69 Civil Liberties: Protecting Freedoms
Edward Snowden revealed that U.S. government agencies are conducting widespread surveillance, capturing not only the conversations of foreign leaders and suspected terrorists but also the private communications of U.S. citizens, even those not suspected of criminal activity (without probable cause or a specific warrant targeting an individual action).
The framers of the Constitution wanted a government that would not repeat the very abuses of individual liberties (basic freedoms possessed by all human beings) and rights (how much freedom ruling authority protects or denies individuals and whether that authority is exercised equitably) that caused them to declare independence from Britain. However, laws and other “parchment barriers” (or written documents) alone have not protected freedoms over the years; instead, citizens have learned the truth of the old saying “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”(often attributed to Thomas Jefferson but actually said by Irish politician John Philpot Curran). Ordinary citizens’ actions are at the core of a vigilant effort to protect constitutional liberties.
If citizens of the United States acknowledge only the laws of the state, people in power can easily curtail civil rights and individual freedoms/civil liberties. Laws of the state, those formed through legislative action or agreement between parties, are positive laws.[1] Generally the term “positive law” connotes statutes, i.e., law enacted by a duly authorized legislature. [2] As used in this sense, positive law is distinguishable from natural law. The term “natural law”, especially as used in legal philosophy, refers to a set of universal principles and rules properly governing moral human conduct. Unlike a statute, natural law is not created by human beings. Rather, natural law is thought to be the preexisting law of nature, which human beings can discover through their capacity for rational analysis.[2]
Natural law or unalienable rights are acknowledged to exist outside the laws of the state. If an individual retains rights to maintain their own life and obtain property by attaching their labor to the acquisition, do individuals receive or obtain such rights from the state? If individuals recognize the state as the grantor of rights, may the state not remove rights at the will of those in power?
If citizens acknowlege the government gives them rights, they must also acknowlege the government has the power to remove these rights. If citizens believe they consent to some restrictions on their unalienable/inseparable rights (possessed by them because they are human beings), they consent only to government restrictions on their rights in order to obtain a benefit. Usually a portion of these rights are surrendered to the positive laws enforced by government toward safety and security for the remaining rights. Rights to self-determine driving destinations, times, speeds and methods are surrendered to positive law