Power to the People

Q: Do the Bill of Rights apply to Congress and Congress alone?

A: This is a difficult question to answer in 500 or 600 words. The short version of the answer is “yes” and “yes,” but maybe not for the reasons you are thinking.

To explain a bit further, let us dip into some governmental philosophy. Governments, much like corporations, are non-entities. That is, they are the creations of legal documents and the coalescence of ideas, as proposed (of course) by humans. In the creation of a government, like our Democratic Republic, we as citizens effectively say, “Look, we recognize that we are, by birth and nature, free and ought to be permitted to live as such. But, we recognize that there is a need for some parameters to be set in our society. We recognize that even nature has rules that are so deep, so pervasive, so ingrained in we the created that we must codify them. Therefore, we will place that freedom in the stewardship of something we will call government.”

That is a simplistic summary, indeed, but the main point is very important: citizens possess the rights and freedoms as – coining the words of the Declaration of Independence – inalienably endowed to them by their Creator. Whatever power our government has, therefore, is subject to approval or disapproval by we the governed. Thus, the Constitution establishes the form necessary to govern the collective whole.

Are you with me still? Good. Back to the question.

The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens. That is, it secures the inalienable rights our Declaration of Independence suggests we posses in written form. Hence, we the citizenry can invoke any one of the provisions of the constitution and subsequent amendments. For instance, the Second Amendment permits us to possess and bear arms – even, in extraordinary circumstances, against the government itself. Essentially, the Bill of Rights functions to say to government, “We the people say this far you may go and no farther.”

Yet, what of the Bill of Rights as it concerns Congress? As originally designed, the Bill of Rights is the written consent of the governed; it is the margin to government. It works to say that government – as Thomas Paine once suggested, “In its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one” – must be restrained.

And this makes sense. Why would we the governed allow a non-entity, of our own creation and management, to go beyond our inalienable rights? While there is a need to provide for an ordered society, that ordering must be subject to those it governs and, borrowing again, “to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, pull out your pocket Constitution and turn with me to the Ninth Amendment where it states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, as if to underscore the point, the Founding Fathers added the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In answer to the question, yes, the whole of the Constitution applies against Congress as a boundary, guaranteeing the application of the freedoms secured therein to the people. Where government overreaches, the Bill of Rights freely applies to the people as a shield against an invasive government, guaranteeing the survival of the freedoms inalienably endowed to them by their Creator.

__________________
Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.

Sometimes Law Not Enough

Q: Will more gun laws prevent another Virginia Tech tragedy?

A: Before beginning to offer critical comment and opinion on the thought of gun laws, Sidebar wishes convey its deepest condolences to the families of the victims in Blacksburg. Little can pacify the pain that unmasked evil has wrought upon you. May God comfort you as you grieve.

“We are a nation of laws and not of men,” said the scholar. Yet, when a lunatic stands at the opposite end of the barrel, laws seem to have little meaning. Men, meaning mankind, seem to make the nation in that moment; not the laws being flouted by the merciless.

Ever since there have been guns, the debate has swirled: who should have them and how should they be used? As our country was founded, those who kept the power wielded the weapon. The Patriots of old were oppressed by the firearms of the British Regulars. In adopting our Constitution, it became evident that sometimes it is necessary for civilians to bear arms. More than that, it was obvious that sometimes it is necessary for civilians to bear arms against the intrusion of government. Hence, our Second Amendment.

Less than a century ago, the fully automatic rifle was not yet even a dream. Black powder had given way to Remington’s cartridges, muzzleloaders to Winchester’s rapid repeater. In the last few decades, as guns became ever more efficient at their task, it was apparent that this experiment in democracy needed to take steps to regulate guns. In the recent past, bills like the Brady Bill and others have imposed stiff waiting periods upon prospective gun owners, forcing gun sellers to do extensive background checks. Gun laws have done about everything possible to prevent good guns from falling into bad hands.

And yet, we have Columbine and, now, Virginia Tech, not to mention the untold thousands of murders carried out by the pull of a trigger.

More gun laws will not prevent more murders, just as more training with guns will only increase the efficiency of loons with bullets. Pop psychologists and political pundits have been quick to call for more gun legislation, more restrictions, as if statutes, codes, or regulations could bring evil to a halt. Through it all Archie Bunker’s words to his daughter’s lament about guns killing people give voice to our internal irony, “Would it make you feel better if they was all killed by knives?” Inanimate objects, no matter how deadly, do not cause mayhem unless acted upon by the animate.

Our society has lost the concept of personal responsibility. We have, for too long, said, “It is someone else’s problem!” or “Let the government handle it.” Meanwhile, our sense of community – a guardrail against extremity – has faded. Along with it, we have become egocentric to a fault. More than that, we shift the blame. Murderers murder because they were not hugged enough as children. Juvenile criminals no longer commit crimes, they “act out.” Politicians do not lie, they “spin the truth.” All the while, the real problem is right under our nose and we refuse to smell it: evil is real, palpable, and prevalent.

Perhaps the Virginia Tech shooter exhibited signs of insanity before his inexplicable rampage, but what did his community do about it? The parents blame the school, the school blames the professors, the professors blame the judge, the judge the hospital, the hospital the government – and round and round we go shifting the blame until we exasperatingly give up and call for the easy resolution with no real lasting effect: more laws.

Sometimes this “nation of laws” needs to remember that laws are written by, and for, the governed, but laws are only as good as the humans that agree to be bound by them.

Perhaps we ought to outlaw ourselves.

________________

Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.