Some thoughts on… Endowing Rights

We continue our dialogue on the policy stance of the Presidential candidates.  The previous topic was immigration, this week we focus on individual rights.

Steve Uhl perspective

Individual Rights is our topic this week – which encompasses a pretty broad spectrum of things depending on who you ask.  But to me, they fall into two broad categories:  Individual rights vis a vis the government and individual rights relative to other individuals.

Individual rights relative to the government:  For me, I start at the beginning – Freedom of Speech otherwise known as part of the First Amendment.  After all, without freedom of speech, we can’t even fairly discuss all the other individual rights topics.  The Biden / Harris administration has a terrible track record.  Throughout the pandemic, the administration leaned heavily on social media companies to suppress views disfavored by the government, for example relating to COVID-19.  All of that suppression was done in the name of ‘fighting disinformation’ which sounds nice to those pushing it, but who is to decide what is ‘disinformation’?  People who advocated that maybe some vaccine mandates were misguided, or that there were vaccine side effects, were systematically suppressed by social media companies pressured by the government.  The administration even tried to set up a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ which was short-lived after massive outcry.  Perhaps appointing a person who had obvious political biases might not have been a good way to start.  But I wouldn’t really trust anybody to be some government blessed arbiter of what is and is not acceptable public discourse. Looking forward, the statements of the candidates themselves reveal a fundamental misunderstanding.  Tim Walz has said “There is no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy” which is all completely false, as the Supreme Court has made clear numerous times.  Kamala has expressed similar sentiments, and one of her current campaign managers was actually the person responsible for pressuring Facebook to deplatform unfavored content.  It’s a natural human tendency to want to muzzle people with whom you disagree, but we should expect more from our political leaders.  After the first amendment comes the second – hardly worth elaborating on since the proclivities of the two sides are obvious. 

The second broad category are those where there are ‘competing’ individual rights and the conflict is less about government power and more about how to balance rights between individuals.  Abortion falls into this category although it’s a special case since at what point the unborn fetus deserves ‘rights’ is a philosophical question with no answer.  Most Americans are very supportive of abortion rights in the first trimester, but much less so later in pregnancy.  The pros and cons and complexities are way beyond the scope of this blog.  This was a winning topic for Democrats in 2022 but may be eclipsed by the economy and immigration.  It will be repeatedly brought up by Harris/Walz in whatever form they can raise the topic.  Trump’s best response is just to say that it’s with the states, so go make your arguments to your state legislatures whatever they may be and let them choose the specifics.  He should just declare he’s not taking positions on specific state proposals, that it is none of the federal governments business, and just defer to the voters of those particular states.  However, the less talk about abortion and the more talk about the economy and immigration is where Trump needs to focus.  Lastly – there is a never-ending list of controversies related to LGBTQ+ issues.  To me, most of these issues have ‘two sides’ in that they are about the conflict between individual rights of one person versus another.  One side may talk about an individual’s right to identify as a certain gender, but the other side will talk about the rights of biological women to have a changing room free of male genitalia.  The specifics of all of those conflicts are also way beyond the scope of this blog – however I think there are enough perceived ‘excesses’ that it is not particularly fertile ground for Harris / Walz.  Trump can and already has pointed to prior Harris positions that most Americans perceive as a bridge too far – for example guaranteeing taxpayer provided gender transition surgery to prison inmates, or supporting schools refusing to inform parents that their child wants to ‘transition’.  Whatever the merits on all these specific controversies – they boil down to conflicts between individual rights, and to me they fall in a different category than the fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, starting most importantly with Freedom of Speech.

Waseem Noor perspective

“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.”

Thomas Jefferson’s words at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence recognized three individual rights that could not be denied by government or the English King.  Since 1776, many Presidential administrations have passed laws that uphold these rights while others have not.

The Harris-Walz stance on individual rights is strong. Building on Pres Biden’s policies, they plan to pass legislation that further these rights.  The Trump-Vance stance on these issues has been inconsistent at best and has reduced individual rights at worst.

Let’s look at important policies falling under these three rights. 

Right to Life

Gun violence has steadily grown in the US to 48,204 deaths in 2022. The US Surgeon General has called this a Public Health crisis. Of these deaths about 41% were homicides, 56% suicides, and the rest were either accidental, legal intervention or undetermined. 

The gun violence crisis is impacting on Americans’ right to life.

Over 80% of homicides are by handguns.  Mass deaths by assault rifles make-up a small percentage of the total homicides (anywhere from 100-900 deaths per year) and get the most attention.  Recent shootingsinclude – Winder, Georgia - 2 students and 2 teachers killed by an AR-15 style weapon; Uvalde, Texas - 19 children and 2 teachers killed by an AR-15 style weapon; Buffalo, New York- 10 shoppers killed by AR-15 style weapon.

In 2022, firearms were the leading cause of death for US children and teens surpassing car accident deaths, cancer deaths, deaths from other diseases and poisoning.

Under Biden-Harris, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a landmark law focused on reducing and protecting communities from gun violence.  Harris-Walz continue to call for reduced sales on assault weapons and increased background checks. Despite two assassination attempts with assault style weapons, the Trump-Vance ticket opposes limits on firearms sales.

Right to Liberty

Trump was elected to office in 2016 with the promise of appointing Supreme Court judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade. He succeeded. The fifty states plus DC now have varying stances on abortion with 14 states banning the procedure.  Without legal access to the procedure, women face an increase in financial distress, emotional distress, and loss of freedom over their bodies.

This chaotic situation of abortion policy is impacting a woman’s right to liberty.

As Harris pointedly asked Justice Kavanaugh during his appointment hearing– “Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?” He eventually responded, “I am not thinking of any right now.”. The Harris-Walz ticket has proposed restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade through legislation.

Vance advocated for a national abortion ban for all states, and is trying to soften his stance.  Recognizing that this is a losing issue, Trump has multiple times shifted on the issue. Neither person is advocating for restoring protections.

Right to Pursue Happiness

Climate change is occurring. The highest recorded temperatures since the 1800’s are affecting storm activity, wildfires, and migration of people. A group of young people in Montana won a landmark lawsuit when a judge ruled that they have a constitutional right to a healthful environment and that the state must consider potential climate damage when approving projects.  Similar lawsuits by youths against the Federal government are in process.

Climate change is impacting our children’s right to pursue happiness.

The Biden-Harris administration oversaw passing two major laws – The Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, channeling over $500 billion dollars into environmental projects to combat climate change like electricity infrastructure, solar panels and electric vehicles.  Walz as Governor of Minnesota passed initiatives to address climate change.

Trump has said he wants clean water and air for everyone yet passed no legislation under his term to protect the environment and has no current policies.  In debates, he has avoided answering questions on climate change.  The official Republican party platform is to cancel the electric vehicle mandate, increase Energy Production across the board, streamline the permitting process, and end market-distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal.

Around two-thirds of Americans continue to support all three of these issues - stricter gun laws, legal abortion in all states, more legislation to address climate change.  The Harris-Walz ticket has affirmed these rights with legislation and clear policy.

The Declaration of Independence continues, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

The Trump-Vance ticket has not forwarded any policy measures to uphold these fundamental rights and has conducted actions that have degraded them. We should not elect them back to office.