Faithful Politics

Being faithful with our politics, not political with our faith.

The Nature of Rights and the Second Amendment (Part 2)

20755360_BG1An Unnecessary and Superfluous Bill

In Part 1 we distinguished between positive and negative rights, saw how they are biblically grounded, and how they apply to the Second Amendment.  In addition, the Bill of Rights enumerates many other negative rights that are natural and God-given, and thus already exist.  It wasn’t that the right to free speech, religion, press, and bearing arms didn’t exist before 1791, and then suddenly with the swoosh of a pen, these all became our rights.  Some rights do indeed come about through contractual arrangements between citizens and their government (such as Miranda rights and the writ of habeas corpus), but the majority of the Bill of Rights was no such thing.  In fact, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there were heated debates about whether a Bill of Rights was needed at all.  Many of those present thought that it was unnecessary and even dangerous.  Let me explain why.

The Constitution is based upon the idea of enumerated powers (see the Tenth Amendment).  This means that the three branches of government have no authority to do X, Y, or Z if such authority is not explicitly stated and given to them in the Constitution.  Most people misread the Constitution and think of it as a negative document telling the federal government what it cannot do; therefore, if no prohibition is found in the Constitution against government healthcare or taxes for this or that, the government has the right to do those things.  But this is reading the document backwards, and this position and interpretation has been consistently taken by those who want to sidestep the Constitution and give government free reign to do as it pleases.  Yet as originally intended by our Founders and the Constitution, the federal government cannot do those things which it is not granted explicit power to do.

The Bill of Rights breaks this pattern and places negative duties upon the U.S. government not to interfere with the natural rights of the people.  Notice that the Second Amendment says that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  It does not say, “This amendment grants the people the right bear arms.”  Instead it subtly acknowledges that the right is preexisting and that the government has no authority to infringe upon this already existing right (see also the Ninth Amendment).  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, warned against the dangers posed by a Bill of Rights:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.  They would contain various exceptions to the powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.  For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?  I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.”

The Founders of our country were afraid that if they listed certain unalienable and natural rights to be protected by the Constitution, that eventually some people would begin to think that these are the only rights we have, and that rights themselves come from government.  Thus, if the Bill of Rights can be struck down, these rights can be taken away from the people.  Our Founders were wise and forward-thinking, since this is the very debate that we are having in our country today: many politicians and media pundits think that government has some kind of unlimited sovereignty that allows it to revoke our rights in the face of “reasonable” arguments; and the government can do so because it granted us these rights in the first place.  Unfortunately, such arguments are false, historically inaccurate, and ultimately very damaging to the body politic and the cause of human liberty, freedom, and flourishing.

Conclusion

The amazing conclusion from all this is that regardless of the original intent of the Second Amendment, we don’t need it to claim the natural right to buy a gun or possess any kind of firearm.  This is a negative right and the Bill of Rights simply identifies a few of the negative rights that we have; the right to bear arms pre-dates the Bill of Rights and does not cease to exist even if the Second Amendment is twisted and/or struck down.  Therefore, those who try to deprive others of the right to arms by claiming that the original intent of the Second Amendment wasn’t intended for that purpose have no substance to their argument.  (However, there is ample evidence to prove that the Founders did intend for the Second Amendment to protect the individual right to own firearms; see Clayton Cramer and Joseph Olson, “Pistols, Crime, and Public Safety in Early America,” Willamette Law Review 44 (2008)).

Our natural rights are God-given and are biblically and theologically grounded.  We see them in Scripture time and again.  We also see that within each of these natural rights is the responsibility to respect others, to not interfere with their decisions (as long as they are exercising their rights in a moral and lawful way that doesn’t harm others), and to always seek just payment and compensation for services or goods.  This applies to the right to purchase and own a firearm just as much as anything else.

Bookmark and Share
Tagged as: , , ,

1 Comment

Trackbacks

  1. The Nature of Rights and the Second Amendment | Ben Crenshaw

Leave a Response