August 25th, 2011 by Hasham

Liberties Substantive Rights

Liberty

Individual liberty is essential to political justice for both minarchist and anarchist libertarians. Both understand political liberty as freedom from organized coercion: force, under libertarian theory, can only be legitimate in defense of an individual person’s liberty, never when initiated against those who have not trespassed against any identifiable victim. Libertarians often draw boundaries between liberty and invasion through the principle of self-ownership: you are rightly your own master, and nobody else, individually or collectively, is entitled to claim you as their property.[5] That includes governments: self-ownership is held to be unconditional and “prepolitical,” in that it does not depend on the guarantees of political constitutions or legislation, but rather logically precedes them and constrains the constitutions and legislation that can legitimately be established. Thus anarchists and minarchists agree that political power should be subordinated to the principle of self-ownership, and everyone left alone to do as she pleases with her own person and property provided she respects the same freedom for others. But they disagree over what these principles entail. Minarchists argue that the rights of liberty and self-defense, delegated and institutionalized, establish the legitimacy of a “night-watchman” State,[6] limited by a written constitution and devoted to the rule of law. For anarchists, the rights of liberty and self-defense expose even the “night-watchman” State as professionalized usurpation, and reveal all government laws and written constitutions as mere paper without authority. Such a conflict demands explanation, and clarification of the terms of the dispute.

I won’t hazard a definition of either “government” or “state” here, but some essential features can be described. States have governments, and governments, as such, claim authority over a defined range of territory and citizens. Governments claim the right to issue legitimate orders to anyone subject to them, and to use force to compel obedience.[7] But governments claim more than that: after all, I have the right to order you out of my house, and to shove you out if you won’t go quietly. Governments claim supreme authority over legally enforceable claims within their territory; while I have a right to order you off my property, a government claims the right to make and enforce decisive, final, and exclusive orders on questions of legal right[8]—for example, whether it is my property, if there is a dispute, or whether you have a right to stay there. That means the right to review, and possibly to overturn or punish, my demands on you—to decisively settle the dispute, to enforce the settlement over anyone’s objections, and deny to anyone outside the government the right to supersede their final say on it. Some governments—the totalitarian ones—assert supreme authority over every aspect of life within their borders; but a “limited government” asserts authority only over a defined range of issues, often enumerated in a written constitution. Minarchists argue not only that governments should be limited in their authority, but specifically that the supreme authority of governments should be limited to the adjudication of disputes over individual rights, and the organized enforcement of those rights. But even the most minimal minarchy, at some point, must claim its citizens’ exclusive allegiance—they must love, honor and obey, forsaking all others, or else they deny the government the prerogative of sovereignty. And a “government” without sovereign legal authority is no government at all.

Individual Rights and Liberties Under the U.S. Constitution references more than 2,500 U.S. Supreme Court opinions and covers ten major decisional areas: general issues of constitutional rights; procedural rights; personal inviolability and liberty; substantive guarantees against criminal or civil penalties; personal or family privacy and autonomy; searches and seizures; freedoms of conscience, thought, and religion; freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association; substantive protection of property rights and economic interests; and equal protection. It also includes a … read morecomprehensive introductory chapter on the Supreme Court.

A DECLARATION OF FREEDOM FROM AN INCAPACITATED UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

We The People of these United States of America (USA) do solemnly take back our rights, liberties and powers, which are considered by all righteous governments to be inalienable, from an unlawful and tyrannical US Federal Government that has wrongfully and systematically encroached upon the inherent rights of its citizens.
We The People acknowledge the wrongful usurpation of powers, as well as jurisdictional and legal necessities originally possessed by the fifty Sovereign States of the USA. Through a longstanding pattern of legislation of unconstitutional law, these inherent powers have been unlawfully stripped from these Sovereign States. Each State is now fully empowered to retain their original sovereign status as established by the US Constitution.
We The People demand that the US Federal Government immediately cease and desist from legislating, executing and adjudicating all law which is not in strict compliance with natural law, common law and constitutional law. Furthermore, we demand an expeditious review of all US Federal Statutes in order to determine their fitness in this regard.
We The People demand that the US Federal Government immediately cease and desist from all illegal enforcement actions against its citizens, as well as citizens of other nations, which are in obvious contravention of international law, scriptural law, common law and US constitutional law. Toward this end, we demand the immediate closure of the extra-judicial detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, as well as the Bagram Internment Facility and all others that operate outside the rubric of both the US Criminal Law Code and Uniform Code of Military Justice.
We The People demand an immediate and permanent suspension of each and every law, statute and rule/regulation that is in violation of divinely ordained human rights, civil rights, and constitutional rights. Especially where these rights are violated in the course of the repugnant state-sponsored administration of torture by the US Federal Government and its proxies in “safe” national havens around the world, we demand immediate termination of such inhumane and totally unacceptable conduct.
We The People demand an immediate cessation to all war-making activity around the world to include the illegal and undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This demand also includes the many wars being waged by proxy through covert agencies (CIA), as well as by all corporate, mercenary entities such as Wackenhut and Xe Services (Blackwater). The US Government will immediately end the illegal and abhorrent practices of rendition, as well as the extrajudicial killing of foreign citizens by drones and any other means utilized in foreign lands.
We The People further demand that all economic and financial warfare being waged against the perceived enemies of the USA be permanently ended. The relentless manipulation of the financial/economic markets of the world, to include equity, bond, commodity, real estate, derivative and currency, must cease without exception. Furthermore, the US Federal Reserve (privately owned, international crime syndicate) must be placed in a temporary receivorship, as its collection agency, the IRS, is dissolved and reconstituted as a lawful revenue-collecting entity in order to carry on the affairs of State.
“Substantive Due Process” is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires “due process,” that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. “Substantive” rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. “Procedural” rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.
“Supporters of Substantive Due Process…point to its long history and its dynamic ability to defend basic human rights from infringement by the government. They argue that Substantive Due Process provides comprehensive nation-wide protection for all our most cherished rights, which might otherwise be at the mercy of state governments. They argue that the doctrine is a simple recognition that no procedure can be just if it is being used to unjustly deprive a person of his basic human liberties and that the Due Process Clause was intentionally written in broad terms to give the Court flexibility in interpreting it.”

Related posts: