“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson
Engraved on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence

There are two important things to note about the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. The first is that the Constitution doesn’t “grant” us any rights. Instead, it speaks of rights already in existence (unalienable and endowed by our creator, according to the Declaration of Independence) and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing on those rights. The second is that each of the rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution is personal.

Liberals tend to talk about rights in terms of what others must give you: a “living wage,” health care, housing, or even an abortion. These liberal “rights” get things exactly backwards. The only way one person can have a right to something that someone else must provide is for the provider to be forced to provide it, regardless of his consent.

The liberals on the Supreme Court, in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, recently struck down the eminently-sensible Texas law that ensured safe conditions for women seeking abortions. Their “reasoning” was that the law unreasonably restricted women’s access to abortions. Let’s think about that logically for a moment. The Supreme Court, citing a “right” that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, has said that it is unconstitutional to restrict a woman’s access to abortion.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that all the abortionists in the country suddenly decided to move to Australia. Or, in an unfortunately less-likely scenario, let’s suppose that every abortionist suddenly developed a conscience and realized that they had been murdering innocent children and repented, refusing to perform any more abortions. Could anything restrict a woman’s access to abortion more than that? What then of this supposed “right” for a woman to get an abortion? Is it really possible that the Supreme Court, or Congress, or even a State Legislature could somehow prohibit this mass-exodus of abortionists? I can just see Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan at JFK airport looking for that last abortionist and tackling him before he can board that last flight out. The logical conclusion is that the supposed “right” to abortion is no right at all.

Is there a “right” to housing? How can that possibly be when someone must build the house? And who decides what kind of house? Do you have the right to three bedrooms or only two? A cape in the suburbs or a brownstone in the city? If you have the right to a “living wage,” who decides what that is? How hard do you have to work to receive it? How good do you have to be at your job? Does a “living wage” include cable TV and a cell phone?

It simply cannot be that anyone can have a right to something that someone else must provide. The truth is that liberals are not interested in rights as our founders understood them. They invent “rights” for one of two reasons. Either they are trying to force people to behave a certain way or they are trying to buy votes from people who care more about what government can give them than protecting themselves against what government can do to them. Anyone who supports this approach cannot claim to “support and defend the Constitution.”


A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed Tech Knight’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Tech Knight’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Tech Knight’s post as the reason you did so. If you missed his last piece, it’s here




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



A government of laws, and not of men.

– John Adams, Novanglus Essays, No. 7

The Constitution is a pretty straightforward document. It explains how the government is to be organized and lays out the rights and responsibilities of each branch, as well as specifying those things the government may not do so as to protect our God-given rights. It really defines a relatively simple set of rules, and establishes our country on principles that are pretty much the opposite of “the ends justify the means.” This is why I have such a problem with the Democrat party being about to nominate someone whose entire life is a testament to skirting the law, obstructing justice and pursuing any means necessary to achieve her desired ends. I am shocked that “We the People” could have let ourselves be put in this position.

Let’s apply Occam’s razor to the two big email-related scandals plaguing the presumptive (for another day) Democrat nominee, shall we? Without even speculating on what information might be in them, is there really any doubt that she hid all her email traffic (not to mention her daily calendar) from government servers so that it wouldn’t be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access? Regardless of whether the emails were classified, she broke the law by hiding them. The simplest explanation is that she hid them because they contain information that she thinks would anger the public and/or congress and make it more difficult for her to become president. And the Democrats think that this law-breaking failed Secretary of State is the most qualified person ever to run for president? Seriously?

Then there’s the DNC email leak, showing that the DNC rigged the nomination process to sabotage the Sanders campaign and nominate Hillary. This was obvious from the moment they announced the limited number of debates and did their best to hide them on holiday weekends when no one would be watching, but the emails reveal much more chicanery. The fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is going immediately from disgraced DNC chair to honorary chair of Hillary’s campaign simply illustrates the quid pro quo – another example of breaking the rules to achieve the desired result.

I guess the party of “the ends justify the means” really has found the person they believe is the most qualified person ever to run for president. It’s too bad that their definition of “qualified” is “having no qualms about violating every principle on which and for which this country once stood.”

Who is Tech Knight? I am a Catholic conservative married (20+ years) father of two. My logical mind comes from my engineering background, but I am also a bit of a history buff, particularly our nation’s founding. I have been very active in my parish as a lector and serving on our Parish Council, and have volunteered for a number of community organizations, especially the Boy Scouts and local youth theaters, to be able to spend time with my kids. My wife is my compass, my best friend and the love of my life.

I’d like to thank Pete DaTechGuy for this opportunity. If you appreciate the work done here as much as I do, please help us keep it going by hitting DaTipJar:


A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed Tech Knight’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Tech Knight’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Tech Knight’s post as the reason you did so.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level