Posted by
Boris Tiraspolsky on Monday, May 05, 2008 1:23:53 AM
"One who denies personal responsibility in battle with Terror on the American soil, and insists in the middle of battlefield on “constitutional rights” that must be protected by someone else, will have neither “rights”, nor “protection”.
"Useful Art" of Freedom Of Speech by Norman Rockwel
____________________________________________
"Constitutional rights" vs. Constitutional Responsibility
by Boris Tiraspolsky,
Founding Member of
“Freedom of speech”, or rather freedom of expression, both oral and written, alleged to be one of the most important “constitutional rights” by many in the United States. Supporters of this view always refer to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that guarantees “freedom of speech”. However, understanding of “freedom of speech” as one of “constitutional rights” is commonly absorbed and widely spread misconception creating current ideological draw back of the Nation in battle with Islamic Terrorism.
First of all, the grouping of these two words “constitutional” and “rights” is seemingly contradictory and incongruous. This type of combination of words is usually called an oxymoron. English poet Sir Philip Sidney gives great examples of oxymoron. His fictional characters - lovers - speak of “living deaths“, “dear wounds“, “fair storms“, and “freezing fires”. So, why is the broadly used term “constitutional rights” the oxymoron?
The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, and everyone in the United States must obey it. The original text of the Constitution of the United States is a sum of responsibilities of the American people both, governing and governed. Consequently, all the Amendments incorporated later into the body of the Constitution, even if they are using such words as “right” and “rights” are, in fact, responsibilities of the American people.
Acceptance of “freedom of speech” as the constitutional provision, turned “freedom of speech" into the Constitutional Responsibility of the American people. Moreover, one is either with the Supreme Law of the Land, that orders to “secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity” by exercising all constitutional provisions, including the provision of “freedom of speech”, or one is in contempt to the Constitution of the United States.
Constitutional provisions wrongly taken as “constitutional rights” inevitably require a strong additional protection from outside of the Constitution. A heavy reliance on this “outside” safeguards is a direct cause for emerging numerous organizations and bureaucracies protecting “constitutional rights“, and making fortune out of litigations, but being absolutely pathetic and incompetent, under attacks of the Ideology of the Islamic Law, denying any "freedom of speech"and independent thinking.
One who denies personal responsibility in battle with Terror on the American soil, and insists in the middle of battlefield on “constitutional rights” that must be protected by someone else, will have neither “rights”, nor “protection". In contrast, “freedom of speech”, realized as the Constitutional Responsibility of the American people, will be always protected by those who need this fundamental “freedom” the most. That is the key Principle for the ideological defeat of the Islamic Terrorism intending to replace the Constitution of the United States, with the Islamic Law, as the Supreme Law of the Land.