Are There Any "Rights" That Are Completely Limitless?

[Cardinal Fang]

I'm not going in circles but you sure seem to be in an attempt to prove that a State is required for a person to have a right. It is not required, as even our Founding Father recognized more than 200 years ago. You are born with certain rights, they are self evident. How well you can exercise them depends on your own ability or requires the State supporting them but they exist.

Maybe at the bottom of the sea...

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

View attachment 67141300

Maybe at the bottom of the sea...

Don't worry. Even if you live in a pineapple under the sea you still have some rights.

 

[jwzg]

Don't worry. Even if you live in a pineapple under the sea you still have some rights.

 

[jwzg]

I just love the ignore list. When a failed argument turns to trolling, it's over.

 

[Adagio]

I was about to say right to an attorney and trial, but thanks to Bush and Obama, that simply isn't the case anymore either.

I read a great book by Judge Andrew Napolitano called "It's Dangerous to be Right When Your Government is Wrong." which listed every single right we think we have, then gave pretty compelling reasons and court cases that prove that we really don't.

I don't know why you're including Obama in this. Bush suspended Habeas Corpus. Obama didn't. The only time that is ever done is if the country is invaded or under insurection. Lincoln did it for that reason. There was no constitutional reason for Bush to do it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I don't know why you're including Obama in this. Bush suspended Habeas Corpus. Obama didn't. The only time that is ever done is if the country is invaded or under insurection. Lincoln did it for that reason. There was no constitutional reason for Bush to do it.

You should read up on the NDAA and come back.

 

[ARealConservative]

I don't know why you're including Obama in this. Bush suspended Habeas Corpus. Obama didn't. The only time that is ever done is if the country is invaded or under insurection. Lincoln did it for that reason. There was no constitutional reason for Bush to do it.

maybe because Obama is basically the 4th term of the Bush presidency as it pertains to these issues.

 

[Northern Light]

Every right has limits. If we lived completely free then we wouldn't need to have our rights delineated.

 

[Adagio]

maybe because Obama is basically the 4th term of the Bush presidency as it pertains to these issues.

I'm really not interested in opinions and sweeping generalizations as much as I am in facts. You included Obama in the suspension of habeas corpus and thats simply not true. I don't think anybody would confuse Bush with a liberal, and it's pretty well established by the most conservative voices that Obama's inaugural speech was probably as liberal or progressive as anything they've heard.

 

[ARealConservative]

I'm really not interested in opinions and sweeping generalizations as much as I am in facts. You included Obama in the suspension of habeas corpus and thats simply not true. I don't think anybody would confuse Bush with a liberal, and it's pretty well established by the most conservative voices that Obama's inaugural speech was probably as liberal or progressive as anything they've heard.

Obama has went further. He claims the power to kill American citizens anywhere in the world without due process.

His handlers will even joke about how dead kids should of picked better parents.

So I’m not really interested in Obot shills and their hypocrisy

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Restore habeas corpus rights for "enemy combatants"

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't know why you're including Obama in this. Bush suspended Habeas Corpus. Obama didn't. The only time that is ever done is if the country is invaded or under insurection. Lincoln did it for that reason. There was no constitutional reason for Bush to do it.

You're probably right, but what did Bush do to suspend Habeas? Effectively, or de jeure?

Of late, both Congress and the Executive suspended Habeas, with a blessing from one appellate court, by way of the amendment to last year's NDAA.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

maybe because Obama is basically the 4th term of the Bush presidency as it pertains to these issues.

LOL! The threat of terrorism is/was a real one. Not every action taken by Clinton or Bush was improper. Just the improper ones. The rest was and is necessary and appropriate. Anyone who claims an inability to distinguish between the policies of Bush and Obama in this area is simply claiming membership in a meaningless chorus of partisan magpies.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I'm really not interested in opinions and sweeping generalizations as much as I am in facts. You included Obama in the suspension of habeas corpus and thats simply not true.

Correct. Obama has perhaps had more difficulty than expected in restoring habeas rights that were previously suspended -- in large part because there is also no way to remove the taint from evidence previously tainted.

 

[YoungConserv]

I think the better question is are our rights subject to public opinion?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Obama has went further.

Really...

He claims the power to kill American citizens anywhere in the world without due process.

After careful review that finds the citizen poses an imminent threat of attack against the United States, that capture is not a viable option, and that the killing would be in line with the laws of war. Have you read the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, by any chance? Maybe you should give it a glance or two.

 

[Thoreau72]

LOL! The threat of terrorism is/was a real one. Not every action taken by Clinton or Bush was improper. Just the improper ones. The rest was and is necessary and appropriate. Anyone who claims an inability to distinguish between the policies of Bush and Obama in this area is simply claiming membership in a meaningless chorus of partisan magpies.

LOL, not every action taken was improper, but all the big ones were illegal. Thank God for understanding Attorneys General, eh?

And men like John Yoo, from the Office of Sophistry. But they can't hold a candle to Holder. :lamo

 

[Cardinal Fang]

LOL, not every action taken was improper, but all the big ones were illegal. Thank God for understanding Attorneys General, eh? And men like John Yoo, from the Office of Sophistry. But they can't hold a candle to Holder.

That's really very weak. 9/11 was a cold slap in the face to an administration and a nation that simply weren't prepared for it. The Bushies plainly overreacted and went to all sorts of excesses that didn't even require the benefit of hindsight to be recognized as foolish. But inside all of that is a lot of sometimes nasty stuff that cannot be done away with unless you wish to be a perennial sitting duck. There really are state secrets. There actually is a reason to have a window for warrantless wiretapping. There is not a reason to be asking mailmen to turn in suspicious customers.

 

[Adagio]

I think the better question is are our rights subject to public opinion?

Never. The idea of voting on what rights are, ignores the fact. If they're rights, they're not subject to public opinion.

 

[Adagio]

You're probably right, but what did Bush do to suspend Habeas? Effectively, or de jeure?

Of late, both Congress and the Executive suspended Habeas, with a blessing from one appellate court, by way of the amendment to last year's NDAA.

You're asking what he did to suspend it? He invoked an executive order. Eventually congress overturned it. Even a conservative controlled congress thought it was over the top.

 

[Thoreau72]

That's really very weak. 9/11 was a cold slap in the face to an administration and a nation that simply weren't prepared for it. The Bushies plainly overreacted and went to all sorts of excesses that didn't even require the benefit of hindsight to be recognized as foolish. But inside all of that is a lot of sometimes nasty stuff that cannot be done away with unless you wish to be a perennial sitting duck. There really are state secrets. There actually is a reason to have a window for warrantless wiretapping. There is not a reason to be asking mailmen to turn in suspicious customers.

Actually, I believed all that nonsense for about 4 years. I was just as traumatized as the next guy by the events of the day, but as time went on, and on beta-blocker therapy, I eventually realized it was an extremely well planned and executed false flag operation with telltale signs all over the place.

Speaking of state secrets, did you ever read 345US1 from March of 1953? U.S. v Reynolds. A WaPo article on Sunday June 22, 2003 reveals how fraudulent and mendacious the government was, 8 years before Ike warned of it in his Farewell Speech. All these years later, the government has mendacity down to a highly refined science.

That John Yoo is teaching at a "prestigious" law school illustrates how corrupted the system has become.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Okay. Moving on...

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes, let's pretend it didn't happen.