The Observation Deck

We've just experienced one of the greatest periods of innovation in the history of the earth. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, myspace, google, amazon, twitter, the cell phone, the laptop, the netbook, and tons of other great inventions are flourishing in this allegedly hostile-to-innovation climate that you bemoan. All of the innovations were made right here in America and do well because the innovators weren't too busy stocking ammo because they were afraid someone was coming after their freedoms. It's tiresome to hear this constant whining from the tea-partiers about the erosion of our rights. Roy, honestly, which of your constitutional rights has personally been taken away from you by the federal government in the past two years? I think it's only the assumed right to have your guy in office that has been taken away. This chicken little game, and the easily predictable "you've got your head in the sand for saying so" response, is so clearly a case of sour grapes and fox/beck/limbaugh hyperbole that it's transparent. Stop the fear, step away from your tv, and and take a walk. You'd be surprised at how easily you can practice all of your constitutional rights if you felt so inclined. It looks like we need another rally to restore sanity around here.

Sean Wheeler wrote:We've just experienced one of the greatest periods of innovation in the history of the earth. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, myspace, google, amazon, twitter, the cell phone, the laptop, the netbook, and tons of other great inventions are flourishing in this allegedly hostile-to-innovation climate that you bemoan. All of the innovations were made right here in America and do well because the innovators weren't too busy stocking ammo because they were afraid someone was coming after their freedoms. It's tiresome to hear this constant whining from the tea-partiers about the erosion of our rights. Roy, honestly, which of your constitutional rights has personally been taken away from you by the federal government in the past two years? I think it's only the assumed right to have your guy in office that has been taken away. This chicken little game, and the easily predictable "you've got your head in the sand for saying so" response, is so clearly a case of sour grapes and fox/beck/limbaugh hyperbole that it's transparent. Stop the fear, step away from your tv, and and take a walk. You'd be surprised at how easily you can practice all of your constitutional rights if you felt so inclined. It looks like we need another rally to restore sanity around here.

I agree completely. There is too much fear and too many off the cuff remarks that are not based on actual facts or analysis.

Well I just have to say since the model t was invented I'm pretty glad someone invented safety glass, seat belts, air-bags, anti-lock brakes. I like being less free to die in a car crash whether the government did or didn't do something to make that happen. I like that children are less like to die in a faulty crib or be poisoned by lead. I like that the government posts warnings about recalled consumer products. Innovation gets improved by other innovators. Inventing a thing is just a beginning not an end.

As a woman I like to vote, we had to fight for child labor laws too. We're still fighting for marriage equality and equal rights.

30 years ago Honda came out with 40 mpg cars. Now we consider 30 mpg in a regular (nonhybrid, etc. Type) good gas milage because businesses screamed at the government not to raise gas milage standards! So often the government is very cautious and incremental in imposing regulation for good or Ill. It's just the price of time moving toward the future rather than the past and nothing stays the same.

Just some random thoughts on freedoms and other things.

I keep thinking about my theory a few months past that Roy is actually doing a parody of the Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich call to intellectual integrity.

Sean Wheeler wrote:Roy, honestly, which of your constitutional rights has personally been taken away from you by the federal government in the past two years?

To answer your question as you ask it, none that are apparent. But before someone starts screaming...keep reading.

First, I want to make sure I'm clear on something. As an English teacher, I think you'll appreciate proper use of the language. "Constitutional rights" would be better phrased as "Constitutionally-protected rights." It is quite plainly written in the Declaration of Independence that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The Constitution does not give us any rights. The government doesn't give us any rights, despite what Senator Tom Harkin would want us to believe. The Constitution prevents the Federal government from taking our rights...in fact, the government is supposed to exist to protect those rights.

I'm sure you meant Constitutionally-protected rights when you asked the question...

What are those unalienable rights, then? That depends on who you ask.

John Locke wrote:...all mankind who will but consult it [the law of Nature], that being all equal and independent, no one ought to hurt another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker;...

Sir William Blackstone wrote:And these [great natural rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security; the right of personal liberty; and the right of private property;

Frederic Bastiat wrote:We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life--physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. The process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
...
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place.

So, that in mind, I will, once again, quote what I consider one of the best speeches I've heard on the subject of rights:

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process -- fairness -- from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.
...
When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with--well, if people don't have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don't let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that's charity.

They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else's money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that's not charity, that's welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that's not charity, that's theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can't or won't care for themselves, that's not charity, that's slavery. That's why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

-------------------------------------------
Second, do you have any idea what this administration has done? Do you know how many times the White House has circumvented Congress in what is a borderline violation of the Separation of Powers?

(This graphic is about a year old. And yes, Craig Becker did end up being a recess appointment.)

Also, By their own admission, Obama administration was ready to sign Executive Orders to get pass the stalled Congress in Feb. 2010.

-------------------------------------------
Third, why are you making it about this president? The assault on the Constitution goes back far longer than 2 years. The assault goes back decades, if not a century or longer. Both Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter both Bushs and I'm sure I'm missing some all had their hands in what has happened.

-------------------------------------------
Now, with your permission, let me rephrase your question and answer it:

Sean Wheeler wrote:Roy, honestly, which of your constitutionally-protected rights has personally been taken away from you?

I have a right to reap the rewards which come from me and my skills...my right to property. In my primary line of work, that does not result in a physical product, rather it is a service, just like you, Sean. We are both paid for the services we provide.
Yet, various governments have seen fit to step between me and those rewards, taking a percentage. If the sole use of this percentage went to paying for that which was spelled out in the Constitution, I would have no problem with it. The government, though, has seen fit to expand its role beyond that.

• The government has no right to taking my money for my retirement. That should be my choice and responsibility. If I'm so stupid as to waste it before I retire, so be it. It's not the government's job. The state of Ohio takes 10% of my paycheck right off the top. I am insulted that they (or anyone else) feels I can't be trusted to care for my own waning years.
• Since when is it the government's responsbility to care for the people in terms of food support, health care support, corporate support or any other means of welfare? If I wish my money to go to these, I'll donate to private food pantries and free clinics. There's less overhead that way and get to the people that really need it. As for corporations...companies should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. All I'm saying is put this in my hands to decide for myself where my money goes.
• I feel it is taxation without representation when my tax dollars go to yet another highway or bridge in West Virginia bearing the name of ex-klansman Robert Byrd, to a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or the failing pensions of California.
• The federal government has no business directly education on a national level. Leave it to the states, counties and local governments. If Washington got out of the education business and, as a result, my federal tax witholdings went down but, my local witholdings went up the exact same amount, I'd be satisfied with that. At least the money can be more effectively spent.

A right to property, Roy, is not in the constitution. Locke was the one who included property, but it was switched out in the constitution in favor of "happiness". I'm not saying you don't have property rights, but I am saying that they are not constitutionally protected rights. It's easy to confuse Locke and Jefferson, but there is a hairsplitting difference. (btw - fair enough, constitutionally-protected it is. Good point.)

Your post has me thinking about Harvard's "Justice" course taught by Michael Sandel. It is available at iTunes U and on a website for the course (google it. Sorry, I'm not on my laptop right now to grab the link). If you haven't seen this already, I think it is the best class I've ever seen on moral philosophy and justice. It's a politically neutral course that hits on many of the basic principles that we see in our political discourse. Sandel does a great job with Locke, and an especially good job with Kant. It took me a couple weeks to watch all of the episodes, but I think many people who are reading this thread would take slot away from a free Harvard course. If anyone's game for viewing the lectures and meeting up to discuss them some weeknight or whenever, let me know. Roy, this thing about taxation as theft, or slavery in a sense, is the topic of a whole lecture.

Mr. Pitchford,

I hate to break this to you...

But, the Constitution also includes the right to tax you, something you don't seem to like. But I hate to break this to you again, but you are going to get taxed everywhere unless you own a private island. The only sure things in life are death and taxes. There is a reason that saying is true.

You want things like roads, schools, unemployment insurance, policemen, etc?

Then you have to be taxed. That is something that has become a part of modern society whether you like it or not. Now if you want to argue about the tax rate on you and whether that is fair, fine, you can complain about that since everyone else does. But don't complain about taxes in general, that just is, well, pointless.

I want to second what Mr. Wheeler said, don't quote Locke and pretend he's the same person as Jefferson. In fact, none of the people you quoted are really considered integral writers of the Constitution.

But, to the rights you feel you have had violated:

I think people should get to choose to opt out of social security if they want. But I don't think it should be privatized. That should solve your one problem.

I guess what you say about donating food and money makes sense if you assume that people are generous and caring on their own. Which, they usually aren't. Kudos if you actually donate to charity, but chances are most of those poor people would not be taken care of unless the government provided a means of providing them with the minimum requirements to live. So, too bad your suggestion wouldn't work, it would be nice if people were that kind on their own.

You taxation without representation argument is a little backwards. Their money comes to us too. If you want to not pay for stuff really far away, move to a smaller country where the taxes you pay go to a place nearby. If you don't like how the government allocates the tax revenue, vote for different people. That is also your right to do.

Education MUST be a national concern. Some states and areas of the country are by in large poorer than other areas. You are then condemning people to the level of education based on their location at birth. If Alabama is really poor and therefore has bad schools, are you saying people in Alabama deserve less of an education than people in NY? Your argument doesn't make sense if you believe that everyone deserves to have access to an equal education. How else would states get the necessary funds to maintain schools if not through the Federal government? Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to make schools better because the government won't step in? Or would you complain because the school is in Southern Ohio and not near you? And what about when you have an idiot Gov. like the one we have in Ohio now who doesn't care about education? That is something too important to leave to the states.

If you don't like the tax structure, that is one thing that is currently up for debate, but mostly in simplifying it and removing the deductions and such.

It just seems like you are very unhappy with quite a few things. Is there anything you are happy with?

Thealexa Becker wrote:Mr. Pitchford,

I hate to break this to you...

But, the Constitution also includes the right to tax you, something you don't seem to like.

Yep, right here in the 16th Amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_ ... nstitution

Sean Wheeler wrote:A right to property, Roy, is not in the constitution. Locke was the one who included property, but it was switched out in the constitution in favor of "happiness". I'm not saying you don't have property rights, but I am saying that they are not constitutionally protected rights. It's easy to confuse Locke and Jefferson, but there is a hairsplitting difference. (btw - fair enough, constitutionally-protected it is. Good point.)

You mean the Declaration, right? Constitution doesn't mention happiness.
Two points (assuming you meant Declaration):
1. "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The Founder's didn't specifically spell out every unalienable right.

2. Actually, if you do some research on the subject, Jefferson originally planned to say "Life, Liberty and Property" but it was changed as for anti-slavery purposes. Since slaves were considered property at the time, slave-owners could have argued that the declaration was a pro-slavery document.

However, if you still meant the Constitution, then you are wrong:

Fifth Amendment wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have a right to property and it shall not be taken from me without due process of the law.

Sean Wheeler wrote:Your post has me thinking about Harvard's "Justice" course taught by Michael Sandel. It is available at iTunes U and on a website for the course (google it. Sorry, I'm not on my laptop right now to grab the link). If you haven't seen this already, I think it is the best class I've ever seen on moral philosophy and justice. It's a politically neutral course that hits on many of the basic principles that we see in our political discourse. Sandel does a great job with Locke, and an especially good job with Kant. It took me a couple weeks to watch all of the episodes, but I think many people who are reading this thread would take slot away from a free Harvard course. If anyone's game for viewing the lectures and meeting up to discuss them some weeknight or whenever, let me know. Roy, this thing about taxation as theft, or slavery in a sense, is the topic of a whole lecture.

If I can find it, perhaps I'll take a look.

Thealexa,
I'm not against all taxation. I'm against wasteful and unnecessary taxation. I'm sure most people are. Where we probably differ is what we consider waste and unnecessary. Let me run down your examples:
Social Security: Nice to see we agree, even a little, though I'm not sure I agree with you on privatization. I believe it has merits, but there's also things to be concerned about. I'd need more information. On my own retirement...I don't pay into the federal system. I pay into OPERS.
Charity: This will sound callous, I know, but if a person won't take care of his or herself, why is it the government's job to step in and do it? I understand there are some people that are incapable and I can see making allowances for those people, on a local or state level, but not a federal.
Taxation: I don't like their money coming to us either. I think this stuff should be handled on a state level, not a federal one. As for voting for different people, I have been. I've stated to others (though not on this board) that I will run against Dennis before I ever vote for him.
Education: First off, less money <> worse education. Second, you just told me that "If you want to not pay for stuff really far away, move to a smaller country where the taxes you pay go to a place nearby". Would this not equally apply for education? If I want to provide a good education for my (future) children and my current school does a poor job, can I not move to a place with better education (whether that's another school, another district or even home schooling)?
Do people deserve access to an equal education? Do people want an equal education? Maybe if education was tailored more to individually to each student's tastes, everyone would do better? Let me give you an example of myself. My overall GPA at CSU was at least a full point lower than my GPA in classes related to my major (Information Systems). Its not that I'm stupid, its that I didn't really have any interest in the classes. Accounting?? Ugh, I hated it and I've never used it since.
Its too important to leave to the states? We went more than 200 years without a federal Department of Education (i.e. the responsibility was in the state's hands).

What am I happy about? Politically or in general?
I'm healthy, intelligent (though I'm sure some of you have your doubts), have a good family, handful of friends, a good job where I consider myself indispensable, a place to call my own, money in the bank and very little debt. A girlfriend/wife would be nice, but I'm working on that.
Politically, there are a few things. I'm happy I'm not alone for one thing. There are times when I feel like I'm that 'pilgrim in an unholy land' as was stated by Sean Connery in Indiana Jones, but I remember that there are others like me and I feel better.
I still have the freedom to speak my mind.
I like what Chris Christie is doing in New Jersey and that several other governors are following his lead.
I love the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Roy,

Here is what I don't understand about your taxation issues.

You seem to have a rather limited and personal definition of what is necessary. You are entitled to your opinion, but I feel that it is rather unrealistic given the world we live in.

For one, you suggest that if a person won't take care of themselves then the government shouldn't. What about children? Or people who can't help but be in poverty? How do you make those distinctions? These are tricky questions that you cannot simply lump into the category of "people who can't take care of themselves". I'm afraid that what you seem to want would hurt a lot of people not responsible for their situation.

As for Social Security, there is no right answer, but certainly what we have now is not working. I personally would like to see a change in contribution levels and the ability for people to leave the system if they choose. I also think that all of the dollars contributed should be taxed at the same rate, so that Bill Gates pays the same for every dollar that my father does. Out of curiosity, why do you like privatization?

As far as education...
College is not anywhere near the same thing as primary or secondary school. There are different kinds of colleges and if you didn't appreciated CSU's curriculum, perhaps you might have considered another school that did not have general degree requirements. I know the school that I attend only requires one writing intensive course in your freshman year and the rest is up to you.

I don't agree with you about leaving it to the states. For one, I think that it would screw up any kind of movement of students, because there would be no national standards. It would make college application and preparation very very difficult. I also think that, if you were to suggest that there be more attention to the needs of students, that is a given, but again, I think that would be a problem regardless.

Take into consideration our current governor. He took money away from state schools. How does that help? Is that what people in this state want? CSU lost $500 million, and that was at the behest of the state. Would you really want all education at the mercy of short sighted people like Kasich all the time?

Unfortunately I think the entire education system is flawed and that proposing state control would only make things worse. We need to have a better vision for what we want children to get out of education before we can decide what is best. Who knows, maybe after they fix the system the states will have more control and it will be better and you'll be right, but at this point, things are too screwed up to know.

At least on taxation you aren't a hypocrite, that's refreshing to hear. I still disagree with you though, but at least you stand by what you are saying.

From what you said, you really aren't pleased with anything politically. But it's stunning that you think that Montana law is good. I would prefer that guns were not so laxly regulated. I don't trust people enough to give them things to kill. And really, who in this area really needs a gun to protect their property or hunt?

Roy Pitchford wrote:You mean the Declaration, right? Constitution doesn't mention happiness.
Two points (assuming you meant Declaration):
1. "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The Founder's didn't specifically spell out every unalienable right.

So you're assuming what the founders meant by unalienable rights? I didn't think we mere mortals were worthy enough to do such a thing? Or at least that's what you've told me in other threads.

I have a right to property and it shall not be taken from me without due process of the law.

But taxation is permitted both in the Constitution and statute so I'd pretty much say that is due process.

Roy----Are your skills that you execute at the Lakewood Public Library good for society, the Lakewood community,
and, adequately rewarding to you? Since you believe in individual free choice (by whatever construct) I assume you do.
So, why not give it a fling---- take those skills, attitude,to the free market and unfettered freedom into the marketplace and shout out "free, free, thank (someone) almighty, I'm free at last!"

(By the way, I hope you keep your day job; we need good provocateurs like you to keep the discourse rolling)

Stan

I'm just going to throw this out there because the thread is turning into a pie fight: the constitution is an amazing document that is very much worth reanalyizing as we move through our 3rd century as a nation. There is a lot to think about and be thankful for. We had some very wise founders who also had a very hard time agreeing with eachother.

Has everything gotten too complicated? Should we start over from scratch? What might a constitution look like today? I doubt it would be as elegant and carefully crafted.

why are you quoting the declaration of independence when talking about Constitutional rights? "Constitutionally protected rights" is a nice buzz slogan. it means the same as Constitutional Rights, but you can use it with the confidence of a Brand.

John Locke did not write the constitution or the declaration of independence. You have the freedom to misunderstand him because you grew up in a classless society. John Locke grew up in a feudal civilization. Once god gives him inalienable rights, he can chafe against the feudal order and its laws with impunity.

Roy Pitchford wrote:

Sean Wheeler wrote:Roy, honestly, which of your constitutional rights has personally been taken away from you by the federal government in the past two years?

To answer your question as you ask it, none that are apparent. But before someone starts screaming...keep reading.

First, I want to make sure I'm clear on something. As an English teacher, I think you'll appreciate proper use of the language. "Constitutional rights" would be better phrased as "Constitutionally-protected rights." It is quite plainly written in the Declaration of Independence that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The Constitution does not give us any rights. The government doesn't give us any rights, despite what Senator Tom Harkin would want us to believe. The Constitution prevents the Federal government from taking our rights...in fact, the government is supposed to exist to protect those rights.

I'm sure you meant Constitutionally-protected rights when you asked the question...

What are those unalienable rights, then? That depends on who you ask.

John Locke wrote:...all mankind who will but consult it [the law of Nature], that being all equal and independent, no one ought to hurt another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker;...

Sir William Blackstone wrote:And these [great natural rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security; the right of personal liberty; and the right of private property;

Frederic Bastiat wrote:We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life--physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. The process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
...
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place.

Thealexa Becker wrote:You seem to have a rather limited and personal definition of what is necessary.

So were the Framers of the Constitution. I look to that document as a guide. Do you see health care or education mentioned as services the federal government is designated to provide? Or would those be things that would be better left to the decision of the states, as outlined in the 10th Amendment?

Thealexa Becker wrote:For one, you suggest that if a person won't take care of themselves then the government shouldn't.

Thealexa Becker wrote:These are tricky questions that you cannot simply lump into the category of "people who can't take care of themselves".

Which is it? People who won't or people who can't?
People who won't are exercising their freedom of choice. If they choose not to do things for themselves, why should the government step in their way?

People who can't is a far trickier deal. Under those circumstances, I see the state (whether local, state or federal level) as potentially being necessary.
You mentioned children. They are a parent's responsibility unless, through no fault of the children, the parents can't (not won't) care for them. At that point, then state care is an option, but so are religious care, private/charity-driven care or adoption by parents who can.

Thealexa Becker wrote:There are different kinds of colleges and if you didn't appreciated CSU's curriculum, perhaps you might have considered another school that did not have general degree requirements.

There are other factors beyond curriculum which play into a decision of that magnitude. In my case, since I have family that works at CSU, I was able to attend tuition-free. That is a mighty strong incentive.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Take into consideration our current governor. He took money away from state schools. How does that help?

I would prefer not to get into a debate about his proposed budget since it will undoubtedly be altered before it is passed. I will ask, however, something I believe I asked once before: What would you propose, were you in his shoes, to balance the budget?

But it's stunning that you think that Montana law is good.

The Montana gun law has very little to actually do with guns. It has to do with state's rights that should have never been infringed upon. Montana was just the first.
You said yourself that (paraphrasing) we were never a free market economy because the federal government regulates commerce between the states. Regardless of the definition of regulate, by that statement, you should support that Montana law, which states that any gun manufactured, sold and never leaving the state of Montana is exempt from all federal regulation. If the gun never moves 'between the states' the federal government cannot regulate it.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:So you're assuming what the founders meant by unalienable rights?

No, I'm not assuming.

The right to bear arms for self-defense. (2nd Amendment)
The right to own, develop, and dispose of property. (5th Amendment)
The right to assemble. (1st Amendment)
The right to petition. (1st Amendment)
The right to free speech. (1st Amendment)
The right to a free press. (1st Amendment)
The right to privacy. (4th Amendment)
The right to provide personal security. (2nd Amendment)
The right to a fair trial. (6th Amendment)

There were others I found, but I used these because I could confirm their value specifically through our own Constitution.

Stan Austin wrote:Roy----Are your skills that you execute at the Lakewood Public Library good for society, the Lakewood community, and, adequately rewarding to you? Since you believe in individual free choice (by whatever construct) I assume you do.
So, why not give it a fling---- take those skills, attitude,to the free market and unfettered freedom into the marketplace and shout out "free, free, thank (someone) almighty, I'm free at last!"

Are they good for society/the Lakewood community? Well, let me ask you...were you satisfied with that Excel Basics class I had to teach?
Is the job adequately rewarding to me? I am able to maintain a lifestyle I like and still save some money for my future, so yes.

As for taking my skills to the free market, why? If my job is adequate to my needs, why want for more?
However, you don't think the library is my only enterprise? I've said I'm also a small-business owner. I've been trying to find a way to setup a business here in Lakewood for several months now, but I and my business partners can't seem to get the break we need.

Ellen Cormier wrote:Has everything gotten too complicated? Should we start over from scratch? What might a constitution look like today? I doubt it would be as elegant and carefully crafted.

Has everything gotten too complicated? I think I would, overall, agree with you on that. I think a valid follow-up question would be why is it now this way?
Should we start from scratch? How so? You mean, go back to the Constitution or scratch that too?
What would it look like today? Depends on who had a hand in writing it. I wouldn't let a lawyer within 10 miles of such an undertaking. The last thing we'd need is a governing document like our Constitution written in a legalese language that is unreadable by the majority of the population.