Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,426
- Reaction score
- 32,423
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Ordinary people can vote directly for the prime minister, in the UK, depending on which party is concerned, and under certain circumstances.
All rights come from the governments that have authority to enforce them within their jurisdictional boundaries.
So if a state doesn't grant a right within its borders you don't have that right within its borders.
They are not taking away anything, they aren't granting it.
Yes, and to be a right, it must be codified in law.
Correct.
But when a right is given (and backed up by law) it can only be taken away by law
So if you're granted a right (in law), and a local or subsequent government/administration tries to prevent you from exercising it (without repeal/subsequent law etc), you ***STILL*** have it. Which is where you were wrong earlier in the thread.
Certain states never granted certain rights. Not sure what you are talking about.
I'm talking about when citizens ***ARE*** granted rights (by law)
Local or subsequent governments cannot take those away, without recourse to the law.
So if they try to prevent citizens from exercising said right, those citizens ***STILL*** have that right even though they're prevented from exercising it
Which is contrary to what you previously said.
No, I never said anything of the sort.
....you don’t have a right if you can’t exercise it
Yes you did. Post#221 you said:
But you ***DO*** have a right even if you can't exercise it (if it's been previously granted by law
Local or subsequent governments cannot take a right away, without recourse to the law.
So if they prevent citizens from exercising a right (granted by law etc), those citizens ***STILL*** have that right even though they're prevented from exercising it
Try to remember what you wrote going forward.
that's liberal propaganda. You have an ID to get government services and benefits so why would you not have one to vote? Those who don't want to protect the vote with ID's must want to cheat. You have to have ID to get drivers license, welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, hunting license, marriage license. Stop with the infringment of voting rights because you have to register and have ID.Having a strict ID requirement inhibits the ability to vote more than once during a given election cycle or as (or on behalf of) multiple (other) people.
It is simply saying that rights that cannot be exercised are not rights. You read more into it.
American rights should apply across the board in the entire country. This would settle the matter once and for all.
So you're clearly referring to NATIONAL rights that (backed by LAW), that are restricted, or outright denied, in certain statesNot if it is left up to individual states, they don’t.
So, you're clearly saying that a right given nationally (and backed by law), when restricted or denied by local government, means that right doesn't exist (in that local area/state) - because the people there cannot exercise itNo, because you don’t have a right if you can’t exercise it.
Get back to me when you can drop the bull and carry on a debate.Nope, you are just one who's wrong.
Get back to me when you can drop the bull and carry on a debate.
If I were wrong, I would be happy to admit such. It's you that wrong and sadly your damaged ego will not let you admit it.Get back to the forum when you actually know what debate is and learn the humility to admit when you're wrong.
If I were wrong, I would be happy to admit such. It's you that wrong and sadly your damaged ego will not let you admit it.
Clearly that is not the case.
No, you originally said:
Then when advised that they do, you denied this was the case:
So you're clearly referring to NATIONAL rights that (backed by LAW), that are restricted, or outright denied, in certain states
Then when I tried to clarify:
"I think what you're trying to say is that people have the same rights across the USA, but their ability to exercise those rights vary from state to state."
You said:
So, you're clearly saying that a right given nationally (and backed by law), when restricted or denied by local government, means that right doesn't exist (in that local area/state) - because the people there cannot exercise it
And that is wrong.
Now stop wriggling and trying to backtrack. You were wrong so just admit it.
Why does one follow the other? You make such sweeping generalizations it's hard to discussionIf so then why don't we have a single mandatory universal national ID system? It would save billions and simplify everything.
American rights are only those that apply across all states.
Unfortunately, some see certain rights not as American rights but as states rights and treat them that way. And many rights are treated that way because no one can agree on what constitutes an American right. So the states did not take those rights away, they did not consider them American rights in the first place. It is the ongoing debate in this country.
You'll be waiting a very long time.Get back to me when you can drop the bull and carry on a debate.
Probably. Rich paints himself into a corner and then holds onto a bad argument indefinitely.You'll be waiting a very long time.
Probably. Rich paints himself into a corner and then holds onto a bad argument indefinitely.
Says the guy who doesn't know what an argument is.
Huh. I thought that WAS a law -- that you had to identify yourself -- regardless of circumstance. Apparently that's not the case (if wikipedia is correct).Basically, any law that demands a citizen identifies himself/herself to any LEO, is wrong.
Huh. I thought that WAS a law -- that you had to identify yourself -- regardless of circumstance. Apparently that's not the case (if wikipedia is correct).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?