I've always maintained that the only rights a person has are the rights they are willing to enforce. What most folks believe are "rights" these days are really just "constructive rights" - notions that governments can use around election time to convince you they are willing to bestow upon you whatever you want but are unwilling to enforce for yourself. "Civil rights" are a good example. If they are "civil" rights, that means a government has issued them to you - that's what the "civil" part means. Anything given to you by government can also be taken away by government, which means they are not "rights" at all, they are privileges issued by a law, and just as easily revoked by another law.
We saw that in action recently. The US Supreme Court created a "right" out of nothingness, thin air, 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade. Just POOF! made it up and issued it to folks, and for 50 years women thought they had some sort of exclusive right to violate all of the rights of their unborn children by the expedient of simply killing said offspring off. In effect, they believe that they had a license to kill that was a "right". Fast forward 50 years, and the same governmental body made that "right" go away with the stroke of a pen. POOF! and it was gone just as fast as it was created to begin with.
That;s just how life works when one places their faith in governmentally issued, non-existent, "rights".
If you have a "right" - God-given or otherwise - that you are unwilling to enforce for yourself, then it is not a right at all, either. It's not even a privilege. If you are unwilling to enforce it, then it is a non-issue as far as you are concerned. It just doesn't matter enough to you to even be called a "right" if you are unwilling to enforce it.
The Bill of Rights does not give anyone any rights at all. Even a casual reading of it will confirm that. What it does is bar the government from interfering with certain of your rights. The Bill of Rights, and indeed the entire Constitution, does not place any rights or restrictions on the people at all - it is there to give form to and place restrictions upon, government, not citizens. We all know that government regularly ignores it's own laws, the laws it makes itself. The Bill of Rights is no different - government ignores that at it's own pleasure as well. When it does, that is when it is up to YOU to enforce those rights. If you just don't feel like it that day, then for you, that right is effectively non-existent. Whether it is there or not, if you are unwilling to partake of it, then it might as well just not be there at all.
Here is an example of a right, one that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or BoR, but one which exists all the same. You have the right to remain silent. That is implicated by your right to privacy and your right to free association - no one, government or not, can ever force you to talk with them if you are not of a mind to speak to or associate with them. Be that as it may, government will definitely try to force you to speak against your will. They believe they have some sort of "right" to force you to speak in all but certain very limited circumstances. Courts will hold you in contempt and jail you indefinitely if you refuse to speak to them until you come around to their way of thinking and talk to them. You still have an absolute right to refuse to speak, no matter the circumstances, and that is entirely dependent on your will to enforce it. They will punish the hell out of you as a coercive measure, but they cannot, EVER, force you to talk to them if you have a steadfast desire not to talk, and one you are willing to enforce by simply not speaking.
Now, government will say "No, no, no, that ain't how it works. You only have a right to remain silent if communication will incriminate yourself, or if it is a privileged communication" - but that is utter, complete, and unmitigated bullshit. Government does not get to issue my rights, therefore neither do they get to "define" them. That would be the same thing as allowing government to issue the rights in the first place if they get to shape them with clever wording. In the matter of "privileged" communications, do i really need to say more? "Privilege" instead of "RIGHTS" is built right into the phrase for cryin' out loud! Fact is, NO ONE ELSE, not government, not anyone, gets to tell me when I have to open my mouth and push air past MY vocal chords, nor do they get to tell me when I CAN'T speak. They do not get to tell me when or whom I MUST speak with any more than they get to tell me when or with whom I CAN'T speak to. Those rights are mine and mine alone.
As a matter of fact, Steve Bannon is undergoing trial for exercising that very right this very instant, and I think government is about to deliver a verdict momentarily. Regardless of that verdict, it can in no way affect his right to remain silent, no matter what the verdict is. That right cannot be taken away from him if he is willing to enforce it regardless of the coercive measures taken by government to attempt to deny that right. Government did not give him that right, and it is not governmental property to take from him.
ETA; Steve Bannon just found guilty of refusing to talk to the government. Now we will see just how far he is willing to go to enforce his own rights, whether governmental coercion works on him or not. Peter Navarro's test of his own rights is up next.
.
We saw that in action recently. The US Supreme Court created a "right" out of nothingness, thin air, 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade. Just POOF! made it up and issued it to folks, and for 50 years women thought they had some sort of exclusive right to violate all of the rights of their unborn children by the expedient of simply killing said offspring off. In effect, they believe that they had a license to kill that was a "right". Fast forward 50 years, and the same governmental body made that "right" go away with the stroke of a pen. POOF! and it was gone just as fast as it was created to begin with.
That;s just how life works when one places their faith in governmentally issued, non-existent, "rights".
If you have a "right" - God-given or otherwise - that you are unwilling to enforce for yourself, then it is not a right at all, either. It's not even a privilege. If you are unwilling to enforce it, then it is a non-issue as far as you are concerned. It just doesn't matter enough to you to even be called a "right" if you are unwilling to enforce it.
The Bill of Rights does not give anyone any rights at all. Even a casual reading of it will confirm that. What it does is bar the government from interfering with certain of your rights. The Bill of Rights, and indeed the entire Constitution, does not place any rights or restrictions on the people at all - it is there to give form to and place restrictions upon, government, not citizens. We all know that government regularly ignores it's own laws, the laws it makes itself. The Bill of Rights is no different - government ignores that at it's own pleasure as well. When it does, that is when it is up to YOU to enforce those rights. If you just don't feel like it that day, then for you, that right is effectively non-existent. Whether it is there or not, if you are unwilling to partake of it, then it might as well just not be there at all.
Here is an example of a right, one that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or BoR, but one which exists all the same. You have the right to remain silent. That is implicated by your right to privacy and your right to free association - no one, government or not, can ever force you to talk with them if you are not of a mind to speak to or associate with them. Be that as it may, government will definitely try to force you to speak against your will. They believe they have some sort of "right" to force you to speak in all but certain very limited circumstances. Courts will hold you in contempt and jail you indefinitely if you refuse to speak to them until you come around to their way of thinking and talk to them. You still have an absolute right to refuse to speak, no matter the circumstances, and that is entirely dependent on your will to enforce it. They will punish the hell out of you as a coercive measure, but they cannot, EVER, force you to talk to them if you have a steadfast desire not to talk, and one you are willing to enforce by simply not speaking.
Now, government will say "No, no, no, that ain't how it works. You only have a right to remain silent if communication will incriminate yourself, or if it is a privileged communication" - but that is utter, complete, and unmitigated bullshit. Government does not get to issue my rights, therefore neither do they get to "define" them. That would be the same thing as allowing government to issue the rights in the first place if they get to shape them with clever wording. In the matter of "privileged" communications, do i really need to say more? "Privilege" instead of "RIGHTS" is built right into the phrase for cryin' out loud! Fact is, NO ONE ELSE, not government, not anyone, gets to tell me when I have to open my mouth and push air past MY vocal chords, nor do they get to tell me when I CAN'T speak. They do not get to tell me when or whom I MUST speak with any more than they get to tell me when or with whom I CAN'T speak to. Those rights are mine and mine alone.
As a matter of fact, Steve Bannon is undergoing trial for exercising that very right this very instant, and I think government is about to deliver a verdict momentarily. Regardless of that verdict, it can in no way affect his right to remain silent, no matter what the verdict is. That right cannot be taken away from him if he is willing to enforce it regardless of the coercive measures taken by government to attempt to deny that right. Government did not give him that right, and it is not governmental property to take from him.
ETA; Steve Bannon just found guilty of refusing to talk to the government. Now we will see just how far he is willing to go to enforce his own rights, whether governmental coercion works on him or not. Peter Navarro's test of his own rights is up next.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’