• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

did the USSC cause a problem with the bill or rights.

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
before the civil war in 1833 the USSC ruled that the states did not have to adhere to the federal bill of rights, because it was written to limit the federal government only.

however after the clvi war the USSC ruled the states now have to adhere to the federal bill of rights.

as i see it this creates an interesting problem.

first the federal bill of rights, stately clearly in its preamble that all of the clauses in it, are declaratory and restrictive to government powers.

since the USSC has ruled states now adhere to the federal bill, it has turned there state constitutions bill of rights into a second banana status, and no ones looks at them anymore, and everyone turns to the federal bill for any rights infringements by governments.

before the civil war, states were free to make laws, according to its own bill of rights, which varied from state to state, meaning, they according to there constitution could make gun laws, religion laws, other laws which cannot be made according to our federal bill.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

again this according to James Madison states that under the federal bill of rights, no laws can be made to infringe on the rights of the american people.......meaning ZERO! laws.

here are Madison own words on the subject of rights and the preamble to those rights, as the talks about the alien and sedition act, freedom of the press, and all other essential rights of the american people.

In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government. Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the Government.

Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.And might it not be asked, in turn, whether it is not more probable, under all the circumstances which have been reviewed, that the authority should be withheld by the Constitution, than that it should be left to a vague and violent construction, whilst so much pains were bestowed in enumerating other powers, and so many less important powers are included in the enumeration?

"That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore,( no right of any denomination) can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
Last edited:

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The constitution was amended after the civil war and the 14th amendment gave rise to the eventual incorporation doctrine used by the courts.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The constitution was amended after the civil war and the 14th amendment gave rise to the eventual incorporation doctrine used by the courts.
the 14th amendment to our Constitution does not in any way create any right. it states... the states, meaning their governments cannot discriminate, must treat everyone equal under the laws governments make, and that due process, privileges and immunities of each state which they themselves provide, must be equally applied to all the people of the state.

rights cannot be created by government, right to vote, privacy, travel, all come from the 9th amendment.....if right to marry were to come into being...it would fall under the 9th also.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,941
Reaction score
11,562
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
rights cannot be created by government, right to vote, privacy, travel, all come from the 9th amendment....
The concept of a "right to privacy" did not exist in 1800; people simply were not thinking in those terms. It would be nearly 100 years before anyone articulated that right.

Does that mean that, because the framers did not recognize it, that it did not exist at all? Or did it exist all along, waiting for social conditions to change such that it could be recognized?

No. What happened was we realized we ought to recognize the importance of privacy, we decided it was worth protecting, and governments started protecting it. We created a "right to privacy." And yes, government actions -- such as other nations including explicit privacy rights in their constitutions -- are ways that both governments and their citizens "create rights."
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The concept of a "right to privacy" did not exist in 1800; people simply were not thinking in those terms. It would be nearly 100 years before anyone articulated that right.

Does that mean that, because the framers did not recognize it, that it did not exist at all? Or did it exist all along, waiting for social conditions to change such that it could be recognized?

No. What happened was we realized we ought to recognize the importance of privacy, we decided it was worth protecting, and governments started protecting it. We created a "right to privacy." And yes, government actions -- such as other nations including explicit privacy rights in their constitutions -- are ways that both governments and their citizens "create rights."
well what i am saying is, government/people cannot create a right in the sense of an amendment, when the right to privacy came about, it came through the avenue of the 9th amendment.

for the creation of a right through a new amendmen, defines the founding principles, which are in the fundamental/ organic law of america also u.s. code the DOI which states rights come from the creator, not government or man.

becuase rights come from the creator, or and entity which is higher than government or the people, rights cannot be taken away by government or the people, because they didn't give them, this makes rights unalienable.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,941
Reaction score
11,562
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
well what i am saying is, government/people cannot create a right in the sense of an amendment, when the right to privacy came about, it came through the avenue of the 9th amendment.
It did not. The standard claim is that the right to privacy is implied in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments. Some constructionists flatly deny the idea that the Constitution guarantees any privacy rights at all.

In addition, nothing would prevent us from amending the Constitution to add a federal recognition and/or protection for a right to privacy. The 9th Amendment does not state that "no other rights can be stipulated on the federal level or by the Constitution." (Even if it did, any such clause could be voided via amendment.)


for the creation of a right through a new amendmen, defies the founding principles....
Only if you believe that the only human beings on earth who are capable of deciding what qualifies as a "human right" are a bunch of dead, white, mostly affluent, mostly slave-owning politicians. Who, I might add, were willing to compromise many of those principles just to get the document out the door.


becuase rights come from the creator
What "creator?" Brahma? Allah? Prometheus? My parents? My DNA?

Why did it take around 300,000 years for the creator to bother to fill us in on these rights? If you are a Christian, for example, why weren't we told to adopt electoral politics and specific inherent human rights around 2000 years ago?

How did the "creator" tell us what rights are the right one? Did I miss Jefferson coming down the mountain with a bunch of tablets?


and entity which is higher than government or the people
1) No such entity exists. (Or, at least, not everyone believes that such an entity exists and/or instilled human rights.)
2) Even if such an entity exists, it is absurd to think that this entity believes in a divine separation between "states" and "federal governments." That's a purely human invention based on purely human political conditions.
3) Even if you believe such an entity exists, It did not come down to earth, write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I.e. proclaiming that some supernatural entity is involved does not provide a secure list of what rights make the cut.
4) Even if you believe such an entity exists AND somewhere wrote down a definitive list of rights, that STILL doesn't mean that we, as a society, cannot decide for ourselves what rights to respect and protect. I.e. if the government decides "we will explicitly protect privacy rights," they can do that.


rights cannot be taken away by government or the people.
Of course they can. They do so all the time, without any indication of incurring divine wroth.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It did not. The standard claim is that the right to privacy is implied in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments. Some constructionists flatly deny the idea that the Constitution guarantees any privacy rights at all.

In addition, nothing would prevent us from amending the Constitution to add a federal recognition and/or protection for a right to privacy. The 9th Amendment does not state that "no other rights can be stipulated on the federal level or by the Constitution." (Even if it did, any such clause could be voided via amendment.)



Only if you believe that the only human beings on earth who are capable of deciding what qualifies as a "human right" are a bunch of dead, white, mostly affluent, mostly slave-owning politicians. Who, I might add, were willing to compromise many of those principles just to get the document out the door.



What "creator?" Brahma? Allah? Prometheus? My parents? My DNA?

Why did it take around 300,000 years for the creator to bother to fill us in on these rights? If you are a Christian, for example, why weren't we told to adopt electoral politics and specific inherent human rights around 2000 years ago?

How did the "creator" tell us what rights are the right one? Did I miss Jefferson coming down the mountain with a bunch of tablets?



1) No such entity exists. (Or, at least, not everyone believes that such an entity exists and/or instilled human rights.)
2) Even if such an entity exists, it is absurd to think that this entity believes in a divine separation between "states" and "federal governments." That's a purely human invention based on purely human political conditions.
3) Even if you believe such an entity exists, It did not come down to earth, write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I.e. proclaiming that some supernatural entity is involved does not provide a secure list of what rights make the cut.
4) Even if you believe such an entity exists AND somewhere wrote down a definitive list of rights, that STILL doesn't mean that we, as a society, cannot decide for ourselves what rights to respect and protect. I.e. if the government decides "we will explicitly protect privacy rights," they can do that.



Of course they can. They do so all the time, without any indication of incurring divine wroth.

i am not trip+, and i am not going to write a book i am sorry.

if government or the people could create rights, then they would most definitely create rights to commodities, ..material goods or services, and that would be unconstitutional, becuase it would lay a cost, or burden of labor onto another citizen, and that cannot be done, per our founding principles.

added to that if rights could be created, then they also could be taken away....what happened to unalienable rights.........you would have rights being created for a section of the population only, and rights being taken away from sections of the population........know has mod rule.

in republican forms of government people dont have the power to vote on rights of other people, or give themselves other people's property.


Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."--john adams


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Of course they can. Indeed, rights not created by government are useless.

sorry, ........governments dont create rights, if they did then they could take away rights, they are given power to secure .......not create

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,941
Reaction score
11,562
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
if government or the people could create rights, then they would most definitely create rights to commodities, ..material goods or services, and that would be unconstitutional, becuase it would lay a cost, or burden of labor onto another citizen....
Government creation of rights (or, to be more accurate, government plus societal creation of rights) does not have anything to do with socialism or communism.

For example, neither contractualism or consequentialism rely on inherent rights, and neither necessarily produce socialism. Consequentialism, in fact, is often utilized as an ethical basis for libertarianism (e.g. Mill's utilitarianism).


added to that if rights could be created, then they also could be taken away.
Yes. And as I said, governments can and do curtail rights, on a regular basis.


you would have rights being created for a section of the population only, and rights being taken away from sections of the population.
1) We already saw that when the constitution was adopted. E.g. slaves were deprived of all their rights; women did not have the right to vote, and so forth.
2) As long as the constitution in question holds that the law must be applied equally, we are less likely to create rights that favor one specific group.


in republican forms of government people dont have the power to vote on rights of other people, or give themselves other people's property.
Our government has voted to grant various rights to groups, and does have the power to seize and reallocate property.


Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
So again, why are Jefferson and/or Adams the only ones who gets to decide which rights are or are not inherent? Are they infallible, like the Pope? Who declared them to be perfect?

What was their source for the short list of rights? Why didn't they know about property rights, if they were so perfect? Why did they omit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,744
Reaction score
75,502
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
FIFY

10 char
dont know about that

you see my younger brother used to live in New Haven in a building that was owned by "the family"

My brother was a professional photographer and would often leave Nikon cameras in his girlfriend's BMW. I said-Hey dude, someone's gonna steal those cameras. he just smiled and said his property was "don insured". I said WTF does that mean. he handed me a copy of the local paper. A juvi delinquent with a long record was found in Long Island Sound with a "sicilian necktie" My brother noted this kid had been implicated in robbing one of the apartment residents a couple days before

so my brother's right to his property was not defended by the government but his rights were pretty strongly guaranteed
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Government creation of rights (or, to be more accurate, government plus societal creation of rights) does not have anything to do with socialism or communism.

For example, neither contractualism or consequentialism rely on inherent rights, and neither necessarily produce socialism. Consequentialism, in fact, is often utilized as an ethical basis for libertarianism (e.g. Mill's utilitarianism).
the founders state people by nature are self-severing, and when they vote, they will always vote in their own self interest. if the american people ever have the ability to create rights, they shall create things which they themselves shall directly benefit from, food, water housing education, and anything they can dream of, and take from their neighbor.

Yes. And as I said, governments can and do curtail rights, on a regular basis.
yes, and no,... one problem that seems to get confused is about rights is, government cannot abolish rights, meaning to eliminate them. yes... rights can be curtailed, when you on others property, or public property where you have a captive audience, however you free exercise your free speech, on the corner, of a public square becuase other people have the ability to walk away, where as someone who goes to a public building to some kind of service ,does not have that luxury since they have to transact some business.

1) We already saw that when the constitution was adopted. E.g. slaves were deprived of all their rights; women did not have the right to vote, and so forth.
2) As long as the constitution in question holds that the law must be applied equally, we are less likely to create rights that favor one specific group.
here is what you not getting, under democracy or rule of the majority, nothing stands up to majority rule, constitutions can be override by the majority vote, and people given anything as long as they have the power....which is why our government was not created a democratic government but a republican one, one is which rights of the people, are not in governments or the people hands, but from a higher power.

our constitution, was written to allow the people to change our constitution, people however were not given power to change the bill or rights as the founders state, if the bill or rights are ever altered or added to or repealed, it will be a disaster to America.

Our government has voted to grant various rights to groups, and does have the power to seize and reallocate property.
wrong.... our government recognized rights which already existed has they stated, the constitution does not give or grant any rights, you will not see those words, the constitution affirmed your rights which already existed....government has the power to seize property but pay its value for it...., but only for use by the federal government, and it must be for the benefit of all, not just a few.

they have no power to redistribute any property to other citizens.

So again, why are Jefferson and/or Adams the only ones who gets to decide which rights are or are not inherent? Are they infallible, like the Pope? Who declared them to be perfect?

What was their source for the short list of rights? Why didn't they know about property rights, if they were so perfect? Why did they omit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
you must know Madison spoke of rights also. MADISON SAYS: That, therefore,( no right of any denomination) can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

the bill or rights was a short list of rights, but they are not all of our rights, that is why the 9th, however they wanted some rights listed....you will note that no rights, lays a cost or burden to another citizen.

property rights, are the fountain of all rights, and they spoke plenty of property.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.<-------translates into property

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.----Samuel Adams

Wherever indeed a right of property is infringed for the general good, if the nature of the case admits of compensation, it ought to be made; but if compensation be impracticable, that impracticability ought to be an obstacle to a clearly essential reform.--Alexander Hamilton:

He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own, can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force. --Thomas Jefferson

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. --James Madison:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. --James Madison:

Why did they omit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?.......they didn't, its called due process of law......no matter if you have gun smoking in your hand and the body on the ground before you, ...you still have your day in court.
 
Last edited:

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
i am not trip+, and i am not going to write a book i am sorry.

'Scuse me, but how was I at all relevant to responding to his statements, particularly since I had not yet participated in this thread?

That + symbol following my nick generally came about for a reason, and if you'd be more comfortable with me explaining that with pictures and bubble dialogue boxes, I'll see what can be done within the parameters of this forum.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Government creation of rights (or, to be more accurate, government plus societal creation of rights) does not have anything to do with socialism or communism.

For example, neither contractualism or consequentialism rely on inherent rights, and neither necessarily produce socialism. Consequentialism, in fact, is often utilized as an ethical basis for libertarianism (e.g. Mill's utilitarianism).

Government engineering society by dictate, rather than by obligation, invariably results in socialism and communism, particularly if those dictates are based on the desires of the many, without regard to the rights and protection of the few.

Philosophies of human interaction have little to do with the founding principle of this country that constituted our government, and provided the sole terms by which that government might be legitimate.

Yes. And as I said, governments can and do curtail rights, on a regular basis.
Government's can and do curtail rights, but not by the legitimate operation of a government, as recognize by the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation of this country.

Yes, this government can and does curtail rights, and has found a great many excuses for doing so, from public threat, to public benefit, yet none of these are legitimate under our Constitution.

The statement that governments can and do curtail rights, misses the point in an enormous way


1) We already saw that when the constitution was adopted. E.g. slaves were deprived of all their rights; women did not have the right to vote, and so forth.
2) As long as the constitution in question holds that the law must be applied equally, we are less likely to create rights that favor one specific group.
Slavery was not instituted, or even institutionalized, by the Constitution, and slavery did not happen "when the constitution was adopted".

Women did not have the franchise, because it is not any sort of positive right, and to this day is not described as such in the Constitution. Voting is not such a positive right, because "voting" is not one individual engaging an act independently of others, but relying on others to exercise that action.

The franchise of voting was deliberately not recognized to be universal, because the founders recognized that those voting should have "skin in the game". Our current corruption of governance believes that everyone should have a right to vote, deliberately not a principle of this country, and is something that has abused and corrupted the electoral process itself, turning government into a tool of agendas and government-legitimized theft.


Our government has voted to grant various rights to groups, and does have the power to seize and reallocate property.
Our corrupted form of government has fabricated a thing called "Civil Rights" which are entirely in conflict with individual rights, and is policed and dictated by government, the exact thing that true Rights are intended to prohibit and protect against.

Our government does not legitimately have the power to grant rights, nor to seize and reallocate property, and engaging in such may-well end this country.

So again, why are Jefferson and/or Adams the only ones who gets to decide which rights are or are not inherent? Are they infallible, like the Pope? Who declared them to be perfect?

What was their source for the short list of rights? Why didn't they know about property rights, if they were so perfect? Why did they omit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
They knew about property rights, and the Constitution was deliberately structured to protect those individual rights, inclusive of property, with these protections involving such things such as prohibiting government the exercise of any sort of 'agendas' through the institution of any direct tax, unless applied to the state as a whole according to the census, and other provisions.

Your belief that the founders didn't know about property rights, actually stems from what you don't know about the Constitution and those founders.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,941
Reaction score
11,562
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
the founders state people by nature are self-severing....
Oh, well, if the founders believed it, then obviously we have no choice but to slavishly agree with them. We can dispense with any lessons learned from 200 years of study and experience in political theory, the history of electoral politics, psychology, economics, or the mere idea of holding an independent opinion. Yes, we can't possibly have people thinking for themselves. :mrgreen:


if the american people ever have the ability to create rights, they shall create things which they themselves shall directly benefit from, food, water housing education, and anything they can dream of, and take from their neighbor.
What you're missing is that the public DOES create rights.

Calling a right "inherent" is just an excuse to try and take all debate over that item off the table.... and it fails to do so. Stating that "inherent rights come from the creator" opens a Pandora's Box of issues. As already noted: Which creator, how do we know which one, how do we know which rights are in fact inherent, how do we verify it, how would that prevent us from declaring additional rights, can the creator revoke rights, how do we know the creator hasn't revoked rights, what if we curtail an allegedly inherent right and nothing bad happens, etc etc.


one problem that seems to get confused is about rights is, government cannot abolish rights...
Yes, it can, and it does. Because there is no one, and no thing, that actually gives them to you. When you are born, you do not have a list of rights stamped on your back. Rights are agreed upon by the society at large.

For example, 30 years ago the idea of a right to same-sex marriage was inconceivable. Today, it is accepted by large constituencies in the US and abroad. This is a right that has been created by both the public and the government. In 30 years, protestations that "no such rights exist" will likely be as routinely rejected as the claim that "a black man and a white woman do not have the right to get married."

No deity gave Americans the right to racial intermarriage or same-sex marriage. It was the actions of advocates, the public and government officials who have and are securing those rights.


here is what you not getting, under democracy or rule of the majority, nothing stands up to majority rule....
Here is what you are not getting: A right is only going to be valid and respected as long as the general public respects it.

E.g. the right to be treated equal by government actions and laws, regardless of race, was disrespected for decades. The executive branch and legislature didn't care if it violated any constitutional injunctions or concepts of justice, and the Supreme Court did not defend those rights. It took extensive work by the Civil Rights Movement to convince the public, and through them their government, that the situation was deeply unjust and needed to be remedied.

Similarly, freedom of speech got a big whack right out of the gate with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Congress passed them, Adams signed them, the SCOTUS never reviewed them. The wording of the First Amendment was insufficient to prevent those laws from being passed or rejected.


our constitution, was written to allow the people to change our constitution, people however were not given power to change the bill or rights...
Yes, we do in fact have the power to change the Bill of Rights. We could scrap the entire Constitution if we wanted to, in the exact same manner that we replaced the Articles of Confederation. There are no limits whatsoever on what can be amended.


they have no power to redistribute any property to other citizens.
Kelo vs City of New London. Look it up.


Why did they omit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?.......they didn't.
The phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is conspicuous in its absence from the US Constitution. "Due process" is a guarantee of the respect of legal rights; it is not a list thereof. Proclaiming that the 5th Amendment explicitly licenses the presumption of innocence is, to put it mildly, reading into the Constitution.

In comparison, it is explicitly stated in the constitutions of other countries, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And no, this is not a right belonging to the states, it applies just as much to federal as state procedures. It's a right that someone forgot to put in the Constitution.


you must know Madison spoke of rights also.
Yeah, I don't particularly care. I'm not required to believe something because Madison said it. You should know that by now.

There are also plenty of ethicists who advocate universal and non-inherent rights -- Kant, Bentham, Mill, Scanlon and Parfit come to mind.
 

Gawain

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
503
Reaction score
85
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As in many cases SCOTUS simply got it wrong. At least the second time around. SCOTUS has also assumed powers not granted it in the constitution.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
'Scuse me, but how was I at all relevant to responding to his statements, particularly since I had not yet participated in this thread?

That + symbol following my nick generally came about for a reason, and if you'd be more comfortable with me explaining that with pictures and bubble dialogue boxes, I'll see what can be done within the parameters of this forum.
well my meaning was not a negative on you, i am lazy when it comes to responses sometimes, because people will breakup everything i say, and i hate having to respond to each individual thing.

so if you took my statement as a slight on you, i didn't mean it that way, your knowledge on the subjects, has been terrific, and you have the patience and drive it dont have in responding to other people, so i apologize Sir, if you felt offended by me.
 

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,688
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As in many cases SCOTUS simply got it wrong. At least the second time around. SCOTUS has also assumed powers not granted it in the constitution.
The federal government will always take the action that results in it having more power.
 

Trip

Spectemur Agendo
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, well, if the founders believed it, then obviously we have no choice but to slavishly agree with them. We can dispense with any lessons learned from 200 years of study and experience in political theory, the history of electoral politics, psychology, economics, or the mere idea of holding an independent opinion. Yes, we can't possibly have people thinking for themselves. :mrgreen:
Strange, the philosophy you seem to promote is not people thinking for themselves, much less acting for their own benefit, but others actually "thinking" for them, and dictating how they might act.

Given that this dictation of the terms of society is entirely incompatible with individual freedom, not to mention the terms of the Constitution itself, it is no surprise whatsoever that you seem to be habitually compelled to dismiss the "slavish" agreement with those founders and the individual freedoms they guaranteed, and instead advocate the neo-enslavement to fascistic dictate of present day ideologues, whose end justifies any means, and whose ideology is not altered by the fact of that end, much less any real regard for outcome.


What you're missing is that the public DOES create rights.

Calling a right "inherent" is just an excuse to try and take all debate over that item off the table.... and it fails to do so. Stating that "inherent rights come from the creator" opens a Pandora's Box of issues. As already noted: Which creator, how do we know which one, how do we know which rights are in fact inherent, how do we verify it, how would that prevent us from declaring additional rights, can the creator revoke rights, how do we know the creator hasn't revoked rights, what if we curtail an allegedly inherent right and nothing bad happens, etc etc.
No, in this country, both the public and their representatives, have absolutely no legitimate authority create any rights whatsoever.

Your claim that the government and "the public' might do so, is actually in disregard for real rights, subverting the very definition of rights themselves, so as to impose elitist Social Engineering designs upon the entirety of society and each and every individual, altering their lives by the dictate of but a few.

To be blunt the deflection of "which creator" should have left the discussion table with elementary school, which is one of the more jejune positions I've seen, but absolutely necessary for Social Engineering fascists to adopt. The important point of the DOI's reference is that they are "innate" to the individual, and not provided by any government.


Yes, it can, and it does. Because there is no one, and no thing, that actually gives them to you. When you are born, you do not have a list of rights stamped on your back. Rights are agreed upon by the society at large.
This argument is as inane as the claim that their is no right to life, because one might take your life.

In Ernst's statement should actually be understood to apply to "in this country" , the government cannot "legitimately" abolish rights. THe government has no such authority to dictate any laws whatsoever to all the states much less engage in any social engineering. In fact the recognition of those rights, and their being "innate", is specifically for the reason that governments have, and are prone to, dictate the terms of society - tyranny.

There is no legitimate "right" to gay marriage supported anywhere in the Constitution. This is a gross corruption of rights, which only apply to the individual, and does not apply to outcome or recognition in society itself. And no Court or legislative body has any legitimate authority to declare there is any such "right" as SSM, or anything akin to that.



Here is what you are not getting: A right is only going to be valid and respected as long as the general public respects it.
Here is what you are not getting about this country, and in fact the antithetical ideology which you embrace demands you reject: those rights as recognized in this country are irrelevant to the people's "respect" for them, and are recognized precisely because "the people" and their representatives are prone to disrespect them, particularly when acting on any sort of majority tyranny, or minority dictate of the terms of society.

In brief, what you're advocating and "not getting", not only isn't the terms of this country, but is entirely antithetical and hostile to the terms of this country, an anathema thereto. But welcome to America.


E.g. the right to be treated equal by government actions and laws, regardless of race, was disrespected for decades. The executive branch and legislature didn't care if it violated any constitutional injunctions or concepts of justice, and the Supreme Court did not defend those rights. It took extensive work by the Civil Rights Movement to convince the public, and through them their government, that the situation was deeply unjust and needed to be remedied.
As recognized in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebilius, there is no "right" to be free of taxation by the government's terms, i.e. outcome, and yet virtually the same Court members that supported this obscenity abrogating a full 80% of the Bill of Rights, real rights, would fabricate a right to outcome regarding SSM in DOMA, denying the same federal government's authority, this time only applicable to federal process, and in disregard of the fact that "rights" have nothing to do with outcome, particularly not under different terms.


Similarly, freedom of speech got a big whack right out of the gate with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Congress passed them, Adams signed them, the SCOTUS never reviewed them. The wording of the First Amendment was insufficient to prevent those laws from being passed or rejected.
The idea that the Alien and Sedition Acts were somehow compatible with the Constitution because "SCOTUS never reviewed them", and that they might be congruent with the First Amendment, is an extraordinary level of asinine employed to promote tyrannous government dictate.

The very fact that government is prone to such tyrannous dictate, is why the Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights instituted.

The very tyrannous nature of these Alien and Sedition Acts did not need to be recognized by any Supreme Court (nor would they be stopped by the mere existence of the 1st Amendment), but did in fact thrown the nation into such turmoil and calls for secession that it almost terminated our brief existence. The support of the Alien and Sedition Acts was a crucial factor in the demise of the Federalist Party, with representation in government dropping precipitously with the 1800 election, was a major factor in Vice President Aaron Burr's duel with Alexander Hamilton in 1804, and the Federalist Party's becoming entirely defunct by 1816 and eventually supplanted by the Whig Party.

The reference to the Alien and Sedition Acts really does not serve your argument at all, and is certainly not any example of legitimate governance under the Constitution, but rather the impulse for illegitimate tyranny regardless of that Constitution.

Yes, we do in fact have the power to change the Bill of Rights. We could scrap the entire Constitution if we wanted to, in the exact same manner that we replaced the Articles of Confederation. There are no limits whatsoever on what can be amended.
While you may claim that "we", the federal government, has the power to change the Bill of Rights, that federal government has no such legitimate power to do so.

That Bill of Rights is not any sort of provision by the Constituiton, but rather only bill, a "listing of particulars", that exists despite the Constitution, even as indicated by the 9th Amendment's indication of rights that exist that are nowhere specifically referenced by the preceding amendments.

While your "we" might try to claim an ability to alter that Bill of Rights, this will guarantee the full and prejudicial exercise of that 2nd Amendment against those "We" to whatever end is necessary to deny their outrageous and unacceptable belief.

they have no power to redistribute any property to other citizens.
Kelo vs City of New London. Look it up.
It's pretty clear that the Kelo case is an example of the government's inclination to abuse Eminent Domain for things that are entirely not for any direct public use, and only vaguely for public benefit of tax revenues. This case is a great exemplar of the corruption of the Supreme Court itself. Again this points to the important distinction between "power" and "legitimate power". .


The phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is conspicuous in its absence from the US Constitution. "Due process" is a guarantee of the respect of legal rights; it is not a list thereof. Proclaiming that the 5th Amendment explicitly licenses the presumption of innocence is, to put it mildly, reading into the Constitution.

In comparison, it is explicitly stated in the constitutions of other countries, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And no, this is not a right belonging to the states, it applies just as much to federal as state procedures. It's a right that someone forgot to put in the Constitution.
"Presumption of innocence" does not really need to be explicitly stated, as as it has a direct tradition in (English) common law, is a derivative of 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, and supported by simple logic. Quite obviously if a person is presumed to be guilty, presumed to have done something, it is recognized by logic that it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative, that a person did not do a thing. Presumption of guilty is only the advocacy of tyranny, but to no surprise the statists are prone to this presumption in their illegitimate expansion of federal authority.

Furthermore, presumption of innocence was not at all "forgotten" in the Constitution, not even ignoring it being already long recognized in the American tradition. Again, contrary to your personal belief, the Constitution does not create nor grant the rights that it enumerates, but rather only recognizes some portion of those rights that already exist. The Constitution only constitutes the federal government itself, providing the only terms of its legitimacy, beyond which it is recognized to be tyrannous. The federal government does not provide rights, nor can the government legitimately create rights, nor police them, as such authority is not only deliberately prohibited government, but also contrary to every principle upon which this country is based.


Yeah, I don't particularly care. I'm not required to believe something because Madison said it. You should know that by now.

There are also plenty of ethicists who advocate universal and non-inherent rights -- Kant, Bentham, Mill, Scanlon and Parfit come to mind.
To no surprise, there's a conflict here in your "logic". How might those rights be "universal" if they are "non-inherent" (innate)? Who is providing universal rights at this time, or at any time in mankind's history?

I know, I know, you don't really care about that conflict, but then I don't really care about your opinion, as it has no bearing whatsoever on the terms of our government, and is conspicuously in conflict with those terms.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
sorry, ........governments dont create rights, if they did then they could take away rights, they are given power to secure .......not create

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
So where do these so called RIGHTS come from if not from the insistence and power of the people acting through their government?

Do they come from a god or multitude of gods on high above the clouds or on some other planet?

Do they come from faeries or sprites?

Do they come from a giant easter bunny with purple ears and lots of giant chocolate eggs?

Are they just floating in the ether waiting to be snatched and claimed?
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So where do these so called RIGHTS come from if not from the insistence and power of the people acting through their government?

Do they come from a god or multitude of gods on high above the clouds or on some other planet?

Do they come from faeries or sprites?

Do they come from a giant easter bunny with purple ears and lots of giant chocolate eggs?

Are they just floating in the ether waiting to be snatched and claimed?

the court has stated they are from parts of the amendments, and some from the 9th

privacy comes from 4th, assembly from the 1st and the vote deemed as a right from the 9th by the court....even though the founders created no such right.

rights, be it god or natures god is subjective to the citizen, meaning its up to that citizens own interpretation, but what ever that interpretation is, it still means rights come from a higher power then government or the people, and since neither one of those two gives any rights, they have no power over something they did not give.

this make our rights unalienable, so that the mob, or a few like a government cannot take them from you, its very simple.

people try to read more into it then they should.

i will give you a clear fact what happens when governments and people get together to create rights.

read the south African Constitution, written several years back in our modern age, it has rights to food, water, housing, and its says a person has free speech, as long as you do not offend someone, and it also states that you have your rights, until government says you no longer due.....great constitution?... i hardly think so.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the court has stated they are from parts of the amendments, and some from the 9th

privacy comes from 4th, assembly from the 1st and the vote deemed as a right from the 9th by the court....even though the founders created no such right.

rights, be it god or natures god is subjective to the citizen, meaning its up to that citizens own interpretation, but what ever that interpretation is, it still means rights come from a higher power then government or the people, and since neither one of those two gives any rights, they have no power over something they did not give.

this make our rights unalienable, so that the mob, or a few like a government cannot take them from you, its very simple.

people try to read more into it then they should.

i will give you a clear fact what happens when governments and people get together to create rights.

read the south African Constitution, written several years back in our modern age, it has rights to food, water, housing, and its says a person has free speech, as long as you do not offend someone, and it also states that you have your rights, until government says you no longer due.....great constitution?... i hardly think so.
So by your own admission, the people through the government do indeed create rights?

What about the others?

let me ask again.... where do these rights come from if not from the people demanding that government recognize certain behaviors they demand be protected? Interpretation be damned. Where do they come from if not from the collective will of the people demanding recognition from their government?
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So by your own admission, the people through the government do indeed create rights?

What about the others?

let me ask again.... where do these rights come from if not from the people demanding that government recognize certain behaviors they demand be protected? Interpretation be damned. Where do they come from if not from the collective will of the people demanding recognition from their government?
well the government has created a right to vote......even though one does not exist.

all other rights i have statement have to do it natural rights, its natural to be secure in your person, and to assemble with those you wish to be with......

rights are not collective they are individual rights, as stated by the founders many times....collective rights mean, your rights would be contingent on what others think.

just because you and the majority ,might not like the way i exercise my rights, does not give you authority to take them from me.
 
Top Bottom