Thursday, February 9, 2012

Positive vs. Negative Rights

The United States Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, is structured in a very peculiar manner.  Most of what's there defines what the Government cannot do.  Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: The First Amendment.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: The Second Amendment.

This has annoyed Progressives for years, as their vision of America 2.0 has been continually thwarted by these Amendments.  I mean, how are you supposed to build the Progressive Jerusalem when the Supreme Court keeps striking down your censorship laws?

Progressives use the condescending term "Negative Rights" to refer to the traditional view of the Constitution, reserving the more positive sounding "Positive Rights" for their own collective, centralist view.

The recent Obama Administration decision to force the Catholic Church to provide abortion services in direct violation of Church doctrine is a stark example if this conflict between positive and negative.  Progressives have the view that the central government elite can force anyone to do anything, if they think that it benefits society or chosen groups in society.  And so they did.

Seems they kicked a hornet's nest, because most of the country still seems to think that the Constitution and the First Amendment means what it says.  Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Midwest Chick brings Teh Smart about the whole Progressive failure:
In the fight for the First Amendment, which is the most important part of the Obamacare birth control mandate, something has not been brought into the forefront.

The fact that not only is the Obamacare mandate making private entites pay for insurance that includes birth control, sterilization, etc., they are having to pay full freight--no co-pays for these prescriptions or procedures.

Every other prescription, procedure, or test has a co-pay in today's insurance world.  No other prescriptions are being mandated as co-pay free, not even the ones deemed to prevent death.  Why is this particular set of medicines and procedures being set up differently??  Probably because Obama's feminist cadre has proven that they can control the narrative on this issue and even bring down one of their own using nothing but social media and misinformation.
The government can force you to do what they say if they think that it's in the interest of society, or favored groups.  Pay no attention to that First Amendment behind the curtain, it was written by a bunch of Dead White Male patriarchal oppressors.  And that Midwest Chick?  I mean, look at her handle - bet she lives in flyover country.  Probably clings to her guns and her bible.

The mask slipped, in a big way here.  This is only nominally about religious freedom and the Catholic Church.  It's about Congress shall pass no law vs. Come the Revolution you'll do as you're damn well told.

Bravo, Midwest Chick.  RTWT.


Joseph said...

Trojan horse for single-payer number two (the first being Obamacare itself): issue a mandate that violates their principles and one of two things happen; (1) they capitulate, (2) they refuse and you take them over for

Either way, .gov gets what they wanted and the press whitewashes it.

Joseph said...

Eh...had a fake html tag in there, for lulz, but apparently the comment form tried to actually translate it. Oh well, the point is still made, but that's why the first paragraph abruptly ends after "for"