Define "rights".

[haymarket]

Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. You cannot grasp that there is a moral component to any just law. The Constitution is the legal embodiment of a specific moral code not some floating abstraction.

You are like Dr. Frankenstein making a monster.

This line from you is pure made up crap

So in truth, you would have been a defender of the Founders slave ownership because you would have lacked any real moral foundation to oppose it.

There is a huge chasm between the two positions that one simply acknowledges reality - in this case where rights come from - and the opposite one in which one supports a bad policy which is a direct contradiction to ones own stated beliefs as they were with Jefferson and some of the Founders. For you to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that I would have supported slavery shows how intellectually bankrupt you are that you have to resort to such perversion and twisting of what i actually said.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[haymarket]

As we have discussed, if you Google the phrase "define right", you will see that the word right is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

Constitutional rights would be a legal entitlement, which is different from a moral entitlement.

See, some people hold the opinion that people are entitled to such things as life, liberty, and property. I realize that, based on your faith, you think that people are NOT entitled to such things. That is our fundamental difference. You think that people are entitled only to what the government say, while I think that people are entitled to such things as life, liberty, and property DESPITE what the government says.

But yet you cannot define what you think a moral entitlement actually is.

 

[haymarket]

You have stated many times that there are no innate rights and that rights are whatever the state dishes out. Are you now denying this?

What I have repeatedly stated is that rights are a two step process that begins with the people demanding that a certain behavior be protected by the government as a right so they exert enough power or influence to force that to happen. That is NOT "whatever the state dishes out". It is what the people can achieve.

Again, you attempt to distort.... to pervert.... to change .... what I actually said into some foreign version that you made up out of your own intellectual bankrupt thinking.

 

[haymarket]

Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. You cannot grasp that there is a moral component to any just law. The Constitution is the legal embodiment of a specific moral code not some floating abstraction.

Feel free to explain where laws come from.

 

[Master PO]

actually - it does not. Actually it says far from the whole picture.

Here are the sources for the statements I have made:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FACT:
The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

FACT:
The Articles Congress certified eleven ratification conventions had adopted the proposed Constitution for their states on September 13, 1788, and in accordance with its resolution, the new Constitutional government began March 4, 1789.[42] (See above Ratification and beginning.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights

FACT:
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.[58]



The facts are as I have been stating them. If you don't like them, take it up with the authorities cited in the Wikipedia article.

You need a better history book my friend.

THE US Constitution was ratified on September 13 1788. It contained NO Amendments.

The Bill of Rights - the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified as announced by Thomas Jefferson on March 1, 1792 - two and one half years later.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times over its life. Not 17 times since its ratification as you wrongly claimed.

The hypocrisy of the Framers in the Dec of Ind is a separate issue from the strengths of the Constitution. Please do not confuse the two.

both bold parts of your statements show your error, you will not admit........

 

[Fletch]

You are like Dr. Frankenstein making a monster.

This line from you is pure made up crap



There is a huge chasm between the two positions that one simply acknowledges reality - in this case where rights come from - and the opposite one in which one supports a bad policy which is a direct contradiction to ones own stated beliefs as they were with Jefferson and some of the Founders. For you to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that I would have supported slavery shows how intellectually bankrupt you are that you have to resort to such perversion and twisting of what i actually said.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

This is just another example of you not being able to understand the consequences of your own position. When you argue as you do that there are no innate rights, then there is no moral argument against slavery. The rights of blacks were not protected by law and since you see law as the source of rights, you have no moral argument that you would have been able to formulate during those years when slavery was legal. Unable to formulate a moral argument against slavery you would have certainly supported it. That's a fact. That it upsets you is your fault, not mine.

 

[Fletch]

What I have repeatedly stated is that rights are a two step process that begins with the people demanding that a certain behavior be protected by the government as a right so they exert enough power or influence to force that to happen. That is NOT "whatever the state dishes out". It is what the people can achieve.

Again, you attempt to distort.... to pervert.... to change .... what I actually said into some foreign version that you made up out of your own intellectual bankrupt thinking.

And what the people cannot achieve, they have no right to. So by default, it is the state that possesses the innate rights in your mind. What you argue for is that might makes right and that is barbaric and morally bankrupt. But that is your position. Congrats.

 

[Green Man]

But yet you cannot define what you think a moral entitlement actually is.

A just claim based upon moral principles.

Since you apparently have no moral code, you obviously would not understand such a concept. But there are people who have a moral code that informs them as the the rightness or wrongness of various actions. To such a person, his fellow man has a just claim, based on moral principles, to such things as life, liberty, and property.

 

[Fletch]

Feel free to explain where laws come from.

Laws can come from whim or they can come from an adherence to moral law. You reject the concept of moral law, so to you, law is whatever the tyrant or the mob wishes it to be. So you advocate law but not justice.

 

[Green Man]

What I have repeatedly stated is that rights are a two step process that begins with the people demanding that a certain behavior be protected by the government as a right so they exert enough power or influence to force that to happen. That is NOT "whatever the state dishes out". It is what the people can achieve.

Again, you attempt to distort.... to pervert.... to change .... what I actually said into some foreign version that you made up out of your own intellectual bankrupt thinking.

Again, you have a very narrow view of the definition of "right". Many other people consider a right to be a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. You are talking about only legal entitlements, not moral entitlements, which most people hold.

For example, because I hold that it is morally wrong to walk up and punch someone in the face, I consider other people to have a moral entitlement (i.e. a right) not to have someone walk up and punch them in the face. Similarly, because I hold that it is morally wrong to enslave another person, I consider other people to have a moral entitlement (i.e. a right) not to be enslaved.

So if, by chance, chattel slavery were still legal, I would oppose it, and insist that people have a right not to be enslaved. Because you have no moral code, you would insist that people have no right not to be enslaved, and you would tell me to quit my carping, moaning, etc.

 

[Fletch]

Again, you have a very narrow view of the definition of "right". Many other people consider a right to be a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. You are talking about only legal entitlements, not moral entitlements, which most people hold.

For example, because I hold that it is morally wrong to walk up and punch someone in the face, I consider other people to have a moral entitlement (i.e. a right) not to have someone walk up and punch them in the face. Similarly, because I hold that it is morally wrong to enslave another person, I consider other people to have a moral entitlement (i.e. a right) not to be enslaved.

So if, by chance, chattel slavery were still legal, I would oppose it, and insist that people have a right not to be enslaved. Because you have no moral code, you would insist that people have no right not to be enslaved, and you would tell me to quit my carping, moaning, etc.

Exactly. Haymarket would not be able to make a moral argument against slavery because he cant make moral arguments. He would simply have to wait until there was enough public support for the abolition of slavery to wrap his mind around the idea that people ought to have a 'right' not to be enslaved. If that never came, he would be stuck arguing that slavery was not a moral crime at all and was, in fact, quite legal.

 

[Master PO]

Laws can come from whim or they can come from an adherence to moral law. You reject the concept of moral law, so to you, law is whatever the tyrant or the mob wishes it to be. So you advocate law but not justice.

good point you made, the founders did not want laws made on whims or passions of the people.

 

[chuck71]

What state encourages infringement of fundamental rights?

Alabama for one, up until the Civil Rights movement in the late 1950's and 60's. But your question is coming from the present day, so I would have to say none.

 

[chuck71]

Binding only "between the States so ratifying the Same."

I hope your not saying that it was only BINDING to the 9 states that ratified it!

 

[chuck71]

today people are confused.


equality under the law means every law passed [by a legislature]must applied to every citizen equally.

it however does not mean a legislature is to create laws to make every citizen equal, because a citizen in exercising his property does something the government JUST does not like.

in other words, .........my company makes a policy for itself, that policy does no have to be equal for the all employees........because my company is not a government, and does not make laws.

it is equality under the law, ......it is not..... equality of citizens by laws

I don't quite understand your statement, but I must confess that I have half a glass of vodka in my system. I agree that people are confused.

 

[chuck71]

How does that reality invalidate the actual Constitution?

It doesn't!

 

[chuck71]

faith is when you believe what you chose to believe when there is no hard evidence to tell you your belief is valid.

But your problem is that you think 'Hard Evidence' has to be material and scientific, it doesn't, it can be Spiritual!

 

[chuck71]

haymarket does not believe in anything of god or a higher power, he believes people create their own rights, and those officials elected by the people rule over the people.

the federal government is the sole authority.

That's the impression I get. But when he asked me 'What makes you thing I don't believe in God" (not an exact quote), I thought there was a glimmer of hope.

 

[chuck71]

What makes you such a slippery devil and why conversations with you are just endless games of tail chaising is that you speak out of both sides of your mouth. And when you disagree with a particular proposition, you either mischaracterize it or just fail to grasp it. According to your position, slaves in Jeffersons era had no rights because the state--who is the arbiter and distributor of rights in your eyes didn't grant any such things to blacks. So in truth, you would have been a defender of the Founders slave ownership because you would have lacked any real moral foundation to oppose it. What Jefferson and friends did was come up with the moral argument for the abolition of slavery that you, even to this day, fail to grasp. You are like a modern day Scribe who sees law as an end in itself. The founders believed that there was a moral law that governed all things and that human law, to be just, must be governed by it as well. You confuse morality with majority, have your head buried in concrete and bend to the will of the mob, I assume because your mind is incapable of grasping the abstract or adhering to any moral principles. Rights are a moral concept derived from an understanding of an objective moral code. That, however, is too much for you. It is much easier for you cling to the childish notion that rights are passed out by the state like candy on Halloween.

You hit the nail right on the head when you say: "The founders believed that there was a moral law that governed all things and that human law, to be just, must be governed by it as well".

 

[haymarket]

both bold parts of your statements show your error, you will not admit........

What you seem to not understand is that in those years there was no means of instant communication that existed in the nation over long distances. This was especially the case in winter months when travel was even slower and sometimes even halted between northern states. Thus is was very possible for the final state to approve the Constitution and thus hit the magic number for ratification but then days and even weeks go by as the nation does not even realize that it happened. And then when the realization is there, the official mechanism has to spring into place accepting the last states verification and the Continental Congress assembling to make the decision to put the new government in place. And as you probably know, even when the ninth state did ratify, the Congress waited until other states added their approval to the document. Thus the difference in dates you are citing and I am citing.

Here are the sources for the dates provided and the statements given which are supported by those sources:

Here are the sources for the statements I have made:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FACT:
The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

FACT:
The Articles Congress certified eleven ratification conventions had adopted the proposed Constitution for their states on September 13, 1788, and in accordance with its resolution, the new Constitutional government began March 4, 1789.[42] (See above Ratification and beginning.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights

FACT:
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.[58]




The same thing with Jefferson in his capacity as Secretary of State. The statement cleary says that the Constitution was ratified and then Jefferson announced it March 1, 1792.

 

[haymarket]

This is just another example of you not being able to understand the consequences of your own position. When you argue as you do that there are no innate rights, then there is no moral argument against slavery. The rights of blacks were not protected by law and since you see law as the source of rights, you have no moral argument that you would have been able to formulate during those years when slavery was legal. Unable to formulate a moral argument against slavery you would have certainly supported it. That's a fact. That it upsets you is your fault, not mine.

The so called "consequences" of my position are things that YOU dreamt up and YOU provided based on how YOU understand them and how YOU want to interpret them in the worst possible light.

There is a very practical argument against slavery that has nothing at all to do with innate rights or natural rights: human beings are not physical objects to be owned as property.

 

[haymarket]

And what the people cannot achieve, they have no right to. So by default, it is the state that possesses the innate rights in your mind. What you argue for is that might makes right and that is barbaric and morally bankrupt. But that is your position. Congrats.

What is it that disturbs you about the historical reality that rights are won by the people and not given out like halloween candy treats to costumed toddlers by the gods from on high?

The fact is that rights are indeed won - sometimes very hard won. And it is also fact that the state often resists - and to use your word resists in a "barbaric" fashion.

You do not seem to want to understand that my position is merely observing historical reality. And that is what I am describing when I say that rights are achieved starting with the people desiring a certain behavior to be protected by the government so they exert enough power or influence to make that happen.

That is simply reality stripped away of all the flowery platitudes and high fallutin theories. Its just the way it is.

 

[haymarket]

A just claim based upon moral principles.

Two questions about your definition:
1- what is JUST?
2- what MORAL PRINCIPLES are you talking about?

 

[haymarket]

Laws can come from whim or they can come from an adherence to moral law. You reject the concept of moral law, so to you, law is whatever the tyrant or the mob wishes it to be. So you advocate law but not justice.

What you call the MOB - I and our Constitution call THE PEOPLE. And there is a huge difference between the two. You want to think of the people as a pejorative... a negative .... so you attach the name of MOB to them. That reveals your true feelings about the American people.

 

[haymarket]

Again, you have a very narrow view of the definition of "right". Many other people consider a right to be a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. You are talking about only legal entitlements, not moral entitlements, which most people hold.

For example, because I hold that it is morally wrong to walk up and punch someone in the face, I consider other people to have a moral entitlement (i.e. a right) not to have someone walk up and punch them in the face. Similarly, because I hold that it is morally wrong to enslave another person, I consider other people to have a moral entitlement (i.e. a right) not to be enslaved.

And if one does those things to you despite your moral entitlement - what has you so called right gotten you? The slave is still a slave and all the pompous personal pontifications about their moral entitlement of their innate rights or their natural rights does not change their actual practical situation one iota. The fact is they are still a slave with no rights despite your pretend moral entitlement.