Why I value the US Constitution
I wrote this on Facebook last night concerning the presidential primary today in my state:
I agree with something Barack Obama said in 2001. He described the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties,” basically a document that states clearly what government CANNOT do to you or me.
Now, that word “negative” has negative connotations, right? But if you’re screening for cancer and the doctor tells you that the results came back “negative”, that’s POSITIVE, right?
Well, I look at the “negative liberties” of our founding document as POSITIVE as well. I am so glad that the government is extremely restricted in regards to what it is allowed to do TO you and me. Basically, as the Constitution stands, it gives the LITTLE GUY more say-so over his/her life than the government.
That’s why for this election I am looking at the candidates’ stands on the Constitution. Do they view it as an obstacle in their way? Are they trying to get around it? Are they proposing plans that will end up violating those “negative liberties”–ie, government shall make NO law restricting my speech, my right to assemble, my right to worship as I wish (even openly), my right to write what I want, my right to address my grievances against the government, my right not to be searched without a warrant, and so on?
As our nation increases in the technologies that can VERY EASILY be used to infringe on our rights–methods unknown and unimagined by the framers of the Constitution–and as the sense of right and wrong is decreasing exponentially while lawlessness increases, we NEED this old “charter of negative liberties”–negative ONLY to those who seek to INFRINGE them.