Mickie Kerr’s July 19 “Constitution Corner” screed treats us to a melange of right-wing talking points in the guise of an informative lecture. The basic idea that a right can only be something that does not infringe on others is obviously flawed. Every right tends to limit someone else’s freedom to exploit the holder of the right. Warnings that our free society is somehow endangered by wishes for improving it are at best misplaced.
The Declaration of Independence’s statement of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were little more than wishes and hopes for the new republic in 1776. Furthermore, it is not an exclusive list. Jefferson was careful to write that “among these are …” clearly indicating that there were other unalienable rights as well.
The fact that the U.S. has expanded the list of rights over time is, in my opinion, something to be celebrated, not regretted. Most rational people would include these additional rights under the generality of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration and the general welfare clause in the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights itself expands on the unalienable rights by adding freedom of the press, right to a fair and speedy trial, right to bear arms, habeas corpus, the right to be secure in your person, papers and house, etc.
Kerr says that the Constitution is silent on issues such as education, medical care, income or housing for Americans. But these are clearly covered by the clause in the Constitution’s Preamble, to provide for the general welfare. It is obvious to most of us that a population that is uneducated, sickly and homeless is not in the country’s best interest.
Of course, Kerr reveals the deeper purpose of the article when walking into the abortion debate by claiming that the government should not force medical providers to perform or not to perform certain procedures. Here, the pro-lifers are guilty of restricting medical procedures for political purposes. By assuming that they can simply volunteer themselves as champions for fetuses that are still a part of the mothers’ bodies, they not only intrude on the right of a mother to be safe in her person, but also intrude on a doctor’s choice to perform legal and medically approved procedures.
Rather than an objective discussion of the powers and limits of government, Constitution Corner regularly exposes itself as a poorly disguised right-wing opinion piece.
John Sucke is a constitution and history enthusiast.
