More Gonzales

Norm, re abortion, I suspect Gonzales would believe that since that right has been created and granted, that it could only be limited through subsequent court decision. He seems to like court decisions, since those also “grant” rights.

But I would think that Gonzales’ line of reasoning on property and free speech (and assebly) is along the lines that Manuel Lora noted; because he believes the only rights we have are explicitly enumerated ones, either by the Constitution, court decisions or by law. This undoes the princples laid out by Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration, that rights precede the founding of the state, adhere to individuals, and that governments are voluntarily created (I really like the phrase “willed into existence”) by individuals as one way of preserving those rights. The views Gonzales has makes EVERYTHING we have — our lives, our thoughts, our ideas, our personal property, our voluntary associations — a gift of the state. Gifts that could be withheld at any time.

And yes, I would expect such an argument based on such a narrow and literal understanding of the Constitution would essentially argue that the executive can “deprive” individuals of rights not only because the Constitution only binds Congress, but also because none of those rights are specifically enumerated anyway. Can’t take away what no one has to begin with.

This very narrow and literal reading of individual liberties stands in stark comparison to the amount of imagination they use when they read and interpret Section II, for example.

Share

10:14 pm on January 20, 2007