Were it not so grim, it would have been funny to watch Mr. They’re-Just-Negative-Rights Obama roll out the parchment to defend the construction of the 9/11 Victory Mosque. The rationalization he offered was so lame, that it is no longer repeated by any but the stupidest of the mosque project supporters. But there is still yet another bogus rights argument being circulated in defense of the jihad victory monument. One that needs public discrediting.
Just so we all stay on the same page:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well, congress isn’t making any laws about the matter so that settles that. Thank you Mr. Assistant Professor in Chief. Unfortunately there is nothing in there preventing the president from insulting the intelligence of the public.
But there is another rights angle to this, that gets hinted at constantly, but that’s not openly debated – at least not that I’ve heard. Property Rights. People keep hinting at the fact that there is a property rights view, whereby you can legally acquire property and do with it what you like, within the limit of the law — property rights being so sacrosanct that that settles the issue.
Now, I ask you, gentle reader, are you familiar with the way property rights are respected in NYC? And by Sr. Cordoba-Bloomberg particularly? They are not. The ownership and use of real estate in NYC is a byzantine, mind bending tangle of zoning rules, landmark rules, regulations, ordinances, fees and taxes — leaving the gov’t of NYC free to do pretty well what it pleases.