, the people retain rights that are not listed in the constitution, no matter how many amendments are made. Where do these other rights come from, according to the constitution (not according to what you or I think)?
Please keep in mind that you and I are 100% in agreement on this issue. But that doesn’t mean that either of us is in agreement with what the Founders thought when they wrote the constitution.
I only qoute Paine because he is known to have been influential on many of the Founders. I’m not talking about what is legally relevant, but what those Founders were thinking as they wrote the constitution.
Also, I believe the OP is asking a very general question, and that it is a much bigger question than what is or is not contained in the US Constitution.