A constitutional right

  There has been proposals made to rejuvenate or renovate the area called the inner harbor in the city of Baltimore. This area has been the main tourist attraction in Charm city for many years. But, over the years crime has slowly crept in, businesses has moved and the area has gone into decline. So, as with everything else in the world an opportunity has presented itself to those "developers" to save the city. That's what developers do you know, they rescue local economies and provide the people with necessities such as "affordable" housing, stores and restaurants. Their plan is to revive the tourist industry and in turn save the city! 

  But, this plan has been met with some opposition. There are those that don't feel like the plan is such a great idea. Their opposition stems from the fact that it will not do a thing for the average person living in the city. Yes, the tourists may return, spend that money at the harbor and businesses will thrive once again. Thing is, the average person doesn't own that business and it will be of little help to them. You see that's the reality of tourism, the local people, those that live in the area, wind up being relegated to no more than park employees. They are only there to care for the tourists. You are there to cater to that. You are not to be seen or heard from, just do your job and entertain me. 

  In response to this opposition the developer has filed a petition to the court. This opposition, this stopping of the plan, why it's unconstitutional! That is what caught my attention this morning on the news. Yet another claim that something is unconstitutional. I'm amazed at how many people are reading the constitution these days and finding all these rights. The constitution has just 7,591 words, including the 27 amendments. Originally it was just 4,543 words. Quite brief compared to states constitutions which average 20,000 words. Still, in those few words somewhere, according to the attorney for the developer, they have a constitutional right to develop the inner harbor in the way they see fit. They are taking that to court, to the supreme court if necessary. Freedom is at stake here. 

  I haven't done an extensive research project into exactly what they are proposing. I will not attempt to make anyone believe I have done so and became some expert on that. All I have to do is read Facebook posts to get all that expertise. Facebook is flooded with constitutional scholars, attorneys and activists of all descriptions. What I do know is those developers are proposing that because they believe they will profit from doing so. And that, my friend, is the bottom line make no mistake about that. Their interest lies solely in that. That is the constitutional right they are alluding to, the pursuit of happiness. Making money, makes them happy. 

  It isn't anything new, I realize that, but today there are those reading things into that constitution that surely have nothing to do with the original intent. You know Roe V Wade wasn't a constitutional right. Yet, there are many "learned" people proclaiming that it was, and that it should be. Takes a lot of reading between the lines to come up with that one. There are those that would rewrite that document given the chance. What would be their motive to do so? Personal profit or gain of some kind is the only answer to that. You know that is why the document was written in the first place, right. It was explained with these famous lines, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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." There are those that find that too limiting for the modern world, those old guys just couldn't understand. I really should be allowed to build whatever I want, wherever I want. That is a right! 

  The law is built upon precedent. That is what is used when litigating cases in court. The constitution itself is the ultimate precedent. That is the reason it is so frequently cited. Precedent is the guide, it tells us what course of action was taken before. We should learn from that. Yes, it is history. There were very good reason for each of those 4,543 words in the original constitution. But then, after having made certain concessions to get that document ratified in 1788 George Washington sent twelve amendments to the individual states for ratification. As we all know, ten got ratified in 1791 and became the bill of rights. 

  Those rights were intended to protect the people, not empower the government. Why was that necessary? Because, just like today there were those saying, it doesn't say that but that is what it means. No where in the constitution did anyone have a right to hold slaves, but some said slaves were merely property. I have a constitutional right to have property. Yeah and today a development corporation is insisting they have a constitutional right to construct property. Things haven't changed nearly as much as you might think. The same reason for the precedent setting document we call the constitution exist today as they did in 1776.