What are natural rights?

In the continuing debate to keep or repeal Article 12, there are those (who apparently didn’t do well in their high school civic class: Problems of American Democracy) who’d brave that Section 805 of the agreement and Article 12 are the supreme laws of the land.

There’s also the assertion that even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Article 12 is constitutional. Wrong! I have carefully reviewed that decision. Nowhere did the court address the constitutionality of that provision. It only took both flags and said it’s fine.

Now, natural or inherent rights per the U.S. Constitution (supreme law of the land) are “unalienable,” meaning they can’t be infringed nor violated by anyone. It is God-given and more the reason that the founding fathers included it as part of the Constitution. It means that the role of government is to protect these rights from violation. Government becomes the agent of the people in the protection of their inalienable rights.

The Declaration of Independence says, “The right to property and other natural rights aren’t merely powers, and neither are they simply wishes or desires. ‘Endowed by their Creator,’ these rights transcend the ability of any government to destroy them. Thus, these inherent or natural rights produce legitimate government and deny the legitimacy of any government justified merely on, for example, heredity, religion, class, race or wealth.”

Please note the phrase, “Endowed by their Creator” in the rights of ALL citizens to own property. I didn’t spin nor invent the term “natural” rights to win an argument. I just thought it fitting that you understand it versus “civil” rights, i.e. the right to freedom of expression, press and vote. The latter rights could be denied anybody who injures the rights of others. For example, if you are a felon then out the window goes your right to vote.

I’m sure you’d agree that we’ve never given our natural rights to government. For authors of Article 12, apparently you never paid attention to briefings by legal consultants on the distinct difference between natural, civil, and human rights. Interesting that you are irrationally afraid of property losses that belong to other fellow citizens. If it’s my land, can you really tell me how to dispose of my property? You even used bigotry and ethnicity to promote your half-cocked cause. But then what could we expect from “has been” effete struggling for some semblance of relevancy they no longer could sustain with their exhausted grip?

Some have deferred to the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights as the single pill that cures their ethnocentric view. Wow! The U.S. is a signatory to that document and signed only after a provision that says there shall be no discrimination in any U.S. soil.

I’ve had my share of frustrations with the current U.S./NMI relationship. But fighting off inequalities and compromising the principle of the “consent of the governed” with bigotry and ethnicity only feeds the ego while posturing, but fails to realistically resolve anything. We have to grow and own up to our responsibilities by strengthening our democratic institutions. We haven’t done this in recent past other than fan the fire of nepotism and cronyism while trashing the merit system. I see that you’ve turned “We the people” on its head into “We the few” people!

* * *

Discordance: Covenant and Republican

The decision by Republicans to run independent didn’t spin out of thin air. It illustrates their commitment to the principle of inclusion and weren’t ready to pander to the whims of someone like the new head of the GOP who’d sacrifice everything for want of power. Most who decided to stay the course of principle-based decision will return to the old chamber next year. I’m not sure though that the Covenant and Republican effete would enjoy the same privilege.

The abandonment of the Covenant by the new GOP chief left a huge void in the hearts and minds of loyal followers who quiz: We worked for this and earned our dues; why is everybody else from without being rewarded our trophy? It’s a legitimate query no one could satisfy at this juncture, not even the newly crowned GOP chief. It would be a tough referendum for both Republicans and Covenant parties this midterm election.

The intra-party feud has mushroomed into clouds eighty miles high. Independent candidates would do better going it alone. It adds credence to their commitment to the principle of integrity. Why chance enslavement found in the colloquial expression that would hail from governance: Same difference? Why choose to fly with an exhausted flock?

Up ahead, neither Covenant nor Republican could sustain control of the political landscape, not when governance is in the abyss of abject poverty that would be around for another decade. The disastrous plunge of the local economy and its lethal negative effects are trophies they’ve given to the simple folks in the villages. I’m sure governance isn’t ready to repeat another bout with failed leadership from both parties. It’s time to rein in a breed of educated and credentialed leadership capable of reasoning and listening to the voice of governance. Governance deserves complete change of the old guard in order to recapture the future of these isles.

Hovering in the heavens are fearful black clouds of failed leadership. Governance legitimately fears worsening conditions sinking even further into the abyss of total hardship. How do you change the mind of struggling employees suffering from austerity as the price of food, gasoline, and other necessities skyrocket? How do you secure confidence of governance when nothing works to help them as they suffer hopelessness in unemployment? How do you pacify their pain in the loss of the first family home? How do you explain the refusal of this administration to implement the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program here? Your only salvation is an economic miracle and it isn’t anywhere in the horizon either!

John DelRosario Jr. is a former publisher of the Saipan Tribune and a former secretary of the Department of Public Lands.