PROEM & POEM No. 21 - Conjured Lists / 2nd Reprise
---
True to Alexander Hamilton predictions implied in Federalist No. 84 and as bold it may be to say, every aspect of life not mentioned in the U.S. Bill of Rights are intrusively touched by government law, regulation, policy, license, permit, tax, tariff, ban, surveillance, etc. Bolder still yet no less true, every aspect of life particularly mentioned in the U.S. Bill of Rights are intrusively touched by government law, regulation, policy, license, permit, tax, tariff, ban, surveillance, etc.
Ironically, the historically assumed and quite stringently constitutional interpretation “whatever is not written, is not allowed” already began the slow, unnoticed digression in the late 18th century, until the tyrannical convenience “whatever is not written, is allowed” fully matured in the 20th and 21st centuries. To disagree is to ignore implications in and around Mr. Hamilton’s arguments against the Bill of Rights, to insist on disagreeing is to overlook U.S. history entirely.
It should be plain, any list of rights or codes, certainly volumes of laws and statutes, would be incapable of eliciting consensual unanimity, therefore mustering consensual majority at best. In contrast, would any individual consider as just or moral the forcefully imposing disrespect and disregard by others against his/her own prerogatives, that is, his/her own Peculiar Human Ability to Reason, inseparably the Singular Human Right to Consent or Not Consent.
Ironically, the historically assumed and quite stringently constitutional interpretation “whatever is not written, is not allowed” already began the slow, unnoticed digression in the late 18th century, until the tyrannical convenience “whatever is not written, is allowed” fully matured in the 20th and 21st centuries. To disagree is to ignore implications in and around Mr. Hamilton’s arguments against the Bill of Rights, to insist on disagreeing is to overlook U.S. history entirely.
It should be plain, any list of rights or codes, certainly volumes of laws and statutes, would be incapable of eliciting consensual unanimity, therefore mustering consensual majority at best. In contrast, would any individual consider as just or moral the forcefully imposing disrespect and disregard by others against his/her own prerogatives, that is, his/her own Peculiar Human Ability to Reason, inseparably the Singular Human Right to Consent or Not Consent.
---
O Publius, the one gem deterred not thy alter-whims
Consolidating schemes upon themes of federalist vim
Yet rightly dividing as unnecessary even dangerous
Rights enumerated, hence allowing purposes devious
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Copyright © 2016-2017 by D.C. Quillan Stone
No comments:
Post a Comment