As It Stands

I believe that the following principle should strictly adhered to:

The rights of people must be given absolute precedence and favor over ever law or issue that may come into conflict with them except for when the rights of multiple people shall be in conflict.

I believe this is the only rational which can safeguard our rights. Allowing exceptions in any particular circumstance with allow the rational use to establish the exception to be use to justify other exception in other circumstances or eventual to general limitation on our rights in light of the long standing exceptions.

I refuse to accept as legitimate any argument for the limitation of any right other that the right itself establishes the limit or that a grant of power, at least as high in the law, specifically provides for the limit and infringement. Even in those cases I view only those limitation explicitly outlined as being legitimate not those that follow logically or other wise from some derivative process.

This stance places me at odd with many of the practices and conventions of our society and system of government. For example without a specific grant of ability to directly compel individual military service I view that draft as illegitimate. However I would view the activation of regional militias as a legitimate way to compel military service. But even if accomplished in the proscribed manner I have strong reservations about forcing those truly unwilling to preform any service or labor without there begin a specific allowance made in the constitution for forced military service being permissible or not a violation of the 13^th amendment.

That such a power or limitation could be easily provided for in the constitution is self evident. That it is necessary to exceed the bounds of the constitution so as not to allow the constitution to prevent the the implementation of those effects which are desired by most citizens or those which are means towards a reasonable goal is not compelling since there is a provided means for changing the bounds of the constitution allowing those measures a legitimate means of being enacted. That such a method is harder that rationalizing away the bounds of the constitution is not only not compelling but supports the enforcement of the proscribed method since it shows that the protections and limits provided by the constitution were designed to require more effort and greater agreement to change than the normal actions of government.

We have seen a several court cases so far how minor infringements in the rights of citizens can grow into major principles allowing massive infringements. We also see how logic and rationalizing are used as tools to dismantle and obfuscate our rights. We must insist that the legislature create law which function in a logical manner make whatever changes to the law or constitution as may be needed and that the courts enforce only the actual laws as enacted rather than providing allowances for reasonableness or any other facilitation of the violation of the law as it stands.