February 20, 2010
America is unique in its views on individual rights. Firs of all America is one of the only countries in the world that state that rights do not come from government but are inherent in the individual upon his creation. And we supposedly believe that rights are “unalienable;” meaning they cannot be lawfully transferred away, taken, or otherwise depleted without our consent to do so.
As an example; Marriage (in the traditional sense) has been around throughout recorded history. Obviously the institution of marriage predates the organization of the federal or any state government within the united States. In fact even the courts have validated the right to marry as a fundamental right. (see Zablocki v Redhail)
If marriage is deemed a “fundamental right;” do we convert that right into a privilege when we apply for a marriage license? According to Black’s Law Dictionary the term license means: “A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.”
Remember, lawfully, the government cannot bar you from exercising anything that is a right. Yet here we seem to be in conflict; the courts have deemed marriage to be a “fundamental right” and yet they government, both local and federal, state that you need a marriage license in order to get married. In fact many “marriage institutions” will not perform a marriage unless you have previously applied for (asked permission) and have received a marriage license.
In light of the above it would appear that the government is infringing upon our rights! But in fact they are not, in this case. Remember I mentioned at the end of the first paragraph above “without our consent to do so.” What about common law marriages? Are they legal? Yes. Are they recognized by the government? Yes but they are not as readily accepted because you have not included the government in you marriage contract.
WHAT? Many are asking; I have not included the government in my marriage! We do so as soon as we apply for the license. After all a marriage is a contract between two individuals, is it not? Both agree (vow) certain things to the other and grounds for dissolution of the marriage is based upon those agreements. In this case because you received permission from the government you are bound and can only be released from the agreement by going to the government to dissolve the agreement because they are a party to the agreement; this is called divorce court. This is not required in a common law marriage.
I won’t get into the details of what would best constitute the legal requirements for common law marriages and that integrates into society or the erroneous stigma portrayed to common law marriages as that would be an entire article in and of itself but only use this to show that although we have rights we also, quite often, voluntarily (if not ignorantly) relinquish them to the government. Primarily all that is required is to exchange vows (agreement) orally or in writing and preferably witnessed by three others to attest the event and then to consummate the marriage by living as a married couple.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
This was an easy example of where Americans have rights and unwittingly or voluntarily relinquishing those rights to receive a perceived benefit. (I say perceived benefit because the same benefits are afforded them even without the marriage license.)
Now using the previous right as our basis lets examine rights in general
� 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served
in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained
in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper.
He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard,
as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours
to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com