If anyone is surprised that Hillary Clinton believes our God-given rights are hers to “regulate” in “responsible” ways, they were either born during the past three hours or are the kinds of people that turn to the Jon Stewarts, Bill Mahers, and social media for their news.
During a recent interview on ABC News with her old hired hand George Stephanopoulous (he was part of the Clinton inner circle during Bill’s first term; more recently he’s been a consequential and controversial Clinton donor), Hillary was asked:
“Do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a Constitutional right?”.
“If it is a Constitutional right, then it like every other Constitutional right is subject to reasonable regulations”.
Every human being that values things like freedom, liberty, and justice ought to be as appalled as the media is pretending to be over whatever Donald Trump’s latest controversial comment is this week.
“If”. She said “if”. As though the veracity of the Second Amendment itself was questionable.
Sorry, Hillary, but “if” ceased being a part of the Second Amendment discussion a long, long time ago. Specifically, in 1875 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States versus Cruikshank that the federal government was not empowered to restrict private firearms ownership. (That whole Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties” thing comes to mind). Subsequent Supreme Court rulings further affirmed United States versus Cruikshank, and extended its coverage over state and municipal governments too.
As a “Constitutional right”, Hillary states that “like every other right” it could be subjected to “reasonable regulation”.
But what’s reasonable? Don’t we live in the who-has-the-right-to-judge era?
There were times in which it seemed “reasonable” to “regulate” certain books and music because “reasonable” people believed it “reasonable” to keep black people and white people apart, lest white women catch a hint of that jungle jive, meet a black man, and well…you know.
During the late 1960s, when the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment by spying on Americans, they did so because “reasonable” people believed they could “regulate” search and seizure that way.
Indeed, one of the key challenges our Republic has endured since inception is the maintenance of an inviolable Bill of Rights. It would be unfortunately easy to go down the list, amendment by amendment, and reveal how damaging abuses born out of “reasonable regulation” have been throughout our history.
Instead, for just a moment, pretend that Hillary’s position is correct – that “every right” is one to be subjected to “reasonable regulation”.
Liberals say healthcare is a right, don’t they? If it is, then according to Hillary it’s one that ought to be reasonably regulated.
So when your grandmother is laying there on her deathbed receiving the universally provided healthcare liberals dream of, are we to accept that it’s “reasonable” to “regulate” the amount and type of care grandma has access to? (Didn’t someone once tell a woman that her mother might be “better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller”?).
Liberals say education is a right, don’t they? In fact, a great many of them think that it should be free of charge for everyone. If it is, then according to Hillary it’s a right that can be reasonably regulated.
So when Timmy graduates high school and wants to go to the University of Somewhere to pursue a degree in Film, sorry. “Timothy”, the form letter will begin, “while we appreciate your desire to pursue a degree in Film Studies instead, based on aptitude testing and needs of the state, you will be assigned to the Child Development Studies Program at State University to complete a Pre-K to Kindergarten level teaching certification within five years”. Far-fetched? In all those countries liberals admire for their “free education” this is exactly what happens. If aptitude tests determine that Timmy would be best suited learning and performing the Janitorial Arts, that’s what Timmy gets to do – no matter how badly Timmy wanted to be a wildlife photographer, accountant, or civil engineer.
Liberals say a woman’s right to choose is a right, don’t they? If so, then why can’t abortion be “reasonably regulated” too?
Why not restrict abortions to the first trimester of pregnancy, and only allow it in the cases liberals always bring up but that represent barely 2% of all abortions performed – rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. As a “reasonably regulated right”, government most certainly does get to keep its hands firmly upon women’s uteri. 98% of abortions could be instantly regulated away.
These points, and dozens more that could easily be brought to bear, are the kinds liberals don’t like to explore. For good reason. They reveal the most glaring flaw in the foundations of their thinking.
For Hillary to be right when she claims that “reasonable regulation” of our most fundamental rights is okay, those rights would have to be extended to citizens from the state. They aren’t. Our rights aren’t the state’s to dole out to us the way Obamacare was supposed to dole out hip surgeries, or the way Bernie Sanders wants to dole our Associates Degrees. Our rights come from somewhere else.
Until the left figures out where they come from, let them chew on say the Third Amendment and how Trump could “reasonably regulate” it in order to find those living here in violation of our immigration laws, or how he could “reasonably regulate” the Eight Amendment’s bit about “cruel and unusual punishment” against those found living here illegally.
If and when liberals figure it out, they’ll find that with “rights” come personal responsibilities. Their inability to understand that these two things are inextricably linked is a key reason why in 2016 all eyes turn towards Washington, DC for guidance when it comes to public restrooms.