Monday, October 15 , 2018, 3:22 pm | Fair 74º

 
 
 

Harris Sherline: Searching for Meaning Behind the ‘Social Justice’ Mantra

Claiming that social programs are a 'right' goes against the intent of our nation's founders

I’ve often wondered just what the liberal mantra “social justice” means. We hear the expression repeated just about every time there is a discussion about politics and the political parties, and it’s usually used to defend various government programs and so-called “entitlements,” such as Medicare and Social Security, and now Obamacare.

However, the term is never actually defined, except to claim that the various social programs are a “right,” based on the notion that they are somehow guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence with the words “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain ‘unalienable rights,’ that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So, if social justice is a right, it has been created somewhere in our history by some sort of legislative act. But, to my knowledge, it has not.

The term “unalienable rights” is defined as those rights that can’t be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, such as the government or to another person. Such rights are often considered “natural” or “God-given” rights (e.g., life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

However, inalienable rights are those rights that can be transferred only with the consent of the person to whom they belong.

“Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” is the phrase that is famously associated with the Declaration of Independence. Its intent was to express the truth that every person is a creation of God and has certain rights, simply by the virtue of being created by God. Therefore, those unalienable rights or privileges can’t be transferred or taken away by any man. Those rights as conceived in the Declaration are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This means that Thomas Jefferson and the other writers of the Declaration wanted people to believe that God created human beings who have certain rights that should never be taken away, specifically life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They avoided the word “God,” using instead “creator” to avoid religious disputes because they were preparing to move away from government-sponsored religion.

All of which makes it possible to claim that “social justice” means anything anyone wants it to mean, in whatever situation they want it to apply.

Economist Walter Williams commented: “Most people whom we elect to Congress are either ignorant of, have contempt for or are just plain stupid about the United States Constitution. ... Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ...’

“Here’s my question to you: If one takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn’t he know what he’s supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to? If congressmen, judges, the president and other government officials were merely ignorant of our Constitution, there’d be hope — ignorance is curable through education.

“These people in Washington see themselves as our betters and rulers. They have contempt for the limits our Constitution places on the federal government envisioned by James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who explained in the Federalist Paper 45: ‘The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.’”

Thus, the claim that the Declaration of Independence provides the basis for social justice is not just wrong, it is actually a perversion of the intent of America’s founders.

— Harris R. Sherline is a retired CPA and former chairman and CEO of Santa Ynez Valley Hospital who as lived in Santa Barbara County for more than 30 years. He stays active writing opinion columns and his blog, Opinionfest.com.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >