It is also important to note that rights are not (or should not be) limited to those actually listed in the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is what powers are granted to the government, not what the people are allowed to do.
Why do so many commentators not have the first clue (seemingly) as to the actual working of US Governance but feel emboldened to declare their ignorance and not get called on it. I can understand confusing "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" with the "source of rights", but I don't get at all that rights are given by "congress or supreme court". Why do ignoramuses not get called on this stuff, ever?
“The Constitution was not written to restrain the citizen’s behavior, it was written to restrain the government’s behavior.” - Rand Paul
The current administration is outsourcing things they cannot do to government cutouts (like the Election Integrity Project) who do it for them. This is well explained by Mike Benz:
The 3/5th clause wasn't "odious." It was ingenious. Without it, the Sptuh doesn't ratify and there is no USA. By counting (mostly) slaves as only 3/5th, it limited southern power in Congress. Without it, Florida would have had much more legislative influence than Illinois. But those black men, while counting in the census, couldn't vote. Talk about real taxation with no representation!
Instead, the 3/5th rule delayed southern voting power until African Americans were actually given the right to vote as full participants (at least in theory due to white supremacist Democrats) after the change to the Constitution.
"Christian Nationalism" is a psyop. It is a thing being manufactured by the "vertically integrated messaging apparatus" we currently suffer under, which is why you've never met one and why nobody heard this term until 5 minutes ago. They (leftist activists/media/pols) have created this "reflexive environment", so that when the appropriate (over)reaction is elicited by a mid-level provocation/violence from someone who can be labeled a Christian Nationalist, it will be used by the leftist media, activists, and politicians as a pretext for the government and surveillance state to crack down on religious freedoms. This is a Communist tactic. Time for everyone to wake up and to notice their game.
As to the 3/5th's compromise, it was my understanding that this was not to enshrine the idea that a slave was 3/5th's of a human, but was rather argued by those opposed to slavery in order to limit the proportionate representation of the South in the House to limit their legislative influence.
When watching US sports, particularly NFL or MLB, you'll often see players looking up and praying to God for a homer or a touchdown, or thanking God for the homer or a touchdown. They assume that God is listening to them, while ignoring the 50,000 children that are dying of preventable disease or war PER DAY. With that in mind, it is good to know that the smug Christian Nationalists have God on their side and know what's best for all of us and everyone else is going to Hell in a hand basket.
I tend to think people are ultimately the source for the rights that others enjoy. God may have some role to the extent the golden rule provides an innate sense of what is the fair treatment of our common fellows. More often rights and obligations are accepted by a sense of procedural fairness; namely, adopted by our duly elected representatives to hash out what is "fair" and "good" for the common lot. Words on a paper in the form of a constitution would have no force if they did not derive their authority in the hearts and minds of the people -- supported by our sense of substantive or procedural fairness.
One of the biggest challenges our country has always had is stereotyping groups of people, followed by vilification. Easy, simple stories equals votes.
I would add only that "separation of church and state" is not a phrase found in the US constitution either; rather it is contained in a letter written by famed "Christian Nationalist" Thomas Jefferson. tbh, After the movie "𝘼𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙝𝙖𝙢 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙣, 𝙑𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝙎𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧" I am kinda sorta looking forward to "𝙏𝙝𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙨 𝙅𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣, 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩".
While the US constitution is difficult to change, it can be changed. I have ancestors who provided leadership to the prohibition cause (because they believed doing so would improve the lives of women); they were able to get the constitution changed (only to have it change again). Nothing really precludes us from passing an amendment which takes away the rights of some (likely some smaller group in the minority). Thankfully we made it tough to do, but not impossible.
i was using that phrase to summarize the "make no law" clause of 1st amendment. FWIW Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is the greatest movie title ever. Have you actually seen it? Not me.
It is also important to note that rights are not (or should not be) limited to those actually listed in the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is what powers are granted to the government, not what the people are allowed to do.
Yes “retained by the people” does not get enough notice
Why do so many commentators not have the first clue (seemingly) as to the actual working of US Governance but feel emboldened to declare their ignorance and not get called on it. I can understand confusing "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" with the "source of rights", but I don't get at all that rights are given by "congress or supreme court". Why do ignoramuses not get called on this stuff, ever?
Excellent column.
“The Constitution was not written to restrain the citizen’s behavior, it was written to restrain the government’s behavior.” - Rand Paul
The current administration is outsourcing things they cannot do to government cutouts (like the Election Integrity Project) who do it for them. This is well explained by Mike Benz:
https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1666925704334950402?s=20
I'm sure someone will tell me this guy is a lunatic without actually explaining why.
The 3/5th clause wasn't "odious." It was ingenious. Without it, the Sptuh doesn't ratify and there is no USA. By counting (mostly) slaves as only 3/5th, it limited southern power in Congress. Without it, Florida would have had much more legislative influence than Illinois. But those black men, while counting in the census, couldn't vote. Talk about real taxation with no representation!
Instead, the 3/5th rule delayed southern voting power until African Americans were actually given the right to vote as full participants (at least in theory due to white supremacist Democrats) after the change to the Constitution.
"Christian Nationalism" is a psyop. It is a thing being manufactured by the "vertically integrated messaging apparatus" we currently suffer under, which is why you've never met one and why nobody heard this term until 5 minutes ago. They (leftist activists/media/pols) have created this "reflexive environment", so that when the appropriate (over)reaction is elicited by a mid-level provocation/violence from someone who can be labeled a Christian Nationalist, it will be used by the leftist media, activists, and politicians as a pretext for the government and surveillance state to crack down on religious freedoms. This is a Communist tactic. Time for everyone to wake up and to notice their game.
As to the 3/5th's compromise, it was my understanding that this was not to enshrine the idea that a slave was 3/5th's of a human, but was rather argued by those opposed to slavery in order to limit the proportionate representation of the South in the House to limit their legislative influence.
On 3/5ths you are on the beam. The Sean Wilentz book "No Property in Man" shows the history of that view.
I wasn't familiar with that phrase, so I looked it up and got contradictory results! What does on the beam mean?
When watching US sports, particularly NFL or MLB, you'll often see players looking up and praying to God for a homer or a touchdown, or thanking God for the homer or a touchdown. They assume that God is listening to them, while ignoring the 50,000 children that are dying of preventable disease or war PER DAY. With that in mind, it is good to know that the smug Christian Nationalists have God on their side and know what's best for all of us and everyone else is going to Hell in a hand basket.
agree. My TMQ alter ego has complained about this before and will again.
I tend to think people are ultimately the source for the rights that others enjoy. God may have some role to the extent the golden rule provides an innate sense of what is the fair treatment of our common fellows. More often rights and obligations are accepted by a sense of procedural fairness; namely, adopted by our duly elected representatives to hash out what is "fair" and "good" for the common lot. Words on a paper in the form of a constitution would have no force if they did not derive their authority in the hearts and minds of the people -- supported by our sense of substantive or procedural fairness.
One of the biggest challenges our country has always had is stereotyping groups of people, followed by vilification. Easy, simple stories equals votes.
I assure you the problem is not limited to the borders, or the history, of the United States.
I would add only that "separation of church and state" is not a phrase found in the US constitution either; rather it is contained in a letter written by famed "Christian Nationalist" Thomas Jefferson. tbh, After the movie "𝘼𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙝𝙖𝙢 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙣, 𝙑𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝙎𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧" I am kinda sorta looking forward to "𝙏𝙝𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙨 𝙅𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣, 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩".
While the US constitution is difficult to change, it can be changed. I have ancestors who provided leadership to the prohibition cause (because they believed doing so would improve the lives of women); they were able to get the constitution changed (only to have it change again). Nothing really precludes us from passing an amendment which takes away the rights of some (likely some smaller group in the minority). Thankfully we made it tough to do, but not impossible.
i was using that phrase to summarize the "make no law" clause of 1st amendment. FWIW Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is the greatest movie title ever. Have you actually seen it? Not me.
Fair enough about using it for the make no law clause.
I've not seen it, but I have had college students tell me it is worth seeing at 3am, once one has slowed down on partying all evening.