American Injustice:
Pursuit of Happiness
The meaning of "equally free and independent" is unclear and ambiguous, so say the courts of America. The "pursuit of happiness" is one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty." "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)
Because the right is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is not enforceable by the courts. However, the right to the pursuit of happiness is often raised in arguments against government regulations, because its mention in the Declaration of Independence gives it a degree of forcefulness. Barron's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed, pg.378.
Although the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is set forth in several state Constitutions. The state Constitutions, in their Declaration of Rights, provide that "all men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
For most people, marriage would be considered "in the pursuit of happiness."The United States Supreme Court, in recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right, stated that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967). See also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978). The Supreme Court held that state regulations that interfere with the fundamental right to remarry will be subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if they are "supported by sufficiently important state interests and [are] closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388.
Other learned judges present the question, What does "pursuit of happiness" have to do with equal protection of the laws? "That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The learned judges attempt to explain away most of the Constitution with the following definitions and questions. Nothing in the above pertains to equality, so say the judges. Is it possible that the phrase alone clearly and unambiguously provides for equal protection of the law? "All men are equally free and independent." What does "free" encompass? What does "independent" encompass?
"Free" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 663 (6th ed. 1990) as: "Not subject to legal constraint of another. "Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude; used in this sense as opposed to 'slave.'
"Not bound to service for a fixed term of years; in distinction to being bound as an apprentice. Enjoying full civic rights. Available to all citizens alike without charge; as a free school.
"Not despotic; assuring liberty; defending individual rights against encroachment by any person or class; instituted by a free people; said of governments, institutions, etc.
"Certain, and also consistent with an honorable degree in life; as free services, in the feudal law.
"Confined to the person possessing, instead of being shared with others; as a free fishery.
"Not engaged in a war as belligerent or ally; neutral, as in the maxim: 'Free ships make free goods.'"
In the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 524 (1969),
the adjective "free" is defined as:
"1. At liberty; not bound or constrained.
2. Discharged from arrest or detention.
3. Not under obligation or necessity.
4.a. Politically independent. Said of a country
or nation. b. Governed by consent and
possessing civil liberties: a free society. c.
Immune to arbitrary interference by
government or others: a free press." (Emphasis
in original.)
In Black's Law Dictionary 770, "independent" is defined as: "Not dependent; not subject to control, restriction, modification, or limitation from a given outside source."
The adjective
"independent" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, 668, among
other ways that are clearly irrelevant to the cases before us, as:
1. Politically autonomous; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control
of another or others; self-reliant.
Therefore, "equally free and independent" can mean, among other things, equally not subject to the legal constraint of another and equally self-governing; equally at liberty and not subject to control, restriction, or limitation from a given outside source; equally governed by consent and possessing civil liberties and free from the influence, guidance, or control of another.
Consequently, the meaning of "equally free and independent" is unclear and ambiguous, and this phrase is not clarified or made less ambiguous by the phrases that follow it: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The courts inability or unwillingness to define "equally free and independent" is an atrocity. The courts leave little to wonder how the American Bar Association, whose members are the judges and lawyers of the courts, came to the realization that the "Constitution is nothing more than an interesting bunch of suggestions."
If
any part of the Constitution is unclear and ambiguous, it is because the
courts have made a concerted effort to explain it away.
Original Site: www.fa-ir.org/happiness.htm