Can One Be a Leftist or Liberal and Believe in Constitution and Deep-Rooted American Values

[Fifty Seven]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

I guess you aren’t a fan of this concept:
I guess you aren’t a fan of this concept:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Statue of Liberty
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

A poem on a statue is not a legally binding contract.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

A poem on a statue is not a legally binding contract.

Did someone say it was?

But if it has no meaning, why do we flock to it? Just to snap a good photo?

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

By my reckoning, all great and philosophically momentous documents are necessarily ambiguous, open to interpretation and application differing with the times. They are more poetry than recipe, more epic lore than scientific tract. For them to be otherwise, cheapens and profanes them. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but my layman’s reading of the Constitution finds no rights that are absolutely immutable, and no statement that such-and-such is the exclusive roster of rights, such that any further ones are peripheral and transitory. The rights that are enumerated, are not a prescription of the relationship between Man and State, but a paean to lofty ideals. What we ultimately do with them, is a matter of inclination and context.

We all seem to forget that the Bill of Rights has a deliberately open-ended amendment, the Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Note that it does not specify what those other rights are. Which is probably why there's very little Ninth Amendment jurisprudence, for if litigants were to rely on it, we could see rights come and go according to fashion or whim.

Using it would also make the Constitution that "living document" conservatives abhor beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Wings : Left & Right & Wrong

● Under the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic (collectivism), you are a member of the glorious collective, obligated to surrender your surplus, in order to be eligible for benefits (compulsory charity). You must get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, trade, buy, sell, build a house, own land, engage in occupations, run a business, hunt, fish, treat the sick, marry and / or own a dog. You have no endowed rights, liberties, inherent powers, nor absolute ownership of private property. And you are an enumerated “contributor” (human resource) equally liable on the national debt, having pledged your labor and property as collateral.
● Under the constitutional republic (indirect democracy), you are a voluntary citizen, enjoying government privileges (civil and political liberties), but have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights. (Ex: militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command - a violation of the right to life and liberty)
● Under the republican form of government, you have Creator endowed (natural) rights, liberties (natural and personal), inherent powers, absolute ownership of private property, and immunities that governments were instituted to secure. And only with consent of the governed, may governments do more than adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

The question is : which are in harmony with “traditional government” (right wing) and which are opposed to “traditional government” (left wing)?

Ironically, the republican form is still guaranteed, according to the laws on the books (natural rights, natural liberties, absolute ownership of private property, etc). But since consent of the governed legitimizes subject citizenship and socialist serfdom, as long as you consent, no harm / no foul. However, if fraud was used to acquire that consent, you have the right to withdraw consent and restore your endowed rights under the republican form.

Unfortunately, millions were misled by the world’s greatest propaganda ministry to ignore their own laws and submit to that which is anathema to the Founders, and thus believe they must “fight for freedom” that they unwittingly surrendered. Worse, some believe they must “fight” against the very principles that founded this nation.

Don’t be fooled into staging a slave revolt, they end badly - ask Spartacus - especially when you’re a voluntary slave. Read law. Ask questions of your public servants. Discover how and when you consented. And if fraud was used, withdraw consent, as is your right under the law. If you find that all your Creator endowed rights are restored to you, what grounds do you have to fight? And if you consent to the surrender of your Creator’s endowment, shut up, sit down, pay and obey. You have no grounds to complain.

Under our republic, nobody guarantees you a right to a creator. Nobody guarantees you an absolute right to anything, though we are supposed to try you before we kill you. It's trivial to avoid all the responsibilities you enumerate. Don't like paying taxes? Don't earn any money. Done deal. Grow your own food, make your own clothes, stick with no more than you can carry, and you are a free man. It's only when you interact with civilization that you incur obligations. While only a few dozen billionaires manage to live without paying taxes, tens of thousands of poor Americans manage it every year.

The only basic right you have is to keep breathing as long as you can. Things like food and housing are optional, though socialists like to pretend they are rights. Political pressure keeps the constitutionalists from starving old people to death in the streets, but they hate it.