Proposed language for the Emancipation Proclamation II: Congress shall pass no law that imposes an involuntary servitude or unrecompensed duty on any person or group for the purpose of redistributing said proceeds to other persons or groups; nor shall the Executive Branch, any court of the land, government employees or agents thereof, propose, declare by decree or order of any kind, the implementation of same.

The Case for:
Since the founding of these United States of America, corrupting influences and progressive groups set about to usurp and destroy the founding principle of individual liberty contained within the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. America was the first nation, ever, to subjugate the moral and economic laws of society to individual rights. All rights are based on the fundamental principle that a man has the natural right to his own life and protection thereof. The right to life dictates and demands he has the right to earn, keep and dispose of property as he sees fit to sustain his own life, otherwise, there is no true or effective right to life. If one’s right to life and opportunity to earn the required property to sustain that life is dependent on the whims of collective society, it is no right at all but a temporary grant subject to the often tyrannical whims and purposes of others. Therein is the problem and why a new Emancipation Proclamation is urgently required.

The Bill of Rights was written for the protection of individual rights from tyrannical actions of the government, not common criminals on the streets. It bound the government from usurping rights/property of individuals. Under the tenets of individual rights outlined in our founding documents, the government could not give “special” rights or entitlements to individuals or groups of individuals that violated the rights of others. In fact, the Declaration of Independence clearly states “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”. Therefore, the only just and moral purpose of government was to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and property of individuals.

Was is a “right”? Under our founding systems, a right was a positive value for the individual but a negative for the government. The only negative right it imposes on individuals is if he attempted to violate the rights of his fellow citizens. The government was subjected to and trumped by individual rights and only empowered it to protect those rights, not be the grantor of or dissolution agent of same. In other words, the government can grant no rights but can only, and must, protect individual rights. In the recent century we have seen newly defined “rights” surface where individuals or groups have the right to the unearned property of others, taken and redistributed by force. This goes under the mantra of “economic rights” or “social justice”. There is no such thing as an “economic right” per se but only the right of opportunity to earn and keep one’s property. The only just action of government is to protect that right. If a “right” granted to some violates the lawful and natural rights of others, it cannot be a right as it enslaves one individual or group to others. There is no right or just provision for enslaving some individuals or groups to others under our constitution though this tyrannical practice has become pervasive today. It also coincides with the economic and social disintegration of our country evidenced all around us each day.

During the recent century just past, we saw the evolution of progressives defining and implementing, where empowered or allowed, new “rights”. These “rights” are not rights at all but exactly the opposite. These occurred under various names and justifications, notably Socialism, Communism, Nazism, New Deal, Great Society, et al. It should also be noted that slave labor camps also proliferated during the height of the brutal periods of enforcing those “rights”. That is no coincidence but simply the result of individual rights being subjugated to the collective mob and enforced by unjust brute governmental power.

The case against: Nothing whatsoever that is moral, just or does not violate the natural rights of man. Period.

Final Comments
I would also propose the penalties for violation to include the imposition of a felony theft conviction and punishable by the same standard as applied to common criminals and thieves. This emancipation and penalties for violation of same would effectively negate all the unjust laws of government plunder now enforced or imposed.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

~ The Author ~
G. Case is an American, who is fed up with “business as usual” in America, and writes about political and social issues. His weekly blog is posted under the name, The Freedom Guy. We welcome his commentaries to the pages of the Federal Observer.