- Joined
- Nov 4, 2020
- Messages
- 27,138
- Reaction score
- 4,765
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
My personal moral intuitions tell me there are.
With that and $1 you can get any size drink at Mcdonald's.
What are 'natural rights'?
My personal moral intuitions tell me there are.
What rights do you claim to have that are not property rights?
With that and $1 you can get any size drink at Mcdonald's.
What are 'natural rights'?
A few days ago you showed an interest in private law and courts. Now you're asking about natural rights. This is strange considering your political views.
Vote,
travel,
speech,
religion, no state-sponsored religion,
5th amendment, for a start.
It's a government-granted privilege.
Yeah, that's one part of what rights are. So? What's the point?
The point is that rights and government-granted privileges are very different things.
Think of it as the difference between what you have the right to do, versus what you may only do with someone else's permission.
Those are pretty much entirely false, misguided and uninformed comments.The Constitution does not authorize Congress to do most of what it is currently doing.
Medical, retirement, education, child care, etc...
None of those things are found in the Constitution except by nefarious interpretation.
Our government is out of control and our national balance sheet blood red because the SC and our entire Fedgov simply stopped adhering to the Constitution, and the people blithely accepted it.
As a result, our nation has been in a death spiral ever since.
It's not the complicated.
There is no enumerated or explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It is an implicit right. I would bet that the right the privacy would quickly becomes a bipartisan issue if it were ever really threatened.Griswold ruled that a married couple has a right to privacy* based in part on the ninth amendment. bi
*There is no such right.
It can't be addressed. You basically have the right to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else or damage anyone else's property. No government is going to agree with that. Furthermore, we all have the right to own property, and the state is the biggest violator of property rights that has ever existed.
Rights are not "granted" by the government - at least not in free societies.I'm not sure which part you disagree with, as there are multiple claims in the sentence you put in bold.
Rights are not "granted" by the government - at least not in free societies.
Given the founders intended to protect some presumably huge body of rights that weren't enumerated, and the list of such specific rights identified in over 200 years seems to be one, privacy, under which contraception and abortion fall, I don't think you have a strong case for too long a list of rights.The unenumerated rights could be thought of as anything a person might do, so long as that action doesn't"
1. infringe someone else's rights
2. directly create a problem that is so bad that government (society) has an overwhelming interest in preventing it
It seems to me that it isn't necessary to invoke a right to privacy in order to strike down a law against buying contraceptives. It's perfectly adequate to say that since it doesn't fit either of the exceptions above, government has no business preventing it.
This formulation is off the top of my head and may be incomplete. But I think it's a better approach than developing an ever-longer list of specific rights.
I think that's always been a semantic point that's not very useful. While the idea is that people are entitled to rights and government should only respect that, the fact is that there's very little practical difference between that and government deciding what rights to 'give'. They 'recognize' your right to free speech. They 'give' your right to free speech. One is better but not really practically different.Rights are not "granted" by the government - at least not in free societies.
That broad interpretation renders the Constitution useless in terms of constraining the government.Those are pretty much entirely false, misguided and uninformed comments.
What you can say is that some of the activities *done for the benefit of the American people* are done under an interpretation of the constitution more broad than yours.
Now THAT is a semantic argumentI think that's always been a semantic point that's not very useful. While the idea is that people are entitled to rights and government should only respect that, the fact is that there's very little practical difference between that and government deciding what rights to 'give'. They 'recognize' your right to free speech. They 'give' your right to free speech. One is better but not really practically different.
Those chains were broken in the 1930's, and our fate was sealed then.
They opened Pandora's Box.I could respond to your post, or just chuckle at your leap to Hitler.
The Constitution does not authorize Congress to do most of what it is currently doing.
Medical, retirement, education, child care, etc...
None of those things are found in the Constitution except by nefarious interpretation.
Our government is out of control and our national balance sheet blood red because the SC and our entire Fedgov simply stopped adhering to the Constitution, and the people blithely accepted it.
As a result, our nation has been in a death spiral ever since.
It's not the complicated.
Griswold ruled that a married couple has a right to privacy* based in part on the ninth amendment.
*There is no such right.
It can't be addressed. You basically have the right to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else or damage anyone else's property. No government is going to agree with that. Furthermore, we all have the right to own property, and the state is the biggest violator of property rights that has ever existed.
neither the Congress nor the Judiciary has the Constitutional authority to enact any law which restricts the right to bear arms.
Of course they aren't going to let the Constitution get in their way.
That's what I was going to say in response to the OP: The 'unenumerated rights' would fall under those broad categories anyway. But as it turns out, isn't that the Declaration of Independence? The fourteenth amendment seems to come close, but doesn't actually describe those things as 'rights' and does explicitly say that they can be deprived under 'due process of law.'Senator Blackburn reminds us that "the Constitution grants us rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."