• Randy

Professors get it wrong, again.

Regarding Arizona Republic article May 2, 2020, by Maria Polletta.

(Page 4 A) Giving a breakdown of Governor Ducey’s press conference from May 1st, she provided a Q&A. Two statements were provided. One from James Hodge, Director of ASU’s Center for Public Health and Law. He said “it is not unusual for liberties to be curtailed to protect public health during a pandemic." Another quoted “Expert” this one, Charles Fried, a “Law Professor” from Harvard, says “constitutional liberties are not “Absolute” and that “They can be abrogated for compelling grounds.” “And in this case, the compelling ground is the public health emergency.”


This uninformed writer with the Republic is simply regurgitating what the “Professors” have spewed without any counter opinion provided. This is typical when you examine our education system as it has been the last 50 years, clearly mind bending in the socialist ideology, the last 15 to 20 years being a more radical shift. Further, any opposing question or thought being asked or argued, being met with ridicule, insults, and poor grades as punishment. Professors are in positions of authority so naturally those paying for their disservice are bound to walk away feeling empowered with knowledge and information. If these professors made an innocent error, it would be easy to say shame on you. But they are intentionally misrepresenting, being destructive to America and our future, so it is much more than shame. How easy for them to destroy our long-standing history as a Republic and the actual structure, purpose and intent of our constitution.

Perhaps if they actually read our Constitutions and related documents during class, while allowing open discussion and debate, today's generation may recognize bullshit when they read articles like this done in the Arizona Republic. The added benefit of this is our students may learn and participate in critical thinking skills rather than just be being organic software ripe for programming.


Are there instances where We the People want and will agree to certain specific acts of government, (us) to take for our health and welfare? Yes, but with protection of liberty in mind and with minimal intrusion.

Let’s address the “professors” idea that Constitutional liberties are not “absolute” and “can be abrogated for compelling grounds”.

The Declaration of Independence, second paragraph says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

“Unalienable” means these are absolute rights, (Complete opposite of our "Harvard Professor) belonging to the individual prior to government. Rights that cannot be given away nor taken by another, especially government. So, our “professors” aren’t correct on this measure. Second, these are “among” other rights, never having to be spelled out.


Therein lies why we the people instituted government and where government gets their authority. Then let’s not forget the 9th and 10th amendments. And there is the Arizona Constitution, Article 2- Declaration of Rights, that says:


Section 2. "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Sounds pretty much like the Bill of Rights, doesn’t it? So, if all political power is inherent in the people, then where does the idea come from that Government, as these two “experts” want you to believe, can decide to what extend and when your rights apply? And if the purpose of government is to protect and preserve those rights, how do they justify their statement? Now finally, if the law, our constitution, says government derives it’s just powers from the consent of the governed, how can they take them away or declare them “Non-Absolute” or “They can be abrogated for compelling grounds.” Doesn’t appear to be an accurate statement from such learned individuals does it.


The constitution would not have been ratified without the promise of our Bill of Rights being added. Stated in the Preamble: “… in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of power, these further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added.” So, they made it clear, emphasizing do not misconstrue what we have done. There are NO exceptions in or attached to any of our Bill of Rights and NO stated or implied expansion of authority to government under extraordinary circumstances. If that were so, then government would be the master over the people, deciding when and where our liberties would be allowed, if at all. This is not the case and these professors are clearly pushing their personal beliefs based on how they want to mold society. They refer to the constitution absent any specific reference because it would be self-destructive.

I believe they get an “F”.

Randy Miller

Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives

LD 21

JOIN THE CONVERSATION: 

Paid for by Randy Miller for Arizona