Basic Rights

[obvious Child]

A government is nothing without an idea or course of action.
The Constitution is that. The list is valid.

Oh silly Bodhisattva. You actually think that the government abides to the Constitution these days?

That's funny.

Rights solely exist through government enforcement. And a government may pretend to be bound by its Constitution but it does not make it so as we have seen so many times in the past eight years. What the government gives, it can take away. And that includes rights. Habeus Corpus Mr. Lincoln? :2wave:

Rights are an entirely man made, man enforced concept. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can ensure our rights are enforced.

You'll have to excuse me since I don't believe that rights are God given, inalienable or inherent in Mankind. I've studied history far too often to realize that's a total load of garbage.

 

[Bodi]

Oh silly Bodhisattva. You actually think that the government abides to the Constitution these days?

That's funny.

Rights solely exist through government enforcement. And a government may pretend to be bound by its Constitution but it does not make it so as we have seen so many times in the past eight years. What the government gives, it can take away. And that includes rights. Habeus Corpus Mr. Lincoln? :2wave:

Rights are an entirely man made, man enforced concept. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can ensure our rights are enforced.

You'll have to excuse me since I don't believe that rights are God given, inalienable or inherent in Mankind. I've studied history far too often to realize that's a total load of garbage.

Dude! :roll:

It is not about what the DO do...
It is about the Social Contract and what they are SUPPOSED TO DO.

I never said anything about what the government is doing these days.
If you are going to take a superior attitude in hopes to dismiss my logical conclusions, the back up you interpretation or shut the **** up. :lol:

Seriously, what a joke.

Your communication skills suck, as do your interpretation skills. You are attributing my comments out of context, and I am afraid that this conversation will soon be at an end if it continues.

I agree with you that rights are man made... for they are. And that aligns PERFECTLY with my position the "ideas" and such outlined in the Constitution are man made and that, whether or not the government chooses to abide by them, they are more than simple a piece of paper and the ink that is written into it.

Dude, you even back me up yourself. "Rights are an entirely man made ... concept".
What are Rights, if they are not written down and understood?
We have rule books for sports too.

"Four legs good, two legs bad"

You sound like one of the sheep.

 

[obvious Child]

Dude! :roll:

It is not about what the DO do...
It is about the Social Contract and what they are SUPPOSED TO DO.

Hence why your argument fails. Your argument from a position of idealism rather then a position of what actually happens. We can believe in an ideal world that rights are inherent in man, that a piece of paper gives us these rights and that they cannot be taken away. The natural world laughs of course and loudly. If we look at how rights actually exist and behave, they are clearly from a position of enforcement. Once that enforcement stops, your rights stop. Meaning, ink on paper, a belief in a man in the sky and some inalienable factor of rights are worthless.

I agree with you that rights are man made... for they are. And that aligns PERFECTLY with my position the "ideas" and such outlined in the Constitution are man made and that, whether or not the government chooses to abide by them, they are more than simple a piece of paper and the ink that is written into it.

That's actually a different subject. Your argument as to the Constitution does not discuss enforcement. Hence why I've ignored it, It's not relevant specifically to the discussion. I'm not arguing that the Constitution is just ink and paper in general. I'm arguing that Constitution is just ink and paper when it comes to our actual, enforceable rights. Of course the Constitution is philosophy, a set of ideals. But that means nothing in the context of rights if there is no enforcement.

What are Rights, if they are not written down and understood?

You can have rights without them being written down. We see this in Anarchy. Who ever can enforce whatever they want gets that right.

 

[Bodi]

That's actually a different subject. Your argument as to the Constitution does not discuss enforcement. Hence why I've ignored it, It's not relevant specifically to the discussion. I'm not arguing that the Constitution is just ink and paper in general. I'm arguing that Constitution is just ink and paper when it comes to our actual, enforceable rights. Of course the Constitution is philosophy, a set of ideals. But that means nothing in the context of rights if there is no enforcement.

The BOLD...

You agree with me after all.
That wasn't so tough, was it?

I accept your concession.

Now we can go further if you like.

 

[American]

The current federal government is by and large one great big violation of the Constitution. From mucking around in local education to giving public land for private development, they have no idea what they're supposed to be doing, nor do they know enough about what they are trying to do to be anything other than abismal failures.

The Supreme Court of the United States has failed miserably. It has ruled from the bench, repeatedly and wrongly. Furthermore it has failed to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Finally, the Congress has become so corrupt and remiss, that it fails in its own standard to control the passing of unconstitutional legislation. There has been a systematic degeneration due to the failure of men to be honorable. Taxation is the result of this lack of honor and prudent judgment.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The Supreme Court of the United States has failed miserably. It has ruled from the bench, repeatedly and wrongly. Furthermore it has failed to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Finally, the Congress has become so corrupt and remiss, that it fails in its own standard to control the passing of unconstitutional legislation. There has been a systematic degeneration due to the failure of men to be honorable. Taxation is the result of this lack of honor and prudent judgment.

Are you saying that taxation is unconstitutional?

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by WeAreScrewedIn08
The current federal government is by and large one great big violation of the Constitution. From mucking around in local education to giving public land for private development, they have no idea what they're supposed to be doing, nor do they know enough about what they are trying to do to be anything other than abismal failures.

Originally Posted by American
The Supreme Court of the United States has failed miserably. It has ruled from the bench, repeatedly and wrongly. Furthermore it has failed to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Finally, the Congress has become so corrupt and remiss, that it fails in its own standard to control the passing of unconstitutional legislation. There has been a systematic degeneration due to the failure of men to be honorable. Taxation is the result of this lack of honor and prudent judgment.

Well said to the both of you.

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter
Are you saying that taxation is unconstitutional?

Where in the world do you get that our of his above comment?

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by Obvious Child
That's actually a different subject. Your argument as to the Constitution does not discuss enforcement. Hence why I've ignored it, It's not relevant specifically to the discussion. I'm not arguing that the Constitution is just ink and paper in general. I'm arguing that Constitution is just ink and paper when it comes to our actual, enforceable rights. Of course the Constitution is philosophy, a set of ideals. But that means nothing in the context of rights if there is no enforcement.

The BOLD...

You agree with me after all.
That wasn't so tough, was it?

I accept your concession.

Now we can go further if you like.

Perhaps you didn't see that you finally ended up agreeing with my original assertion after you unsuccessfully attmepted to defend your position?

"Boring" and "I got my ass handed to me" are two very different things... I understand your lack of desire to continue, though I marvel at yet another person, you, that doesn't have the balls to simply man up and say that they had a simple misunderstanding or that they didn't think the whole thing through before they started talking. Nothing wrong with that... it takes strength to admit a weakness. That is a trait of courage... taking the hard road.

I guess that I will just write you off as another irrelevant bafoonish DP Bonobo now that you have displayed your character to be so weak.

 

[Ethereal]

Obvious Child, you are being obtuse in your interpretation of what natural rights are. There is no way to claim an idea does not exist since to discuss it is to confirm that it does. No one is trying to say that rights have an inherent tangibility unto themselves, it's the self-evidence of these ideals that give them importance and relevance. Just because the government can violate a right does not mean they can extinguish the ideal. In essence I think you and Bohdi are actually in agreement, it seems the only issue is semantical.

 

[American]

Boy, has congress abused that last sentence. Worse than x-ians beating jebus into their kids.

Sheesh.

I see religious bigotry here. Totally uncalled for and off topic.

 

[American]

Well said to the both of you.




Where in the world do you get that our of his above comment?

Okay, I should have said, "overtaxation". The intent of taxation was to pay for operations of the govt, but not for it to grow beyond the constraints of the Constitution (which it has).

 

[Bodi]

Okay, I should have said, "overtaxation". The intent of taxation was to pay for operations of the govt, but not for it to grow beyond the constraints of the Constitution (which it has).

I agree 100%. The government has gone far beyond what the Founders intended, IMO.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

The piece of paper is just a piece of paper... yep.

What are the WORDS that are on that "piece of paper" though...

Now go back to my list and think again.

What is even more important than the word is the exact thoughts they where trying to convey. Words can be misconstrued and ammended to to numb the meaning down.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Well said to the both of you.




Where in the world do you get that our of his above comment?

Taxation is the result of this lack of honor and prudent judgment

Right there.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Okay, I should have said, "overtaxation". The intent of taxation was to pay for operations of the govt, but not for it to grow beyond the constraints of the Constitution (which it has).

Aww, alright. Then I agree with your post.

 

[Mach]

It is just a piece of paper. Without the American people to believe it in and enforce it, your list is void and null.

By itself, a piece of paper gives no rights.

Rights only exist when they can be enforced. And that is where the people come in.

The sooner people realize where rights actually come from the faster they can make better decisions on the concept of rights and how to apply them.

I agree. Whether it's a set of ideals, statements, paper, dreams, a philosophy, it is all irrlevant in the end, if no action is taken on it.

It's like that quote about being literate and not reading books - that's just as bad as being illiterate.

-Mach

 

[AlbinoWookie]

The concept of rights is somewhat misunderstood. The only rights you have are the rights that can be enforced by the government (like a new car every year). The idea of "natural" right is just foolish. Furthermore, just because no one is stopping you or potentially stopping you, does not mean you have the right to do something. As Bodhisattva pointed out, Congress can make and rescind a large amount of potential rights. If the Judicial branch did not have Constitutional Review (which it technically does not under the Constitution, but let's ignore that for now), Congress could give and take any right it wanted.

“Your Freedoms are not granted to you by the Bill of Rights. ‘We the People’ wrote the Bill of Right to put farther limitations on the government, the first amendment grant you the freedom of religion. The first amendment does not say you can attend any church you want. The first amendment does say that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Most people are aware that the Constitution has a Preamble, ‘We the People’ in order to form a more perfect union...
But very few people, I doubt that 1 in 10,000 people in the United State are aware that the Bill of Rights also has a Preamble and that preamble establishes these as farther restrictive and declaratory clauses. These are restrictive clause, they are put farther restrictions on the government, and they are also declaratory clauses. Does a declaration ask for permission? Did we write the Declaration of Independence to say, Dear King George, would it be ok with you, for us to start our own country. It was a Declaration of Independence. And the Bill of Rights is a Declaration of our Right. We do have the Freedom of Speech. We do have Religion. We are telling the government so. We are not asking permission.

How many people in the audience have ever fill out a government form that allows you to go to Church on Sundays? Not a single one. Nobody in the audience has a church permit? Because you do not require a permit in order to exercise a Right. A church permit is completely ludicrous, so then why, in the United States, if I have a Right to keep and bear arms, do I have to fill out a piece of paper to get a conceal carry permit. A gun permit is just a ludicrous as a church permit. And I don’t need no stinky permits.”

-- Michael Badnarik, 2004 President Candidate, Constitutional Scholar
(September 14, 2004, University of Virginia)

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I'll defer you to my last post.

Since it is the people putting representatives in congress, it is actually ourselves that takes our own rights away from us, if we so choose.

The most important thing about this however is holding our representatives accountable for thier decisions. The people must be more active in this regard because as was pointed out earlier, Congress has been making a series of bad decisions, one after another.

I disagree because if someone wanted to take your rights away they would just pretend to be a good person.
Then when the NWO came by and knocked on their door and said "Hey well give you 10 million dollars and power over America in our new world for your servitude"
Then hiring who you thought was a good person would't even matter.
We need a "Oh ****, the evil people took over the whole government" button just in case of skilled liars.

 

[oberhaenslir]

Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America?

.

I've always operated under the assumption that we, as Americans, are entitled to do anything we wish until a law is passed to limit that right. Recently I've come to realize that many people seem to think the only rights we have are those listed in the Constitution.



Does anyone have a convincing opinion on this?

I'm confused, too: Which constitution in which country?

One cannot answer this question because the meaning of 'American' isn't clear:

- A person or attribute of South or North America
- A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of South or North America
- A citizen or attribute of the ’United States of America’: the political correct term is 'US-American'

Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America? And from which country in one of theese 2 continents called 'America'?

'American' for 'US-American' is geographically and politically not correct.

This is a FACT not an OPINION.

.

 

[Lightdemon]

I disagree because if someone wanted to take your rights away they would just pretend to be a good person.
Then when the NWO came by and knocked on their door and said "Hey well give you 10 million dollars and power over America in our new world for your servitude"
Then hiring who you thought was a good person would't even matter.
We need a "Oh ****, the evil people took over the whole government" button just in case of skilled liars.

The "Oh ****" button is probably better known as Revolution.

 

[Katy J]

Re: Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America?

.



I'm confused, too: Which constitution in which country?

One cannot answer this question because the meaning of 'American' isn't clear:

- A person or attribute of South or North America
- A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of South or North America
- A citizen or attribute of the ’United States of America’: the political correct term is 'US-American'

Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America? And from which country in one of theese 2 continents called 'America'?

'American' for 'US-American' is geographically and politically not correct.

This is a FACT not an OPINION.

.

If you look at the forum we are in, you can clearly see we are in the United States only section.

If that doesn't answer your question I don't suppose anything will.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America?

.



I'm confused, too: Which constitution in which country?

One cannot answer this question because the meaning of 'American' isn't clear:

- A person or attribute of South or North America
- A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of South or North America
- A citizen or attribute of the ’United States of America’: the political correct term is 'US-American'

Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America? And from which country in one of theese 2 continents called 'America'?

'American' for 'US-American' is geographically and politically not correct.

This is a FACT not an OPINION.

.

No... sorry, that is just your opinion. The whole "politically not correct" thing, that is...

Also:

A·mer·i·can /əˈmɛrɪkən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-mer-i-kuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen.
2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: the American continents.
3. of or pertaining to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones.


#1 of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen.

Of course, there are the other two, but they are #2 and #3. #1 is for American Citizen, since that is what just about every honest person in the world means when they are talking about an American without first qualifying "Native American" or "Central American" or "South American". And speaking of politically incorrect... they are Native Americans or better yet... Souix, Cherokee, Crow, Etc.

So in the future, don't get too confused, just understand that when people talk of Americans without qualifying their statement, they are referring to US Citizens or inhabitants of The United States of America!

 

[Lightdemon]

When you hear this guy say:

"Oh yuuu, Ah-meh-di-CANz ahrk(flem) zo zillee."


Pierre probably don't mean the Mexicans. More than likely, when the French uses the word American, it's probably referring to some kind of deep fried food. :mrgreen:

 

[Doc Howl]

Can you name something specific that isn't listed in the Constitution, or isn't extrapolated from?

The right to travel.

The right to get your monkey on with the consenting adult of your choice.

The right to sing the blues.

 

[Doc Howl]

Re: Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America?

.



I'm confused, too: Which constitution in which country?

One cannot answer this question because the meaning of 'American' isn't clear:

- A person or attribute of South or North America
- A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of South or North America
- A citizen or attribute of the ’United States of America’: the political correct term is 'US-American'

Which 'Americans' do you mean? From North or South America? And from which country in one of theese 2 continents called 'America'?

'American' for 'US-American' is geographically and politically not correct.

This is a FACT not an OPINION.

.

But those other countries don't count. They're like 30 feet across, and they make drugs for us.