Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

All rights – including the Inalienable Right to Life (Note: with which all moral/rational beings are endowed by God; if God is not, the inalienable rights are chimeras) – seem to be accompanied by an obligation which limits the right e.g., if an individual – possessing the inalienable right-to-life seeks to take the life (kill or murder) of another equally endowed by such a right, it seems that self-defense allows the individual about to be killed, or murdered has the right to avoid being killed, or murdered, even if it requires them to kill the individual attempting to take his/her life. Thus, the inalienable Right-to-life would seem to carry the limitation, viz: the individual possessing such a right must not attempt to threaten to imperil one similarly endowed. And thus, we may infer that the inalienable right-to-life carry’s the obligation to respect the inalienable right of other moral beings and that any individual – or group – which attempts to take the life of an individual surrenders their own inalienable right to life.

Now the above is the stuff is generally considered boiler-plate i.e., obvious common-knowledge, and yet we think it necessary to establish that the fundamental right carries an obligation, so as to justify the assertion that ‘all rights seem to be accompanied by a limiting obligation,’ thus we need not exhaustively survey all rights to make what seems to be an audacious claim. We reason that if the fundamental right (the axiom from whence all rights may be derived) concomitantly possesses an attendant obligation, all rights must…

The 1st Amendment – carries 5 rights/freedoms (i.e., religion, speech, the press, peaceful assemblage and petition for redress of grievances) as checks upon Federal Government power, and thus – from what we have previously argued each of these rights/freedoms carry’s an obligation. We take a glance, in brief,

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to iPatriot updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: The Democrats are Beneath Contempt

The Churches are obliged to order the human soul in virtue i.e., instruct and admonish the sinner; the sinner includes all people – whether in attendance or otherwise, thus the Church has an obligation to – if need be – present the case for moral limitation of human appetites on the street corners… Thus, Congress may not restrict religions, caveat: the religions possess the right if they attempt to fulfill their obligation which is to render We the People amenable to the rule of Law (Note: this is understood as the U. S. Constitution, thus religions which can accommodate subordination to the Constitution e.g., Islam, nullify their 1st Amendment Right…).
The right/freedom to speech allows the electorate to discuss those things which trouble the citizenry vis-à-vis Constitutional Liberties. Of course, one that maligns another or attempts to foment sedition opens themselves up to sanction (un-officially through being shunned by one’s neighbors; officially through slander/libel charges); thus the right-to free-speech carry’s the obligation of circumspection regarding the words one may speak; probity should be the guiding principle…

The Press is obliged to report – objectively – those things which may imperil Constitutional Liberties. Because the Press is populated by humans – who though potentially rational are generally in actuality impassioned – complete objectivity is perhaps, unrealistic; the remedy: a diffuse Press*. People of the Press – as all people – are ordered to what they believe to be true, which is generally derived from the dominant worldview – which informs the Press, and the citizenry. The dominant worldview is a manifestation of the University – which fall under the speech clause – but, we will not follow this thread of this argument, for it is beyond the scope of this epistle. Returning to the objectivity of the Press, should a Press organ demonstrate it has consistently violated its trust – i.e., its obligation to the dispassionately inform the electorate – then we claim that that organ too nullifies its right, and thus makes itself subject to Law…

* Note: it would seem that an argument may be made that Congress may make a law preventing Press/Media monopoly

** Universities should, thus, be subject to private and/or Government sanction…., but we note that the University “view” would become more diverse, less beholden to ideological tyrannies if they we completely at the mercy of market forces… i.e., if they were not subsidized by the Federal Government i.e., if Universities were independent of the Federal Government – (Note individual State subsidies is another matter, which is another argument for the 17th Amendment’s repeal…)… Such matters are topics for other blog posts…

The citizenry – whose souls have been virtuously ordered by their Church’s, and been dispassionately informed by the Press about matters which unsettle the Liberty loving breasts, having communed in pubs, taverns and private abodes to discuss the revelations which trouble their beings; subsequently they organize a public forum -peacefully assembling to more thoroughly chew upon what things so unsettle them. Of course, the right: “to ‘peaceful’ assemble” explicitly includes its obligation, viz: that the assembly is non-violent… Thus, we may infer that any assembly of citizens which ceases to be peaceable invites Government interference…
Now, the citizenry have been morally ordered (by Churches), and having been informed (by the Press, and fellow citizens via private and public discussion), upon assembling – in the town-hall, or public-square – draft a missive declaring their grievances which is then delivered to their respective Representative so as to apprise “overriding legal authority” about their concerns; the citizenry then awaits what remedy/s result; if satisfactory: harmony. If unsatisfactory, the citizenry is obliged to exhaust all peaceable avenues available… If those avenues prove to be ineffective the resolving a dispute/grievance they may think/decide their 2nd Amendment right is the most efficacious means of resolving the matter, and such is the obligation of the 2nd Amendment.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

TJDonegan7

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

CONTACT US

Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account

Send this to a friend