A Balance of Rights
Nancy Salvato, Director of Constitutional Studies

Most contemporary political debate can be traced back to the two philosophies. When focusing on each of the candidates talking points in the race for the presidency, it might be helpful to think of their arguments framed in that great creation of our founding fathers, the Constitution.

Classical republicanism refers to the idea that individuals should put the needs of the community before self-interest. In natural rights philosophy (modern liberalism), the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The ideal government achieves and maintains a balance between the two ideas. The key word here is balance, there was no either/or intended when the framers wrote the United States Constitution. It was suggested by one of the speakers that we need to cultivate the capacity to hold contradictory ideas simultaneously and that we cannot become terrorized by dichotomies.

We were reminded that the constitution is a brief document and that aside from the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government, it is essentially a negative rights document…what isn’t specifically listed under the domain of the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government was left to the states. The Bill of Rights contains the only positive rights listed in the document. The problem with positive rights is that you might forget to list a right, which some of the founders feared could be taken to mean that the right was not given. Our state constitutions are much longer and difficult to navigate because of all the positive rights written into them. Does an amendment about marriage belong in the U.S. Constitution?

The idea that if any revolution is to succeed, it needs people who are unhappy with the status quo and willing to fight for a new form of government. If most of the colonists had nothing to lose, why would they want to revolt from England? The revolution had to be framed in a way that commoners had a personal stake in the outcome, therefore the word property was deliberately omitted and happiness was inserted into the line, “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” At the time of the revolution, the people with the most to lose from the King’s policy of taxation were those who owned land and businesses. But the U.S. Constitution was not set up to protect our happiness; it was set up to protect our property. Are we no longer self governing, sovereign nation, but instead subject to the members of a global governing body?

Our country was founded as a republic, not a democracy but its interesting to note we have a preamble that says, “We the people” instead of “We the states”. This is because the people are citizens of their states and their country. It is difficult for other countries to understand our form of government. To us, it’s natural because we have grown up with it. Can our country help other nations set up governments which get their sovereignty from the people and which protect the basic freedoms of life, liberty, and happiness (property)?

The idea of a Constitution test, “In God We Trust”, and “Under God” were all responses to Communism. Today, we’re trying to eliminate these references and yet we’re fighting communist ideology all over again. There must be a distinction made between the American tradition of equality: by virtue of being human there is equality of liberty, and Socialism: equality of outcomes. Did Hillary Clinton misspeak when she suggested to supporters attending a Democratic fundraiser that, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” The American people would need to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if the Democrats win the White House and control Congress.

There is a difference between the establishment of religion in general and the promotion of one religion over another. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says there is to be a separation of church and state. Many of the founders were religious. They did not want one religion promoted over another religion. Most appreciated the morals promoted by Judeo Christian faith. They did not want the freedom to choose a faith influenced by the government. They did not want an official religion. Should religious ideas be excluded by our institutions?

Many are saying that never before in history has our country been so divided, except during the Civil War (contrary to what the mainstream media is saying; that we’ve never been more divided than now). The issues at stake back then were related to a) the economy, b) states’ rights, and c) the freedom of all people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness or c) property, if you did not consider those under another’s control persons needing to be freed, not unlike today.

Should the federal judiciary rule on same sex marriage? Should the government take care of the people by redistributing income? Do vouchers to attend better schools allow disadvantaged students a better future to pursue happiness and property? Should we “free” those around the world, i.e. Iraq, Sudan, Liberia, and Somalia, subjected to abuses under dictatorships?

The founding fathers would have decided these and other questions through articulate, civil debate; they wouldn’t have accused each other of being liars, blasphemed the church, or told one another to “shove it”. A duel probably would have ensued. Most likely, these questions would have been left to the states. People can always move. Some seem to have forgotten that.