|
by Reed Mackley, Publisher
In a discussion in one of the city offices recently, a question was raised on the validity of the city ordinance which requires a business license. The city attorney was called into the discussion when the assertion was made that the business license was in fact a method of taking away the citizen’s right to work. The city lawyer, Ryan Shaw, first gave it as his personal opinion that people gave up their right to work when they become members of a city. He later backtracked on that statement and said: “In essence the states are the people”; and “In a nutshell, cities and counties derive their authority from the State…or from the people”.
In the basic law of America - the Constitution- it is understood(Amendment IX, X) that there are certain rights reserved to the people, separate from the State, and persons are secure in their houses, papers, and effects against seizure except by warrant supported by oath(Amendment IV). The business license in effect takes control of the business property and the right to work on it without the permission of the city officials and the payment of a fee. No one has a right to control property without ownership - neither the neighbor nor a conglomeration of neighbors. Taking control without ownership is stealing. The right to work is a right reserved to the individual - not to the State. What has happened to freedom in America? When did it become a crime to work? Where are the warrant and the oath required by law?
The business license has become part of a web to control and regulate business and ultimately jobs. Is it any wonder that the USA is struggling to keep pace with competition in the global economy? But it is much more than the economy that is at stake. When the law makes a person a criminal for something that is not a crime then where are the limits? Where are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
The lawyer further insists that control is needed to prevent crime and that is true. But the question is, “What is proper control?” In most cases, the business is endeavoring to be a service to the community – in fact their survival depends on that very thing. In those rare cases where there is harm or danger to the community, there is an abundance of constitutional law for protection. If individuals do not have the right to take control of the neighbor’s property or to give him permission to work on it, then they can not give that authority to the city. Where then does either the state or the city get the power to do such things?
I can think of only two ways they can be restrained. The first and easiest way is a public outcry against such tyranny at the polls. The second and more difficult way is an appeal to the courts. The court system is very expensive; and in our present day the courts look upon such laws as they did upon protection of slavery for 75 years. Appeals to the courts in this case would be as fruitless as it was for the slaves.
Because we are in this situation, the lack of public outcry is an indication that the population is willing to accept the rights and privileges as being dispensed by government rather than from our Creator. Whether this is ignorance, or irresponsibility the result is the same. History has shown that over-powerful (socialistic) governments continue to advance in their control over the people until mass assassinations and war result. The people can not blame someone else for a war if they have been willing to let their governments get out of control when it was easy to curb their actions. The idea that just any law is good and constitutional must be recognized by the people as false and dangerous if they are to save themselves. Perhaps the lawyer is right, “The people have in fact given up their right to work”. Is it because of their ignorance or cowardness or laziness? Whatever it is, it is widespread.
I personally support limiting government and increasing private responsibility. I am for American freedom. To quote Thomas Paine: “Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another…It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” To quote Thomas Jefferson: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” |