Skip to content

Some More Rights Versus Privileges – About Smelt.

January 25, 2010

I got a kick out this article from BigGovernment.com.

The title jumped out at me.

Obama to California – Water, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege.

A great deal of what our government does is based on this very wrong headed supposition. Justification is found in the notion that these are two different things. Oh how so much will change when the Supreme Court is forced to state that they are one in the same.

Folks in the media have dismissed Otis McDonald’s plight and refuse to discuss it openly because they fear the gun aspect.  What they apparently don’t realize, or are intentionally blind to, is the fact that the decision in his case reaches as far as the smelt referred to in the article by John Loudon.

Do I like guns? Abso-smurfly I do. Will a SCOTUS decision see the reclamation of lost gun rights? You bet it will. Is that why I talk about this upcoming case so much? Not hardly.

Everyone in the country should be paying attention to the Otis McDonald case and discussing it openly – all it’s aspects. The crux of this case comes down to whether or not we have inalienable rights. Believe that – because it is as true as the day is long.

The author of that article talks about how the smelt are protected first, over human’s well being.  Maybe that is because our government views them to have rights, while we lowly subjects only have the privileges it decides to afford us when it feels like it – or not.

As it pertains to usage in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, “privileges or immunities” has to refer to “inalienable rights” in a synonymous fashion.  The Supreme Court will have to so order acceptance of this, for the alternative amounts to telling the population of this country that we have no rights at all.

This would no doubt lead to civil war, yes I do mean armed conflict, because no matter how divided this nation may be on the issue of the day, nothing will draw combat faster than the open deletion of civil rights.  There is no way that SCOTUS, that nine appointed robed ones, would impose that death sentence on this country.

Would they?

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. kckshrugged permalink
    February 12, 2010 6:03 pm

    I am unsure of the outcome because of the makeup of the court – if the liberals on the court get their way anything is possible. Remember these liberals look to other countries laws when they decide cases in the US. That is warped, wrong and against what the founders envisioned. They would have tried to impeach SCOTUS members for referring to the laws of other countries and they didn’t believe in precedent or case law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: