By Ken Gulley
Of late, Democrats have had an incredible Ability to distort the meaning and understanding of what Rights are.
From a philosophical standpoint to a legal disposition, Democrats have notoriously abused the idea of ”Rights” for political gain.
Consider the often quoted Bernie Sander quip of ”Healthcare is a fundamental human right.” The quip is a multifaceted distortion in that his meaning of ”Healthcare” is more correctly labeled – ”government funded health insurance.”
While you may have a right to care for yourself and your health, you do not posses a Right to health insurance. You do not have a right to someone’s skills as a clinician producing goods and services but you are more than welcome to purchase these things with risks and factors weighed.
Unlike Conservatives, Democrats believe Rights are both evolutionarily progressive and granted.
Whereas a Conservative understands that Rights are God-given (or from Nature / Natural) and must be guaranteed (read – protected) by Government; Democrats dictate that Right are given to the people by Government – making them items that can be added (as government expands) and stripped away (as government desires). This effectively makes government “God-like” for the Left. In the same vain, this deification of Government is why the Left pushes so hard to force their own version of Morality upon the populace
This understanding of differences helps us understand the above extended dialogue between Senator Rubin and Amy Barrett.
Lets start by ignoring Rubin’s preface.
Sorry, lets not ignore it. Rubin, in so may words, called Barrett an ignorant pawn of Trump’s devices. He was underhanded and rude and even made a pitched attack at the President by stating Barrett’s appointment was an, “Orange cloud” over the proceedings.
These quips dictate Rubin’s arrogant attitude moving forward and thankfully leads him into an overconfident exchange with Barrett that exposed himself as completely “in over his head.”
As Senator Rubin dictated Barrett’s owns words to her, take notice of how he willfully misconstrued Barrett’s argument as a preference of Rights rather than a distinction of Rights.
Rubin intentionally mis-frames Barrett’s ruling in an effort to suggest she has a bias in favor of certain Rights we consider to be sacred in the US. The Right to Bear Arms and the Right to Vote.
Rubin doesn’t just pull this ruling out if a random hat. The anecdote was a strategic move to suggest Trump’s nominee was as “anti-Democratic” as he is, suggesting Trump and his hopeful associate Supreme Court Justice would be willing to suppress, dismiss, and toss out certain Rights while favoring others. Media understood the headline pitch made by Rubin and was quick to pick up, suggesting Barrett wanted Felons to have guns but not vote.
Much in the same way the media has falsely framed the GOPs apprehension about mass mail-in voting, Rubin’s framing of this ruling (juxtaposed to Barrett’s understanding of Voting Rights) was malicious and inaccurate. Most importantly, it was based in ignorance.
As the exchange continued, Barrett responded by educating Senator Rubin with tactful wisdom.
Barrett cleverly cuts through the political theater and completely nailed the gaping fallacy (a de facto Straw-Man) in Rubin’s argument.
Barrett clarifies her understanding of the most important aspect of the case – the precedent – not the bias Rubin openly displayed in his description of the plaintiff.
Barrett isolated the issue of Gun Rights as those classified under “Individual Rights” and Voting as classified under “Civic Duty Rights.”
In her clarifying response, Barrett dictated the importance of both Rights but notes how there is Constitutional (State and Federal) precedent for limitations on Civic Duty Rights like Voting but there are no equal precedents for limitations on Individual Rights.
In the case being heard, Barrett ruled that the plaintiff should have the ability to practice his 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms in spite of his Felony record – ruling in his favor specifically because his Felony (Fraud crimes) was not violent in nature and the plaintiff had already served his sentence.
Rubin repeatedly returned Barrett’s response, alleging that she effectively declared the Right of Vote as lesser or secondary Right compared to the Right to Bear Arms. In response, Barrett stuck to her guns (pun intended) and repeatedly educated Rubin on the focus of the case surrounding precedent and the conflict of opinions between Individual and Civic Rights.
If Barrett would have allowed herself to follow Rubin down a rabbit hole regarding the priorities of Rights, Democrats and media (sorry I know that is redundant) would have had a field day. But I am not Amy Barrett and I have no issue prioritizing these Rights.
The Right to Vote is neither Natural nor fundamental. This is not to say it isn’t important, rather, it’s not critical to the Liberties of an individual to live and prosper peacefully. What do I mean? Well, consider this thought exercise – What 5 Rights would you value most if the government was say, an Authoritarian-Monarchy? For me: Religion, Speech, Privacy, Property and Arms. With these, I would have Liberty in spite of the Authoritarianism and in return, the ability to beat back the Authoritarians in due times
Try living and prospering peacefully with the Right to Vote, Right to Health Care, Right to Housing, Right to Healthy Food, and the Right to Protest. All of these were Rights in the USSR (to some degree) and that didn’t turn out to well.
The Right to Vote is absolutely essential and critical to our Western
Republican-Democratic system and ideology. That given, the Right to Vote, still, is secondary to the Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights which are intentionally inline with true basic Fundamental Human Rights. The Right to Vote is dependent on the type and authority of Government. For us, it is an engrained necessity but doesn’t make it Universal nor fundamental.
Be wary of those who run campaigns and declare their promises to be “Fundamental Human Rights.” If you lack them now and still live in freedom and prosperity, it’s was never fundamental but rather a luxury disguised and pitched as a need.
• Video: CSPAN (Attached)
• Kanter V. Barr Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019) :: Justia