Monday, March 02, 2015

Where Do Our Constitutional Rights End?

As the conversation continues that the current administration is anti-Constitutional, we should take a look at a number of "items" that have been in place long before anyone outside of Chicago heard of Barack Obama.  I do not agree with his politics and I do find him to be very arrogantly disrespectful of our American freedoms, but there are so many other "Bills of Rights" that we have "gone along with" already in place.  Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not the final authority on these topics, I simply used the site as a common source to verify the existence of a number of declarations.  Technically, the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of citizens.  The Constitution protects the sovereignty of the United States of America.  The Bill of Rights protects the citizens, and we've allowed many other bills of rights to potentially usurp the authority of the Official Bill of Rights.

Thankfully, most of these declarations are not federal law and are presented to benefit those mentioned in the title, but there is a back door of control in some of these that actually rob an individual of their Constitutional Bill of Rights in lieu of these institutional documents.  For example, the "Patients Bill of Rights" has in reality overridden a patient's own decision regarding their health care and more than once has actually taken the rights of a patient "for their own good," or that of a child's regarding their parents rights.  Many facilities present their incoming patients with a "Bill of Rights" only to later usurp that individual's Constitutional Bill of Rights.  One of the best examples I can offer are the recent headlines involving parents of newborns who do not wish to vaccinate or at least not immediately.  More than one young mother has been sent off of a health care campus without her new baby, after child protection services have received reports from various health professionals.  I have for years, unashamedly referred to hospitals and healthcare facilities as "Sanctuaries of Sorcery."

As I read about the "Student Bill of Rights," it becomes painfully obvious that the decision to make this document powerful lies in the hands of those who draft it, but ultimately, government can enforce the document as the "will of the people" involved.  The legal enforceability of the Student Bill of Rights is quite murky, but in statements regarding parental questions and rights, institutions of education have more than once declared that a child does not have Constitutional rights in that facility.

I stumbled across the "Homeless Bill of Rights" which is genuine legislation in some states, with several more giving it consideration.  It seems in many of these cases, if our own government had not passed legislation to deregulate banking, many American citizens would not be homeless.  Being homeless should not require special regulation in America.  Being homeless should not be a reason to be abused by local authority.  There is no reason losing one's home should cause that same individual to lose the right to be treated as an American citizen with the Bill of Rights intact.

The "Consumer Bill of Rights" is law and has been for over 50 years.  The article in Wikipedia states the Consumer Bill of Rights has since been adopted by the UN in 1985 and expanded, with some rather ominous overtones of a controlling takeover of rights.  I included the following from the article.
In 1985, the concept of consumer rights was endorsed by the United Nations through the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection, which expands them to include eight basic rights.

The right to satisfaction of basic needs[edit]
The right to redress[edit]
The right to consumer education[edit]
The right to a healthy environment[edit]

This right demands that people have access to basic, essential goods and services: adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, public utilities, water, and sanitation
The right to redress provides for consumers to receive a fair settlement of just claims, including compensation for misrepresentation, shoddy goods, or unsatisfactory services. For example, a consumer should be able to go to consumer court against mobile phone companies that put hidden charges on the bill that were not previously explained, or activate ringtones without the consumer's permission.
The right to consumer education states that consumers should be able to acquire knowledge and skills needed to make informed, confident choices about goods and services, while being aware of basic consumer rights and responsibilities and how to act on them.
This is the right to live and work in an environment that is non-threatening to the well-being of present and future generations.
We know that members of the military, while serving, do not have the same rights they are protecting.  Since there is presently no draft, a person has a choice as to whether or not they participate, and since I haven't, I can't really offer a perspective.   
We know when law enforcement reads the Miranda Warning, one's "rights" have become absolutely minimal, as to remaining silent and calling an attorney.   This brings to mind the rights of travelers now with the TSA.  We all have the right to be offended at "virtual strip searches," groping, and the assumption that we guilty until proven innocent.
Prisoners, of course, lose rights when found guilty of a crime, but the fact that America has the largest prison population in the world does have the attention of the UN, which has it's own "Prisoner Bill of Rights."  There is a degree of overlap between the prison system and the mental health system, in that often the prisoner/patient does have issues that must be addressed by both systems.  Those forced into mental health care, frequently have fewer rights than those in the prison system and forced mental health care does not have a date of completion as does the legal sentencing structure of the prison system. 
Throughout this millennium, we have observed a number of ways both administrations of the 21st Century have found around the 2nd Amendment.  There is no need to confiscate guns, when bullets and ammo can simply be made unavailable.  I remember back in 2005, looking at a gun for home meat processing.  The inventory of guns was vast, the availability of bullets was interestingly in short supply for the more popular models of guns . . . Now, the current administration simply chooses to enforce limits on certain ammunition and some ammunition may just become unavailable for purchase.   

Net Neutrality, the latest form of faux protection we've been handed will certainly not ensure this internet journalist to have the same opportunities as Rupert Murdoch.  Historically speaking, there is little evidence that government legislation levels the playing field, except to lower the level of the "playing field" for the majority.  I'm already discerning the loss of free speech over net neutrality, and probably much more than that before it's all said and done.

I'm seeing a distinct correlation to what is happening with all these so called "Bills of Rights" and the following Torah passage.

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy G-d, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:  Torah of Holy Scripture

Post a Comment

Blog Archive