Constitutional Rights?

Acceptable. If unacceptable, a sovereign country can make their own definitions. And the people of that country have to live with it. Once It becomes deadly to significant portion of it’s inhabitants, the ruling class has endangered their own rule.

I think You are mixing apples and oranges. The two are completely unrelated.

The way you phrase the question doesn’t make sense “From a halakhic perspective, do you consider the Constitution’s and Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the “rights” it enumerates are inalienable because they exist in natural law and were established by G-d”

Halachically there is no right to free speech , quite the opposite certain types of speech are explicitly forbidden. Halacha certainly does not support free exercise of religion.

The US constitution is made by man. We (ie the authors/society) felt that we would be better guaranteeing free speech. So we did, there is no halachic support for free speech (the opposite is true). Furthermore IT is quite possible that one day it will be amended and Free speech will be limited, perhaps by a halachically inclined group (I’m sure some coffeeroom posters would support an “except lashon hara” clause to the right of free speech.

The idea of “inalienable rights” is a legal fiction. In many western countries there ARE limits on Free speech, hate speech is not protected. Are they violating these “inalienable rights”? Many first amendment purists would say yes they are. Those countries would argue no they are not. Can you prOVE that G-d gave us the right to say whatever we want. OF course not, in fact depending on which Releigion you practice I can prove (or at least argue) the opposite

I defer to the lawyers on this, But I think even in American law it i’snt really true that there are “inalienable rights” ie rights that can’t be taken away. I think if the constitution is amended they can be. Granted this is intentionally a complicated task. But I believe (correct me If I’m wrong )that theoretically the right to say free speech can be removed under the amendment process.

Separation of religion and state is maybe the most important law on our books to protect our religion.

Bava Basra discusses a case of butchers who agreed on a cartel – each works on certain days – amd slashed skins of the one who refused. Conclusion is, I believe, that if there is a Talmid Chacham, you should go and ask him to establish just rules al’pi Torah. If there is not such a chacham, a group is entitled to create their own rules and enforce them.

Given, that there were not many yeshivot at the time, sounds like people naturally agreeing to certain rules is a right thing to do.

There is also halakhic idea of testing laws with reality: midrabanans have a year to be accepted by people, and might be rescinded if not; Same Bava Basra describing history of Jewish education during 2nd Temple: fathers (not every father could teach), then Kohanim in Yerushalaim (not every father could drive), then regional schools for teenagers (too late, they would not listen, younger ones would not go that far by themsleves), and finally local competing, underpaid teachers for young kids. So, we search until we find what works. So, enjoy US system while it works…

Dear Ubiquitin,

I always understand these rights as more basic than just physical actions or state of being. Life means not just that I cannot be killed without having committed. But that the way I perceive it to be mine is not contingent on you or everyone’s agreement to it being my life. Therefore, Liberty means the expression of my life is only required to fit my definition of Life. (We call this today Purpose. But then they had a much larger concept of Destiny than we do.) Slavery and Suffrage fit neatly into this juggling act, that although the individual can define his Liberty as personal autonomy, he is still bound by whatever rules [Even rules that are not enforced or written anywhere. Like basic manners.] society uses in his situation. So his window of personal autonomy is narrowed. But he can still achieve his own Liberty = Purpose through personal autonomy.

Dear Avi,

The freedoms of which you speak, are only because they are declared basic rights. Were they to be declared privileges, they would be restrained to certain conditions. Even though it follows it logically follows that they should be the way they are, they still need to be declared as law. This by itself is not comparable to Torah Laws which were declared before they could be followed join a legal system.

As in “naseh v’nishma”.

Avi K, thanks for the correction Bava Batra 9a, Adam Hashuv indeed. Shita Mekubetzet says Adam Hashuv = Talmkid Chacham + community parnas. So, he seems not interested in the opinions of unlearned merchants and members of kollel, only those who are both learn and are in business. [O, horror ]. Rambam says “Haham Hasuv”, H’M 231:28 uses a similar term “haham hashuv mamono al ha tzibur” …

R Moshe is mentioning these halakhot in the context of allowing modern labor unions. Not clear to me whether members of the union are same as independent artisans. Maybe in “skilled labor”.

I see R Auerbach quoted as referring similarly that as in our days talmidei chachamim do not involve themselves in business affairs, then “it is as if there is no adam hashuv”. This is unclear, as according to definitions above adam hashuv is not just talmid chacham but also parnas, so it is literally there are no adam hashuvim, not “as if”.

This leads to a question – is it a good/bad/pareve thing that we do not have an “adam hashuv” people? Gemorah seems to imply that it is better to have them. so, should people in yeshiva go into business, or should business people learn more to make more hoshuve people?

Dear Always,

You have a reasonable way of making yourself unreasonable.

The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two very different Documents written at different times by not necessarily the same people for different purposes.

The Declaration says, we have had enough of being governed by the King of England and we thirteen colonies declare our Independence for the following reasons. The stirring terms such as: “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, …” are used to gather support for the action among the populace.

Having won the Revolutionary War, the former Colonies, now 13 States have to organize a system of Government for the new country: The Constitution is that system of Government.
The Preamble lays out why it is needed:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It has no reason to talk of ideals such as ‘unalienable rights’ as we were no longer English colonies in revolt, we were now the People of The United States.
Like many new systems, it needed tweaking, thus the Bill of Rights..Amendments 1-10 were added soon after adoption of the Constitution and the establishment of our three branch government.

One should NEVER attempt to combine the purpose of two radically different documents

Avi, interesting idea, but I understand the issue that we want Torah understanding of the issue if possible. If not, then use democracy as a second best option.

Then, in our time, we don’t have a situation when an Adam Hashuv is not available – they are all a call or an email away. I don’t think it matters whether a talmid chacham is an economic expert himself or he asks an expert, as long as he has intellectual capability to deal with the issue. Every expert consults others, books, etc. The point is that the final decision is based on Torah framework and not on the economists.

Here are a couple of examples where outcome may differ:
paying teachers. Current policies in US favor heavy regulation of schools, tenure and union protection for teachers. Halacha seems to favor unlimited competition, exempting teachers (as well as peddlers of perfume) from standard medieval guild protection – to make education more affordable for poor people. In other professions, we balance interests of buyers and sellers, but in education, interests of buyers are much higher. That’s the Jewish value and economists may or may not agree.

another one – COVID rule relaxing. Politicians care about economy and about reelection. A Torah authority might be more careful.

We can also have different solution depending on different behaviors. Famous one that Roman inspector did not like – Jews pay half of damage by an animal, while non-Jews – full, because we presume that Jew was watching the animal and damage was unintentional.

Thus, for example, during COVID in a community where kids can learn at home with parents, they can be told to stay home. In a community, where kids will be roaming streets and facebook, kids might need to come to school despite the risk.

Always,
1. Torah is democratic. The people must not approve of the form of government, as I previously posted, but of all of the leaders (Berachot 55a). They can even remove a king from office(Yerushalmi, Horiot 3,3).
2. The interesting thing about that gemara is that Yossi ben Yoezer didn’t want to repeal more decrees because he did not want to be called Yosef Sharya (Yosef the Lenient). Some things never change.

>> The Bill of Rights was added because some wanted to strengthen the legal basis.

I understand that there was an interesting machloket between American avot: if you have a general statement that anything not in constitution is reserved to states and people, this is enough to protect personal liberties. Furthermore, if you list specific rights, then you are implicitly allowing for additional restrictions. The “paranoid” insisted that we should protect them anyway. I think modern experience of ever-expanding state powers justifies the paranoid (“if you are paranoid, does not mean that there is no one after you”).

>> Amendments 1-10 were added soon after adoption of the Constitution

There would not be enough states to sign constitution without bill of rights, so they should be considered part of the main body.

Ctlawyer >> There is NO law that separates religion and state in the USA.

to be precise, First Amt originally meant Congress. Your state had a state religion and it was perfectly constitutional. Paying state taxes to a specific church was ok, even in states where other religions were allowed.

n0> You have a reasonable way of making yourself unreasonable.

if you agree with my method but disagree with my conclusions, you should revisit your conclusions.

@Always
Please don’t give up your day job, you’ll not make it in my profession
“>> Amendments 1-10 were added soon after adoption of the Constitution

There would not be enough states to sign constitution without bill of rights, so they should be considered part of the main body.”
WRONG!!!!!!
The Constitution went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the 9th of the 13 States to ratify it (until then the US operated under the Articles of Confederation<wonder where the South took their name?>),
There were actually 12 original Amendments passed by the First Congress sent for ratification to the States. Only #s 3-12 were ratified as of December 15th, 1791 and became known as the Bill of Rights and numbered as Amendments 1-10.

The Constitution was ratified by the States and took effect 3 years before the Bill of Rights. Your assertion is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
” if you have a general statement that anything not in constitution is reserved to states and people, this is enough to protect personal liberties.”

No such statement exists, The correct statement is that ‘all powers not assigned to the Federal Government is reserved to the States.’ This is where we get the concept of States Rights, Nothing is reserved to the people. The Preamble puts it bluntly: We the People in order to….” The people have ceded their power to a representative form of government and retain rights only through the ballot box that can elect representatives.
Over the years, the Federal Government has usurped powers by claiming things fall under their jurisdiction by using things such as the Interstate Commerce Clause, etc. The SCOTUS has been complicit in this power grab.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As for your remark about the First Amendment originally meaning Congress, this has been expanded to all levels of Government as all levels accept and operate with Federal funds comingled with state and local funds.
Here in CT, all houses of worship had to be chartered by the State until the late 1800s. Our family belonged to three shuls in New Haven (yes out of town it is common to belong to multiple shuls in town, especially business owners do this to this day) all of whom were chartered by the State of Connecticut.
Towns and villages got their names from the Congregational Church Parish (Puritans) whose pastor or Parish Council acted as local government and levied local taxes for the Constable, jail and school. This ended about 1840. The town I live in is made up of three of those Parishes and they are used as the names of the three main neighborhoods in town.

CTLawyer, thanks for confirming that I chose profession wisely! I definitely admit that my knowledge is limited to recent learning w/ high-school kids, where learning for the (online) test is often a higher priority than in-depth analysis, still

10th Amendment includes people:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

from wiki:
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, later argued that the act of enumerating the rights of the people would have been dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist;[11] Hamilton echoed this point in Federalist No. 84

I am amending my statrement on Bill of Rights: several states ratified Constitution under condition of introducing Bill of Rights:
Massachusetts convention was angry and contentious .. impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also propose amendments ..Following Massachusetts’ lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments

I think we agree that Federal government got more power and States more restrictions over time. It is hard to draw a line. I think we all would be less comfortable if stated were still having their respective churches. Or maybe not – Jews would have all moved together to Delaware or New Hampshire and could have established our own Jewish state. But overall this centralization and unification reduces benefit from unique American feature – multiple states that have common culture, freedom of movement, and independent state powers. This creates competition between state powers and solves a lot of problems that plagues humanity from Shmuel and Roman periods on how to limit the state powers. The country will not be paralyzed for years about Presidential elections if the President would not be in charge of taxes, oil exploration, etc. Let each state do their own thing and let people move where they like.

>> Once our elected leaders turn toward limiting our rights, the force of The Constitution will be right there along side them.

While we just quoted here such creeping cases of federal law applying to states, etc, you still need to acknowledge that US Constitution prevented a lot of abuses. Laws do matter. For example, German Weimar republic was constructed without much thought and collapsed legally very quickly. Also, notice that among countries that used to be colonies, the British ones (including USA) are doing much better than Spanish and others, presumably something to do with the British legal system.

Dear Always,

Just imagine how much better off we would be if The Constitution would have stayed away from personal autonomy from the beginning.