I had started to write a diary demonstrating why my on line petition for an Individual Rights Amendment, even if it was not politically viable, was, at least, perfectly reasonable. First though, I intended to state the reasons why this Amendment was needed, namely
(1) The states do not have reliable records of performance in regard to always acting in the best and fairest interest of all their citizens.
(2) The largest national and international corporations presently wield so much power that the Federal government is the only entity with enough potential power to protect the rights of individuals.
(3) There is a legitimate concern that the U.S. Constitution does not protect every citizen’s opportunities to experience their inalienable individual rights in relation to security for the elderly and disabled, job security, housing, education of youth, the Common Good, food and water, information about health threats, product safety, public health, government fiscal responsibility, behavior of government employees, and foreign relations.
(4) There is also a legitimate claim/concern that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power, the authority nor the duty to protect the inalienable rights of citizens in relation to the above-mentioned areas of concern. What this means is that a conservative Supreme Court could one day decide that the EPA, safety net programs for the poor, Social Security, Medicare, national health care, and OSHA are all unconstitutional. Or a conservative Congress could decide to defund/deregulate these programs. Nothing in the Constitution could prevent that.
Continued below the squiggle.
The original diary I had started would have explained that the Individual Rights Amendment was designed to take the power away from special interests and give it back to the common people. Having explained its necessity, I had intended to demonstrate how a “reasonable” person would view each of the 14 specific rights listed under Item 4 of the proposed Amendment. Before that, though, I would have first defined what I thought reasonable meant. Not a simple task, but doable. I would have pointed out that the People for Actualizing Individual Rights has a list of 19 catagories of groups and individuals who would oppose the Individual Rights Amendment on Page D of their website (www.pair2.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_23.html). I would have written that I don’t consider any of the millions of people in those catagories “reasonable”.
Then I had intended to explain the difference between having rights as an intrinsic part of one’s human nature and the opportunity to actually experience those rights. I would have claimed that a system can not be a true democracy unless every one in the system has those opportunities. Then I would have explained what I think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean and how they are related. Next I would have described the problem of human self-centeredness and how that leads to rights violations. I would have pointed out how the possession of power enables more serious rights violations.
I wanted to claim that a reasonable person would understand and agree with those ideas. I would have pointed out that laws can be used to protect individual rights or to enhance the power of corporations, banks and the Upper 1%. I would have stated that a reasonable legislator, before voting on legislation, considers the effect that the bill, if enacted, will have on every one’s opportunities to exercise their individual rights. The unreasonable legislator considers the effect the enacted bill will have on the constituents he most wants to impress and/or on his most generous
campaign supporters.
I would have ended this diary with a note to the critics. “Yes, this is an opinion piece. Just because you can use principles of logic to undermine my arguments and intellectual jargon to attack my opinions, does not make you a reasonable person. In my opinion.”
So why did I decide not to write a diary with a title like "Why I'd rather be reasonable than politically viable?" As I was starting to write about why the first of the 14 points was reasonable, it occurred to me that I know the meaning of reasonable, life, health, abuse, rights, liberty, happiness, fairness and how they relate to each other. But how will I find a million other people with that same understanding? And even if a million of us agreed, what right would we have to impose our understanding and our belief that the Constitution needs changed on the other 349 million American citizens? It is as CatteNappe said of the specified rights listed under Item #4 of the proposed amendment.
To get general agreement to all of those points as official additions to the constitution is inconceivable. To get general agreement to any of those points is inconceivable.
It was with a heavy heart that I withdrew the petition to Congress to approve the Individual Rights Amendment from the Credomobilize site.
Unfortunately, the problem which the Individual Rights Amendment was designed to hopefully correct, remains. As large corporations, banks, and the Upper 1% gain more power, the opportunities for millions of Americans to experience their individual inalienable rights will continue to disappear into non-existence.