Just raising a question to cause trouble, Terence…

In the Declaration of Independence the following is stated, “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.” Even though these inalienable rights were sanctioned by God, our forefather’s enumerated them within the Constitution to assure these rights were not regulated by the newly created government. There was concern because some individuals argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the government’s powers were already limited to those enumerated in the Constitution itself. Since the government has not been given the power to regulate speech, for example, there was no reason to have an express prohibition against the regulation of speech. But since the creation of our government, a manifestation of man, our forefather’s realized the propensity of government to move toward dominance and control, therefore, the people felt safer with expressed restrictions on the power to interfere with rights that they believed were of the utmost importance, mandated by God. To ensure the people’s right, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So when someone refers to one’s “constitutional rights,” it’s of utmost importance to remember that people’s rights don’t come from the Constitution. It originally derives from the Declaration of Independence within the text, “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” which inextricably links the Constitution to the Declaration and premising said Constitution upon the Declaration.

After having premised the aforementioned, I’m positing an interpretation of what Santorum meant when he replied, “It’s not a matter of religious values.” He meant it’s a constitutional issue, or more correctly, a declaration issue. But since the Constitution was premised upon the Declaration of Independence, and despite the fact he said it wasn’t a religious position, it does revert back to God (Creator). I don’t personally ascribe to organized religion because it’s fallible, having emanated from man. I don’t think Santorum truly meant to use the term “religious” but was referring to “God” instead when issuing his position that it isn’t based on that specific reason. He may well have been inferring it’s the Constitution and/or the Declaration supporting his position, bu a follow-up question was never asked, which amazes me.

But all in all, Santorum’s claim that his position isn’t religiously-based, is incorrect, supported by the argument that if one ascribes to the belief that the Constitution’s foundation was directly attributed the Declaration of Independence along with the reference to inalienable rights emanating from God, when Santorum replied, “It’s not a matter of religious values,” and may have answered, “It’s a constitutional matter,” each term refers to the other. Just supposition.

(Source Provided In Part by Mr. Hornberger, President , The Future of Freedom Foundation.)

Now that I’ve caused a kitty-litter stink, I need to mention I’m thoroughly enjoying, THE SEVENTH EFFECT! As a big-time Raymond Chandler and Philip Marlowe fan of the Hard-Boiled Detective genre, Rondo’s snarky humor reminds me of the great detective and his creator, yet subtle, in keeping with thrilling elements required of the genre.

Your Protégé,

Kat McLaughlin

I love your site.

Thank you for sharing it.

Bye.

I’ve a story here RUST, under rastelly. I’m looking for some
exposure, It’s a work in progress and I welcome constructive critisim.