THE ENTERPRISE
We seem to have a problem in the USA. Somewhere along the line in our 200+ years of existence as a nation, many of our citizens have formed the impression that they are entitled to the RIGHTS of free Americans without accepting any of the RESPONSIBILITIES. Certainly the Katrina disaster showed this to be the case. Our major cities all have areas populated largely by minority populations of people who live off welfare and assume--correctly in many cases--that they are entitled to be taken care of by the government. But this disconnect of rights vs. responsibilities extends far beyond the "under-class" to a broad spectrum of Americans--and it is growing.
Why is this so? These people would answer, because we have discriminated against them, or denied them of something they "needed and deserved." Perhaps we have, since we did not force them to earn their own way, to deserve the rights they claim by accepting the responsibilities of adults and citizens. But also because our country and its government has trained them to be irresponsible and dependent, and demagogues like Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman Charlie Rangel (and a cadre of like minded legislators), Al Sharpton and the Reverend (!) Jesse Jackson continue to reinforce those expectations. Our liberal dominated media and entertainment industries fuel these expectations by sensationalizing their plight--a plight for which they are clearly responsible--but for which they will take no responsibility. Even noted blacks like Actor/Comedian Bill Cosby and Author/Educator Thomas Sowell confirm this fact at every chance they get.
QUOTES TO CONSIDER:
"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died."
-- Ted Kennedy on Hurricane Katrina
"Right"
-- Mary Jo Kopechne (for those who don't recall her, this is the young woman that Kennedy left to drown in his car when he drove it off the Chappquiddick Bridge in Martha's Vineyard, while he was allegedly "under the influence"...)
Meanwhile, special interests and political correctness run rampant, destroying any reasonable or logically arrived at conclusions because "they might offend someone," or take away the so-called rights of some vocal special interest. This is a prostitution of our Founding Fathers intention when the US Constitution was written. The Bill of Rights, which is so often held up as an excuse for the most egregious behavior, was in fact, pretty well drafted. It has just been distorted almost beyond recognition.
The most noted recent example is the abuse of the "advise and consent" role of the US Senate in the selection of Judges, and other similar matters. The "filibuster" which was once truly a unique institution requiring the Senator doing the "filibustering" to actually stand in front of the Senate and "talk" continuously for hours or days. Now "filibustering" has become political extortion. The sooner that the Senate faces the so-called "nuclear option" and forces an up-down majority vote on a judicial candidate...and un-Constitutional filibusters, the better. Is this a double-edged sword? Can it backfire when the opposing party gains control of the Senate? Sure. But that is exactly what the Constitution mandates. President Bush's next pick for a Supreme Court Justice will likely be the case that brings this option to a head. So be it.
Finally, if you think this is a misguided rant, then consider the work done by a University of Dayton professor, Joseph Martino, almost 15 years ago. As far back as that, he saw the number of majority rights being usurped by vocal minorities and special interests. It has only gotten worse. The latest outrage is aimed again at Wal*Mart (who else...other than President Bush, it is the biggest target around). Wal*Mart had the audacity to actually discuss trying to hire healthier people as a means of containing health care costs. Some have proposed that this is illegal and discriminatory. What nonsense. Since when is it illegal to construct job content the way the employer chooses, and then hire people who are appropriately qualified to do those jobs.
I have reproduced Martino's proposals for the new Industrial Bill of Rights, just in case any reader has good legislative connections. This needs to be raised on the floor of Congress and read into the Congressional Record by a member of Congress, at least once, to remind them of what the Constitution does, and doesn't restrict. (This is from an article I wrote almost ten years ago--to no avail that time.)
----------------
"...the drafters of our Constitution were rightly concerned about limiting government's ability to take away the rights of the people. Many of the parts of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and the Ninth and Tenth amendments oblige government to protect people's rights, and show where the Constitution grants government the power to do something that limits their rights. The founders of the country were clearly concerned about factions gaining control. The first ten amendments are replete with language such as "Congress shall make no law..." and "The right of the people to...shall not be abridged."
Professor Martino's work contends (and I agree) that over the years, the Bill of Rights has been violated by the passage of laws favoring special groups who somehow convinced Congress they deserved special treatment even if it essentially denied the rights of much larger groups. Many of these laws have reduced or limited the efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness of our industries and economy. To compete successfully in an intensely competitive global economy, those rights must be reclaimed, and these wrongs righted.
Here are a few of the proposed statements from the 1991 draft of the Industrial Bill of Rights.
Each statement begins with the words "GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW ..."
-- ...abridging the right of employers to hire those job applicants which they deem most likely to operate their enterprise in a profitable manner.
--...restricting the right of a willing buyer and a willing seller to enter into any contract the object of which is not itself illegal.
-- ...imposing liability on a seller or manufacturer for occurrences caused in whole or in part, by actions over which said seller or manufacturer had no control.
-- ...which restricts the right of a manager, business owner, or employee to transmit to the public, to owners, to other employees, or to competitors, any information which is legitimately theirs to transmit.
-- ...which restricts an individual's use or enjoyment of his property, nor make any law or regulation which diminishes the value of that property, without compensating the owner at fair market value.
--...which abridges the right of managers or owners of a business to enter or leave a specific market, or to charge whatever price they wish in a particular market.
--...which abridges the right of a manager or owners to introduce a new product or new technology to the market, except to assure that risks or hazards associated with the product or technology are made known to the buyer.
--...which abridges the right of a manager or owners to collaborate with suppliers, customers, or competitors in the development of new technologies or new products.
-- ...which abridges the right of managers or owners to establish regulations they deem necessary for the health and safety of their employees, including the right to deny particular jobs to workers for whom those jobs might pose a greater than normal risk, nor shall the government make any law abridging the right of an employee to be informed of the risks associated with particular jobs.
--...which prescribes the means by which owners or managers must achieve governmentally-established environmental emission limits. The right of an owner or manager to achieve prescribed limits by the most economical means shall not be abridged.
These are not just Professor Martino's statements, but the consensus of a large group of managers, owners, and executives. They do not make claims on others; they merely reclaim rights that have been taken away from everyone to benefit some special interest group. Maybe these are not all right, but they'd make a great starting point for legislative and Constitutional reform.
-------------------
If you have access to your Senator and Representative, I suggest you pass this on to him/her. It deserves a serious review in the House and Senate. I plan to send it to mine. Perhaps in their spare time between hearing from Special Prosecutors and grilling prospective Supreme Court Justices, they could look out for us ordinary Americans. That would be something to write about.
Best, John
Comments