• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

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.

There is no such thing as natural rights. Rights come from the people demanding that a behavior be protected by the government and exerting enough power to mandate government to recognize that behavior as a right under the law.

They do not just float in the ether or come down from Mt. Olympus being dispensed by a plethora of gods in flowing white robes.
 
There is no such thing as natural rights. Rights come from the people demanding that a behavior be protected by the government and exerting enough power to mandate government to recognize that behavior as a right under the law.

They do not just float in the ether or come down from Mt. Olympus being dispensed by a plethora of gods in flowing white robes.


then if people demand rights as you say they do, ..why is any of the rights americans have now...not then been though demands, there is not a guarantee of a right to a material good or services, in our over 200 years exist, since people demand things?

where there are democracies are around earth, their people are given those things as rights, however we dont, becuase we not are created as a democracy.

our rights are not decided by government or people, becuase they would surely create rights, which violate the rights of other people.

do i or you in having /exercising a right, effect anyone...no. ....your speech, worship, freedom of assembly, life ,liberty.....no it lays no cost or burden on any other citizen, citizens are not here to pay the cost for their neighbor.

i ask you if you would read the South African constitution of 1996, that nation is a democracy and the constitution has rights which bestow on the population food water and shelter, and rights, until the government says you no longer have those rights.....this kind of constitution is built on the idea people create their own rights to things.

our constitution of 1787 is not built on democracy, or the foundation that you are the servant for you fellow citizen.

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and unalienable...remember i used the word "contingent", before in another post....... my rights are not based on what others think of them, rights are not collective, they are individual rights.

Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss, as legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.

The Declaration of Independence declares that "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" are the source of man's rights. The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government, and in no way depend on government for their existence. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this fact. These are known as absolute rights. Absolute rights belong to us due to the nature of our existence, are "unalienable" and "self-evident."

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can”--samual adams

“The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right”--james madison


what you in essence are telling me is this, "i dont want rights which are natural",...... "i want rights which are legal, and given to me though my government, and those rights can be altered at any time, against my wishes".
 
Last edited:
then if people demand rights as you say they do, ..why is any of the rights americans have now...not then been though demands, there is not a guarantee of a right to a material good or services, in our over 200 years exist, since people demand things?
Because not everyone in the US is a Communist or Socialist.

They also aren't expressed as rights. For example, two political scientists did a survey of international constitutions. The right for "natural resources for benefit of all" was way down the list (29 out of 188).


our rights are not decided by government or people, becuase they would surely create rights, which violate the rights of other people.
Rights have clearly been "decided by the government." That's how the Bill of Rights got selected to begin with.

There are also a lot of rights in that generic list which the US Constitution does not explicitly list, including:
• Private property
• Privacy
• Women's rights
• Freedom of movement
• Right to work
• Education right
• Judicial review
• Presumption of innocence
• right to unionize
• right to marry
• right to asylum


do i or you in having /exercising a right, effect anyone...no.
Yes.

A completely unfettered freedom of speech would allow someone to commit libel or slander with impunity, would allow one citizen to threaten another with bodily harm, would allow one person to encourage another person to immediately commit a violent act, would let you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and would let you disseminate child pr0n. Obviously, allowing these actions would result in harm to others, thus the government curtails those rights.


i ask you if you would read the South African constitution of 1996
Wow, you actually read another nation's constitution?!? I'm shocked.

By the way, this is what the "right to water" means. Hint: It doesn't mean that everyone gets a handout, or that without an explicit right you can't have water, or that similar goals can't be achieved by other means. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/rights.pdf

And yeah, sometimes you do need a government to decide that a scarce resource like water is managed properly. E.g. there are plenty of conflicts in Texas and the West over the proper allocation of water during a drought, and one of the many jobs of government is to arbitrate such disputes.


our constitution of 1787 is not built on democracy, or the foundation that you are the servant for you fellow citizen.
That's nice, but basically irrelevant.

1) It does include numerous democratic structures and elements.
2) The dislike for democracy by some of the framers has no binding force on us today.
3) Your personal distaste for democracy does not prove that inherent rights exist.


Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws....
Actual protection and enforcement of rights is contingent upon the laws, and the will by significant groups of the polity to defend them.

That's why African-Americans had to suffer decades of divisive, harmful and unjustifiable oppression before securing the right to vote without racist impediments, and access to the same public facilities as whites. Or are you going to suggest that "separate but equal" does, in fact, protect the rights of a minority...?


Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss...
Which means, what exactly? That we cannot possibly question which rights are "natural"? And again, who gets to decide which rights are inherent? You?


The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government....
Yeah, not so much. The idea that a citizen could refuse to board a soldier isn't exactly an ancient one. Nor are "states" an ancient and inherent political structure. In fact, the entire emphasis on states in the Constitution is clearly the result of contingent political conditions.

Also, last I checked, a lot of the concepts in the Bill of Rights don't exist in nature. Humans in a "state of nature" (i.e. prehistorical stateless societies) didn't have law courts, militias, warrants, juries or bail.


what you in essence are telling me is this, "i dont want rights which are natural",...... "i want rights which are legal, and given to me though my government, and those rights can be altered at any time, against my wishes".
I can't speak for Haymarket, but:

It's not a question of "want." It's a question of "existence." As in: Inherent rights do not exist.

Fortunately, we don't need inherent rights. We, as citizens in a society, can decide amongst ourselves which rights we choose to protect. It's what we've been doing for a few hundred years. It doesn't work perfectly, but in many cases it works as well as it's going to get.
 
There are also a lot of rights in that generic list which the US Constitution does not explicitly list, including:
• Private property
• Privacy
• Women's rights
• Freedom of movement
• Right to work
• Education right
• Judicial review
• Presumption of innocence
• right to unionize
• right to marry
• right to asylum


First, the idea that all rights would have to be specifically listed in the Constitution, comes from the belief that the Constitution actually provides, or grants, these rights, which is untrue. The rights are not provided by the Constitution, and only recognized therein, and thereby cannot be removed by subsequent amendments to that Constitution. The 9th Amendment itself confirms this, with its recognition of other rights that are not detailed in the previous 8 amendments.

Some of the above "rights' that the Constitution does not explicitly list, are already incorporated in other broader rights. The right to private property is integral to the right to ownership of ourselves, and what we act upon. The right to private property is supported by the 4th through 8th Amendments as well as the 9th Amendment's recognition of rights not specifically enumerated. and recognized in . The founders are conspicuous in their recognition of the importance of private property being integral to freedom.

A number of the things you list as "rights" are not rights at all, such as right to work, education, unionize, marry and asylum. Individual rights are solely innate to the individual and can be exercised without compelling any action by other individuals, who themselves have their own rights. Fabricating corrupt and non-existent rights to health care, work, education, and marry, actually result in some degree of compulsion upon other individuals, denying them their own rights, and even denying them of de facto ownership of themselves, and their own property, and compelling an involuntary servitude upon them, ranging from an obligation to act, to an obligation to recognize something. We see this with health care, creating involuntary servitude of some to pay the care of others. These "rights" are not rights at all.

Some of the claims of rights are absolutely screwy, particularly the "judicial review" and "asylum". I'm guessing that some aspect of your referenced "judicial review" goes beyond the rights detailed in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, but I hesitate to even imagine what it might be.

Furthermore, how could there possibly be a right to "asylum"? Asylum from what, and under what terms? And this imagined right of asylum presents an obligation to the federal government, that somehow supersedes national sovereignty? This claimed right to asylum seems to me to inherently involve a recognition of globalist obligation, a corrupt offshoot of Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power's, "Responsibility to Protect", which is nothing but an Open Society globalism, involving not just an excuse, but an obligation, to engage global actions based on only very corrupt political intent. We've seen this "responsibility to protect" applied to Libya, and the full and ongoing intention to apply it to Gaza, even as an excuse to invade Israel.
 
First, the idea that all rights would have to be specifically listed in the Constitution, comes from the belief that the Constitution actually provides, or grants, these rights, which is untrue. The rights are not provided by the Constitution, and only recognized therein, and thereby cannot be removed by subsequent amendments to that Constitution. The 9th Amendment itself confirms this, with its recognition of other rights that are not detailed in the previous 8 amendments.

Some of the above "rights' that the Constitution does not explicitly list, are already incorporated in other broader rights. The right to private property is integral to the right to ownership of ourselves, and what we act upon. The right to private property is supported by the 4th through 8th Amendments as well as the 9th Amendment's recognition of rights not specifically enumerated. and recognized in . The founders are conspicuous in their recognition of the importance of private property being integral to freedom.

A number of the things you list as "rights" are not rights at all, such as right to work, education, unionize, marry and asylum. Individual rights are solely innate to the individual and can be exercised without compelling any action by other individuals, who themselves have their own rights. Fabricating corrupt and non-existent rights to health care, work, education, and marry, actually result in some degree of compulsion upon other individuals, denying them their own rights, and even denying them of de facto ownership of themselves, and their own property, and compelling an involuntary servitude upon them, ranging from an obligation to act, to an obligation to recognize something. We see this with health care, creating involuntary servitude of some to pay the care of others. These "rights" are not rights at all.

Some of the claims of rights are absolutely screwy, particularly the "judicial review" and "asylum". I'm guessing that some aspect of your referenced "judicial review" goes beyond the rights detailed in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, but I hesitate to even imagine what it might be.

Furthermore, how could there possibly be a right to "asylum"? Asylum from what, and under what terms? And this imagined right of asylum presents an obligation to the federal government, that somehow supersedes national sovereignty? This claimed right to asylum seems to me to inherently involve a recognition of globalist obligation, a corrupt offshoot of Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power's, "Responsibility to Protect", which is nothing but an Open Society globalism, involving not just an excuse, but an obligation, to engage global actions based on only very corrupt political intent. We've seen this "responsibility to protect" applied to Libya, and the full and ongoing intention to apply it to Gaza, even as an excuse to invade Israel.

i knew you would answer him, so i held off.

that "yell fire" bit, they use it a sad and very poor example, and it shows they dont understand rights at all.
 
then if people demand rights as you say they do, ..why is any of the rights americans have now...not then been though demands, there is not a guarantee of a right to a material good or services, in our over 200 years exist, since people demand things?

You have talked about this before. I had no idea what you were trying to say before and I still don't.

This seems to be some fear you have or some special concern you have that obviously means something to you but which you do not express very well to me.

I really don't get what you are trying to say about this at all. Nor do I have any idea what this fear of yours has to do with where rights come from. As far as I can see in your posts, I was very very clear telling you how rights are enacted. You, on the other hand, refuse to say where these rights come from.

Why is that?

what you in essence are telling me is this, "i dont want rights which are natural",...... "i want rights which are legal, and given to me though my government, and those rights can be altered at any time, against my wishes".

No. What I told you is that there is not such a thing as natural rights. What I may want or not want has nothing to do with that reality.
 
You have talked about this before. I had no idea what you were trying to say before and I still don't.

This seems to be some fear you have or some special concern you have that obviously means something to you but which you do not express very well to me.

I really don't get what you are trying to say about this at all. Nor do I have any idea what this fear of yours has to do with where rights come from. As far as I can see in your posts, I was very very clear telling you how rights are enacted. You, on the other hand, refuse to say where these rights come from.

Why is that?



No. What I told you is that there is not such a thing as natural rights. What I may want or not want has nothing to do with that reality.


their are two types of thinking when it comes to man, the unconstrained, and the constrained version.....

people are the left believe in the unconstrained man, and that he can better himself and cure the ills that haunt him, by creating a better man, and society for himself.

then there is the constrained type of thinking for man, and the founders believed in this type of thinking, that man must be constrained by laws, if allowed to go unrestrained...... man will turn on his brother and abuse him.

man is not a pretty being, he can be cold and hateful and motivated by his own creed.

if man is allowed to have the power/control of his own rights, he will use that power to not only create new rights for himself, but he will also have the power to abolish rights for others among him.

man will use that power, and he will judge others them based on their race, sex, their political point of view, and their sexual point of view, and he/the majority will take away the rights from his fellow man.

that is why rights are never in the hands of man to choose what they are for themselves.
 
Last edited:
people are the left believe in the unconstrained man, and that he can better himself and cure the ills that haunt him, by creating a better man, and society for himself.
Where did you get this rather strange idea?

The left is just as diverse as the right. Some are anarchists, who reject the idea of government and believe the public can self-organize. Some believe that government is the best means to handle social problems, such as racial or economic injustices. Many do not believe that a "Better Man" can be created. Many are pro-regulation. Many are more than happy to use specific laws to constrain behaviors like racism or sexism, or to encourage behaviors like recycling or conserving energy.


then there is the constrained type of thinking for man, and the founders believed in this type of thinking, that man must be constrained by laws, if allowed to go unrestrained...... man will turn on his brother and abuse him.
There are also lots of right-wing libertarians who don't want any government constraints on them at all. Conservatives are also vehemently against regulation.


if man is allowed to have the power/control of his own rights, he will use that power to not only create new rights for himself, but he will also have the power to abolish rights for others among him.
Yeah, again, you're missing the point, namely that inherent rights don't exist.

No entity dropped out of the sky in 1787 with a list of Official Inherent Rights, and commanded the framers to make a government based on them. The reason why we respect some rights, and not others, is because of a whole host of contingent political conditions.

If inherent rights don't exist, then obviously the only option is for humans to decide by themselves, and for themselves, what rights we want to protect. It's not a "choice." Either you believe in inherent rights, or you don't.


man will use that power, and he will judge others them based on their race, sex, their political point of view, and their sexual point of view, and he/the majority will take away the rights from his fellow man.
Then why didn't the Founders fall into that exact same trap?

Oh, wait, they did. These perfect humans, whose words we should worship without considering any of the conflicts between them or the compromises they struck just to get out of a sweltering room in Philly, used their power to keep millions of blacks in slavery. Whilst uttering that the purpose of government is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Plus, ultimately it is people -- citizens and the government -- who have to do the hard work of defending rights. Merely marking it down on a piece of parchment is meaningless, as a century of slavery, followed by a century of crippling institutionalized racism, clearly demonstrates.
 
Where did you get this rather strange idea?

The left is just as diverse as the right. Some are anarchists, who reject the idea of government and believe the public can self-organize. Some believe that government is the best means to handle social problems, such as racial or economic injustices. Many do not believe that a "Better Man" can be created. Many are pro-regulation. Many are more than happy to use specific laws to constrain behaviors like racism or sexism, or to encourage behaviors like recycling or conserving energy.



There are also lots of right-wing libertarians who don't want any government constraints on them at all. Conservatives are also vehemently against regulation.



Yeah, again, you're missing the point, namely that inherent rights don't exist.

No entity dropped out of the sky in 1787 with a list of Official Inherent Rights, and commanded the framers to make a government based on them. The reason why we respect some rights, and not others, is because of a whole host of contingent political conditions.

If inherent rights don't exist, then obviously the only option is for humans to decide by themselves, and for themselves, what rights we want to protect. It's not a "choice." Either you believe in inherent rights, or you don't.



Then why didn't the Founders fall into that exact same trap?

Oh, wait, they did. These perfect humans, whose words we should worship without considering any of the conflicts between them or the compromises they struck just to get out of a sweltering room in Philly, used their power to keep millions of blacks in slavery. Whilst uttering that the purpose of government is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Plus, ultimately it is people -- citizens and the government -- who have to do the hard work of defending rights. Merely marking it down on a piece of parchment is meaningless, as a century of slavery, followed by a century of crippling institutionalized racism, clearly demonstrates.


advise, never use the "yell fire " example, becuase it is the worst thing to use when stating rights.

"yelling fire" is not illegal, it is the panic, harm you may cause from your words...not the word themselves.

if i an sitting in a theater, and i "yell fire", and no one moves, no harm is done, no panic, damage or lost of revenue, then what crime has been committed, ...becuase there is no victim.

my original statement has to do with the theories of the inner man, which these have been around a long time.

as i state before man must be constrained by laws, if you give him all direct power he will become tyrannical towards his neighbor.......that is one of the reason the u.s. constitution was created as a mixed constitution, and not a democracy
 
Yeah, again, you're missing the point, namely that inherent rights don't exist.

No entity dropped out of the sky in 1787 with a list of Official Inherent Rights, and commanded the framers to make a government based on them. The reason why we respect some rights, and not others, is because of a whole host of contingent political conditions.

If inherent rights don't exist, then obviously the only option is for humans to decide by themselves, and for themselves, what rights we want to protect. It's not a "choice." Either you believe in inherent rights, or you don't.

You're the one who missed the point as a result of your myopic distaste for religion. The references to God and "nature's God" in the Declaration do not necessitate that be a physical entity, for those rights to be recognized as inherent and innate. There are many other references to natural law philosophy even long preceding this country that do not necessitate any sort of deity passing on those rights.

The points is upon creation, upon existence, those rights exist and are innate to each individual.

Your idea that the government itself, or the mass of people, might themselves possess those rights is itself bogus, and worse. It is corrupt at its core, for no rights can truly exist when some are deemed to grant rights and pass them to others, and the entire history of mankind is testament to this. The only freedom that can truly exist for each equally, is when individual's innate rights check the transgressions of other individual's desires.

Inherent rights do exist.



Then why didn't the Founders fall into that exact same trap?

Oh, wait, they did. These perfect humans, whose words we should worship without considering any of the conflicts between them or the compromises they struck just to get out of a sweltering room in Philly, used their power to keep millions of blacks in slavery. Whilst uttering that the purpose of government is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Plus, ultimately it is people -- citizens and the government -- who have to do the hard work of defending rights. Merely marking it down on a piece of parchment is meaningless, as a century of slavery, followed by a century of crippling institutionalized racism, clearly demonstrates.


Those founders themselves were not perfect, and the men themselves are not worshiped, but the collective ideas they recognized were ideal.

Those compromises were actually what was necessary so that they themselves would not create the very form of government they sought to free themselves from.

The Constitution in no way instituted slavery, nor promoted it. And to promote real freedom, they first had to have real freedom recognized for the common man. Those white founders themselves were not free, and there was no precedent for them to be free prior to this government.

No, the people and the government do not ever do the "hard work of protecting rights". They both invariably, without exception, use fabricated authorities, among them even claims of rights, to deny the real, innate rights of others. In feudal times, rights were denied by a caste obligation progressing through the ranks of nobility up to kings. Have you ever paused to contemplate why titles of nobility are prohibited under the Constitution?

Unfortunately in contemporary times, the little scheming power mongers have come up with a new method to enslave men and deny freedoms. They began with first putting the federal government in charge of policing rights against private individuals, creating an obligation to some individuals from others, in disregard of the rights of those others, when those rights were intended to protect individuals from that very government itself. And now they have fabricated even more rights, such as collective rights. There's now an obligation to rights of the community, and gay rights, and rights of nature, and rights to communal safet, and more, all used to deny individuals their rights and freedoms.

These collective rights are nothing more than using corrupted rights as a back door to deny real rights to the individual, the very same rights that were denied under feudal obligation.

In fact this Progressive ideology is nothing but a neo-feudalism, in which that God you rail against so foolishly, is replaced by elitists who imagine themselves more enlightened and visionary than their fellow man. You don't have ahold of anything more rational at all, and it is in actual fact far more short-sighted and corrupt than what you so prejudicially reject.

Monarchical Government: God --> Monarchy (King) -> Government ("elites") --> Man
(Feudalism)

"Progressive" Neo-Feudalism: Elites --> Government --> Man
____

Biblical Law: God --> Man --> Men --> Government (social law)

Natural Law Republic (USofA):
God --> Man --> Government


What today's "Progressive" Socialism and Statism do is replace God with a few "elites", who deem themselves to have the rightful authority, and then pass the authority through government, down to man, recreating a neo-feudalistic society with its own form of “oblige", expressed as tyrannous mandates, regulations and laws, but no inherent legitimacy nor ethic, and no real regard for justice nor the lowly “serfs”.

But if you and the hapless throngs of ignorant masses want to come and take those rights, by all means, molon labe! I believe you're soon to see resolute proof that the government and masses do not provide rights at all.
 
advise, never use the "yell fire " example, becuase it is the worst thing to use when stating rights.
No, it is a very simple example of how rights are not absolute. You're causing panic -- by speaking freely.


my original statement has to do with the theories of the inner man, which these have been around a long time.
Your statement about the "unconstrained man" and political ideologies is obviously wrong.


as i state before man must be constrained by laws, if you give him all direct power he will become tyrannical towards his neighbor...
You can use laws as an instrument of tyranny.

And again, very few leftists do not want to use laws as a constraint -- you're only talking about anarchists, who are matched on the right by libertarians.
 
And again, very few leftists do not want to use laws as a constraint -- you're only talking about anarchists, who are matched on the right by libertarians.


0Dbrp.gif


I have to call an enormous B.S. to that. THe progressive statist utopians are all about using laws, not just as constraint, but even as dictate of every aspect of our lives, and even our speech.

Furthermore, there is no such political law of balance; there's no such "matching".

Anarchists are not a left/right thing by the inaccurate terms you're using, but rather anarchists are flakes advocating the absence of government, with today's progressive Marxist ideology demanding an obscene government authority, beyond anything legitimate in the Constitution, and intrusive dictate in every aspect of our lives. Libertarians have nothing whatsoever to do with Anarchists, and Anarchists have nothing whatsoever to do with today's statist authoritarian fascistic Progressives.

While libertarians might pass for the "right", in common inaccurate usage, they really do not reflect conservative ideals overall, nor the founding principles of this country, taking one aspect of those principles, individual liberty, and enlarging its focus to be the sole importance, sharing the same disturbing disregard for outcome with the progressive left.
 
Last edited:
No, it is a very simple example of how rights are not absolute. You're causing panic -- by speaking freely.

a right is an absolute, ...... your not understanding me, an absolute in the sense, that government cannot abolish the right all together, my rights can be curtailed when i am on others property's.....but the right itself cannot be done away with.

and as i stated before, its not the words themselves, ....it the panic, harm, lost of revenue......which you must answer for.

Your statement about the "unconstrained man" and political ideologies is obviously wrong.

The Battle of Big Ideas, Part 1: CONSTRAINED vs. UNCONSTRAINED - YouTube

You can use laws as an instrument of tyranny.

And again, very few leftists do not want to use laws as a constraint -- you're only talking about anarchists, who are matched on the right by libertarians.

really?...affirmative action, minimum wage, discrimination laws, anti-trust laws,..they use laws to shape man and society to what they think is better.
 
a right is an absolute, ...... your not understanding me
I do understand you. I'm disagreeing with you, and illustrating examples of how those rights are not absolute.

Another example is the Fourth Amendment. The language is quite precise: Law enforcement can't search your home without a warrant that specifies the target of the search. However, there are numerous exceptions to this. One is the "plain sight" exception; if the cop has a warrant to look for stolen goods, and there's a bong and a few pounds of marijuana sitting on your coffee table, you can be busted for possession.

Another is hot pursuit; if a cop is chasing a suspect, and the suspect goes into your private residence, the police are fully entitled to enter your private residence to pursue the suspect. If the cops notice a few pounds of pot in plain sight as they run through your house, you can be busted for possession -- even though you had no connection to the suspect.

The right to privacy also has its limits. If you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. Same if you're on your front porch, or standing at your window without any blinds, or in an open field (even if privately owned).

You are welcome to pretend that no government anywhere places limits on rights, but it happens all the time.


really?...affirmative action, minimum wage, discrimination laws, anti-trust laws,..they use laws to shape man and society to what they think is better.
Yes, really.

• Affirmative action and discrimination laws are about ensuring equality, AND constrain the actions of various individuals.
• Minimum wage is about protecting the poor from economic exploitation.
• Anti-trust laws are also, wait for it... a constraint on human actions and behaviors.
• It should be SCREAMINGLY obvious that the idea behind regulations is not to "make humans better." The idea is that people cannot be trusted, and need constant oversight to ensure they obey the laws that *cough* constrain their behaviors. FDA regulations on food and drugs are not designed to "shape" anyone, they are based on the idea that even after decades of legal constraints, some food and drug manufacturers will screw the public if they are not carefully watched.

As to Whittle:

• Rousseau is not the end-all and be-all of leftism.
• Madison and Jefferson admired the French Revolution. Washington and Hamilton did not. Have fun parsing that one. ;)
• The bloody executions of the French Revolution didn't happen because a bunch of peasants sat back and calmly reflected on the unconstrained nature of humanity. It was (at the risk of being far too brief) in part because leaders were vying for power, and because after lives filled with violent political and economic repression, the people were lashing out.
• Marxism does not hew to this "constrained/unconstrained" conception. It's Hegelian, and involves a completely different concept of humanity than Rousseau.
• The Nazis did not want to change humanity. They claimed that Aryans were "naturally" superior, and that everyone else must either be subject to their rule, or be killed. (They are also classified as right-wing, not left-wing.)

And yet again: The left is a diverse group with a wide variety of ideological and philosophical views. Noam Chomsky and Pat Moynihan have very different ideas about politics, government and humanity.

Spare his absurd ill-informed 7th grade caricature of leftism and American politics, kthx
 
I do understand you. I'm disagreeing with you, and illustrating examples of how those rights are not absolute.

Another example is the Fourth Amendment. The language is quite precise: Law enforcement can't search your home without a warrant that specifies the target of the search. However, there are numerous exceptions to this. One is the "plain sight" exception; if the cop has a warrant to look for stolen goods, and there's a bong and a few pounds of marijuana sitting on your coffee table, you can be busted for possession.

Another is hot pursuit; if a cop is chasing a suspect, and the suspect goes into your private residence, the police are fully entitled to enter your private residence to pursue the suspect. If the cops notice a few pounds of pot in plain sight as they run through your house, you can be busted for possession -- even though you had no connection to the suspect.

The right to privacy also has its limits. If you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. Same if you're on your front porch, or standing at your window without any blinds, or in an open field (even if privately owned).

You are welcome to pretend that no government anywhere places limits on rights, but it happens all the time.



simple.... the 4th.....a Warrant is issued , becuase you are suspected of a crime or knowing something of a crime..

simple, when the suspect enters your property it is impossible to get a warrant, on the spot, should the police allow the suspect [dangerous] to stay inside a person's property and put them in danger while waiting for a piece of paper?

simple again, you dont have a right to privacy out in the public eye.....that's elementary.



Yes, really.

• Affirmative action and discrimination laws are about ensuring equality, AND constrain the actions of various individuals.
• Minimum wage is about protecting the poor from economic exploitation.
• Anti-trust laws are also, wait for it... a constraint on human actions and behaviors.
• It should be SCREAMINGLY obvious that the idea behind regulations is not to "make humans better." The idea is that people cannot be trusted, and need constant oversight to ensure they obey the laws that *cough* constrain their behaviors. FDA regulations on food and drugs are not designed to "shape" anyone, they are based on the idea that even after decades of legal constraints, some food and drug manufacturers will screw the public if they are not carefully watched.
As to Whittle:

• Rousseau is not the end-all and be-all of leftism.
• Madison and Jefferson admired the French Revolution. Washington and Hamilton did not. Have fun parsing that one. ;)
• The bloody executions of the French Revolution didn't happen because a bunch of peasants sat back and calmly reflected on the unconstrained nature of humanity. It was (at the risk of being far too brief) in part because leaders were vying for power, and because after lives filled with violent political and economic repression, the people were lashing out.
• Marxism does not hew to this "constrained/unconstrained" conception. It's Hegelian, and involves a completely different concept of humanity than Rousseau.
• The Nazis did not want to change humanity. They claimed that Aryans were "naturally" superior, and that everyone else must either be subject to their rule, or be killed. (They are also classified as right-wing, not left-wing.)

And yet again: The left is a diverse group with a wide variety of ideological and philosophical views. Noam Chomsky and Pat Moynihan have very different ideas about politics, government and humanity.

Spare his absurd ill-informed 7th grade caricature of leftism and American politics, kthx


• Affirmative action and discrimination laws are about ensuring equality, AND constrain the actions of various individuals.
• Minimum wage is about protecting the poor from economic exploitation.
• Anti-trust laws are also, wait for it... a constraint on human actions and behaviors.
• It should be SCREAMINGLY obvious that the idea behind regulations is not to "make humans better." The idea is that people cannot be trusted, and need constant oversight to ensure they obey the laws that *cough* constrain their behaviors. FDA regulations on food and drugs are not designed to "shape" anyone, they are based on the idea that even after decades of legal constraints, some food and drug manufacturers will screw the public if they are not carefully watched.




these laws today are aimed that both the state and people...however the people and business are not subject to constitutional laws, becuase constitutions are written for governments only!

the left has pushed these laws on the people, becuase they want to impose their brand of morality on the people.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


when did the constitution become a limiting document on the people?...where are powers given to the federal government over people in the constitution?
 
Last edited:
when the suspect enters your property it is impossible to get a warrant, on the spot, should the police allow the suspect [dangerous] to stay inside a person's property and put them in danger while waiting for a piece of paper?
Nope.

And thus, we see how the 4th Amendment is not absolute. There are exceptions to its protections. Savvy?


simple again, you dont have a right to privacy out in the public eye.....that's elementary.
Right. Because the right to privacy is not absolute. Savvy?


these laws today are aimed that both the state and people...however the people and business are not subject to constitutional laws, becuase constitutions are written for governments only!
What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about statutes, not amendments.


the left has pushed these laws on the people, becuase they want to impose their brand of morality on the people.
And the right does the same thing. They support laws against sodomy and no-fault divorce; they pass laws against same-sex marriage, against drug use, against obscenity, against abortion, against stem-cell research, against contraception, against euthanasia, against welfare and entitlements, against progressive taxes....

Moral Majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Family values - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
 
Nope.

And thus, we see how the 4th Amendment is not absolute. There are exceptions to its protections. Savvy?

an absolute!!, which has already been explained to you before, ...a right cannot be abolished, you cannot exercise your rights on others peoples property without their permission, so they can be curtailed...we discussed this before



Right. Because the right to privacy is not absolute. Savvy?

meaning again it cannot be abolished by government.......why is this hard for you?


What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about statutes, not amendments.

you state the left doers not want laws which are about limits, and these are clearly laws which the left embraces, which limit the people.



And the right does the same thing. They support laws against sodomy and no-fault divorce; they pass laws against same-sex marriage, against drug use, against obscenity, against abortion, against stem-cell research, against contraception, against euthanasia, against welfare and entitlements, against progressive taxes....

Moral Majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Family values - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right


they sure do social conservative want to use the law, for their particular brand of morality as the left want to use it for theirs......and government is not a moral entity, and it has no authority to institution morality laws of any type, be the sodomy, discrimination, drug use, affirmative action.

welfare[handouts] is not a power of congress.
 
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.

<snip>


While the latter part of your post, which I redacted, is strongly in support of the limitations on Federal government of the Bill of Rights, it straws far afield from your original intent of addressing rights as applicable to the states and federal governments, respectively.

You bolded statement about the state constitutions bills of rights being turned into a "second banana status" by the application of the Bill of RIghts in the Constitution to those states assumes something in seriously mistaken. It assumes that either those States, or the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution, are actually providing those rights, when they are not.

"Rights" are not a conflict between the state and federal government, but rather are possessed by the people, individually. Additionally these rights are recognized to be unalienable to the people, making the discussion of whether or not the state or federal governments have authority to alienate those rights itself a corruption.

The only reason for the listing of those rights in the Constitution, an afterthought, is to affirm those rights and not actually to provide them via that listing, with those rights already being affirmed by the limited enumerated powers of the Federal government itself. The rights would still exist even if not listed in the Bill of Rights, and are protected by the limited enumerated authorities of the federal government therein.

Hamilton discusses this fact in Federalist #84 where he even objects to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as providing a pretext to their denial:


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power

As we have seen, the existence of those rights has led some to claim that very "colorable pretext", generally progressives, to claim that "anything in the Constitution might be altered" via Article V amendment, which is patently false and obviously an obscene corruption.

However your own "second banana" argument seems to be giving the states authority to alter and deny that which is unalienable, creating a similar "colourable pretext", but one which is obviously as false and dangerous as those seeking to directly deny that Bill of Rights. As I express in my condemnation of Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy", nowhere does the 10th Amendment provide those States any sort of legitimate authority to deny those rights, just as is true of the Federal government itself.

The Court has grossly erred in only applying the Bill of Rights to the federal government (inclusive of the 2nd Amendment). While the Constitution overall only applies to the construction and terms of that Federal government, the same is not true of those Rights, which exist beyond their recognition in the Constitution, and are equally applicable to the States as well. If this were not so, then our rights would be quite literally worthless - without any real value.

Undeniably those rights listed in the Bill of Rights, which Court has sometimes claimed only applies to the Federal government itself, but only when convenient, should be equally applied to the states as well as the federal government. The Court's argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government, while not to the states, is in conflict with the other rights being applicable to both state and federal government, and without rational justification.

As I said in that Fifty Flavors argument, the founders never indicated it would be infinitely preferable to have those rights pilfered by the state governments, rather than the federal government.
 
The constitution was amended after the civil war and the 14th amendment gave rise to the eventual incorporation doctrine used by the courts.

Where exactly is this incorporation doctrine of which you speak?

There is a lot claimed by the Courts since the Civil War, that has no support anywhere in the Constitution, not even with the 14th Amendment itself.

While Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides numerous "shalls" prohibiting the states from denial of equal protection, the ONLY authority recognized to the federal government to enforce this, indicated in Section 2, is to reduce the proportional representation of that state by the number of persons denied those rights. Furthermore this authority to reduce proportional representation does not even apply to all citizens, but only to "Males". Nowhere was the 14th Amendment subsequently amended to reflect other than males.

This reduction of proportional representation is entirely within the powers of the federal government as enumerated by the Constitution. Even if that authority to alter proportional representation were to include by supposition every citizen, this would still not provide any federal authority to legislate to, nor police, the states, and no sort of "incorporation", in violation of state sovereignty.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which provides that, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" does not itself even provide any authority to create legislation applicable to the States, beyond limiting representation, as this would be entirely inappropriate given the other unamended, unaltered limitations on the Federal government prohibiting statutory authority over those sovereign States, indicated elsewhere in the Constitution.

In point of fact, nowhere in the 14th is any authority provided to the federal government to police and dictate rights in the several States, and this authority is entirely in conflict with the Constitution and denial of statutory authority to that federal government over the States themselves!

In truth, nowhere in the 14th Amendment are the states "incorporated" into any sort of federal policing and dictatorial authority, and entirely the opposite is true.
 
Where exactly is this incorporation doctrine of which you speak?

There is a lot claimed by the Courts since the Civil War, that has no support anywhere in the Constitution, not even with the 14th Amendment itself.

While Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides numerous "shalls" prohibiting the states from denial of equal protection, the ONLY authority recognized to the federal government to enforce this, indicated in Section 2, is to reduce the proportional representation of that state by the number of persons denied those rights. Furthermore this authority to reduce proportional representation does not even apply to all citizens, but only to "Males". Nowhere was the 14th Amendment subsequently amended to reflect other than males.

This reduction of proportional representation is entirely within the powers of the federal government as enumerated by the Constitution. Even if that authority to alter proportional representation were to include by supposition every citizen, this would still not provide any federal authority to legislate to, nor police, the states, and no sort of "incorporation", in violation of state sovereignty.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which provides that, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" does not itself even provide any authority to create legislation applicable to the States, beyond limiting representation, as this would be entirely inappropriate given the other unamended, unaltered limitations on the Federal government prohibiting statutory authority over those sovereign States, indicated elsewhere in the Constitution.

In point of fact, nowhere in the 14th is any authority provided to the federal government to police and dictate rights in the several States, and this authority is entirely in conflict with the Constitution and denial of statutory authority to that federal government over the States themselves!

In truth, nowhere in the 14th Amendment are the states "incorporated" into any sort of federal policing and dictatorial authority, and entirely the opposite is true.

Take it up with the Supreme Court. Me no wears a robe.
 
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."


Right to privacy obviously did exist in some context in 1800, and was encapsulated under such recognitions and the 3rd Amendment prohibiting quartering of troops on one's home, and the 4th Amendment's prohibition of of unreasonable search and seizure of personal papers and effects, without due process.

The problem is that "privacy" is a vacuous term, and is more accurately represented by other violations. Then, as now, some might claim a right to privacy to run amok naked across one's own property, but this claim of privacy conflicts with public decency and that the fact that nakedness is not only visible to those on that property. Similarly our information and communications that are sent into the public realm do not have any reasonable expectation of absolute privacy.

Beyond that, the 9th Amendment clearly indicates the existence of rights beyond those enumerated, or "recognized". Your argument implicitly relies on the fact that "rights" are the provision of the Bill of Rights, when that is actually not the case.

No, governments and citizens do not at all "create rights", but rather only recognize where new methodologies and practices result in the violation of rights already in existence.
 
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.)

Yes, actually, the fact of "rights" themselves would "pretent" what you specifically state.

Those "rights" are not anywhere involving "federal recognition", nor "federal protection" of those rights, but rather only the recognition by citizens, and the stipulation of federal exclusion from that arena, and not any sort of "federal protection" policing thereof.

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.

The problem is not those dead, white, mostly affluent, nothing-owning-since-they're-dead people being only capable of recognizing (not deciding) what are human rights, but rather the fact that today's brain-dead, multiculturally-fixated, property-envious, mostly ignorant, individuals have a pronounced inability recognizing what real rights are, and why. They seem incapable of recognizing that rights only apply to an individual, and do not involve any sort of compulsion on other individuals, but rather only preclude the action of government itself, and do not invite that government's intrusion.




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?

Sincere you're obviously emotionally worked up over the idea of a Creator, even a generic one involving only natural principle of nature's God, you can be contented with those rights being innate and unalienable.


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.

1) Your personal is not fact, is irrelevant, and is irrelevant to the fact of those rights being innate and unalienable. Your own belief that the government itself might possess those rights to dole out, is equally unsupported by fact and reality, and is denied by the outcomes across history, with rights becoming nonexistent by such terms.

2) That referenced "Creator" has nothing whatsoever to do with any separation between states and the federal government.

3) Those rights that made the cut, being enumerated again have nothing to do with that entity, but rather only have to do with those rights most apt to be denied by tyrannous government. As stated previously, other rights exist beyond those that were enumerated, as recognized by the 9th Amendment.

4) No, the government has no authority to pick and choose what rights it will recognize, reward and police. This is a corruption fo rights, which are specifically recognize to exclude government, and not invite its participation.

ernst barkmann said:
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.

No, government cannot take away rights, which it did not provide, and that is the whole point of the recognition of rights *in this country.. None of those rights in the Bill of Rights can be legitimately altered or denied by either the state or federal government. Ernst is correct.

Nowhere does the recognition of those rights involve any sort of promise of "divine wroth", but I can assure you that the wrath of the free and awake people is building like a tropical storm over the sands of the Sahara.
 
Take it up with the Supreme Court. Me no wears a robe.

You're the one that asserted the existence of an "incorporation doctrine".

I merely assumed that given such an assertion, that you would be able to simply finger its origin.

Or do you merely imagine some sort of divine inspiration of the part of the Court, capable of detecting otherwise imperceptible content, despite the repeated evidence of the criminality of that Court?

Actually I believe your original statement would have been more accurate had you said, "The constitution was discarded after the civil war and the courts fabricated an incorporation doctrine out of whole cloth, with it being nowhere present in the 14th, and in gross conflict with that Constitution."

Rumor has it that the North won that Civil War, and that blacks were freed. However rumors are often grossly errant, and the Truth is that Americans lost that Civil War, and all Americans were enslaved.
 
While the latter part of your post, which I redacted, is strongly in support of the limitations on Federal government of the Bill of Rights, it straws far afield from your original intent of addressing rights as applicable to the states and federal governments, respectively.

You bolded statement about the state constitutions bills of rights being turned into a "second banana status" by the application of the Bill of RIghts in the Constitution to those states assumes something in seriously mistaken. It assumes that either those States, or the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution, are actually providing those rights, when they are not.

"Rights" are not a conflict between the state and federal government, but rather are possessed by the people, individually. Additionally these rights are recognized to be unalienable to the people, making the discussion of whether or not the state or federal governments have authority to alienate those rights itself a corruption.

The only reason for the listing of those rights in the Constitution, an afterthought, is to affirm those rights and not actually to provide them via that listing, with those rights already being affirmed by the limited enumerated powers of the Federal government itself. The rights would still exist even if not listed in the Bill of Rights, and are protected by the limited enumerated authorities of the federal government therein.

Hamilton discusses this fact in Federalist #84 where he even objects to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as providing a pretext to their denial:


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power

As we have seen, the existence of those rights has led some to claim that very "colorable pretext", generally progressives, to claim that "anything in the Constitution might be altered" via Article V amendment, which is patently false and obviously an obscene corruption.

However your own "second banana" argument seems to be giving the states authority to alter and deny that which is unalienable, creating a similar "colourable pretext", but one which is obviously as false and dangerous as those seeking to directly deny that Bill of Rights. As I express in my condemnation of Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy", nowhere does the 10th Amendment provide those States any sort of legitimate authority to deny those rights, just as is true of the Federal government itself.

The Court has grossly erred in only applying the Bill of Rights to the federal government (inclusive of the 2nd Amendment). While the Constitution overall only applies to the construction and terms of that Federal government, the same is not true of those Rights, which exist beyond their recognition in the Constitution, and are equally applicable to the States as well. If this were not so, then our rights would be quite literally worthless - without any real value.

Undeniably those rights listed in the Bill of Rights, which Court has sometimes claimed only applies to the Federal government itself, but only when convenient, should be equally applied to the states as well as the federal government. The Court's argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government, while not to the states, is in conflict with the other rights being applicable to both state and federal government, and without rational justification.

As I said in that Fifty Flavors argument, the founders never indicated it would be infinitely preferable to have those rights pilfered by the state governments, rather than the federal government.

well i will work here to clean up my meaning.

first with the founders, Madison and Hamilton, both men were against a bill of rights, claiming it would be dangerous to have such a thing. because it listed rights, their argument was that a bill was not needed at all, becuase it was impossible for the federal government to violate the rights of the people, becuase the governments powers were very limited, and none of them intersected with american citizen....the only possible citizen the government could be involved with was the pirate, counterfeiter, or the traitor.

our founders did not create a bill of rights for states but only the federal government, to stop them from infringing on our god-given rights, as their federalist and anti-federalist argument show, added to that the 1833 USSC decision 5-0 which declared the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not the states.

as to state constitutions, ever since the USSC court has ruled the states must obey the federal bill of rights after the civil war, it is the citizen that DOES NOT anymore look at their rights of their state constitution, but look at the federal one.

if our nation with its states was still following their own constitutions only, instead of the states following our federal, states could have created laws which the federal bill prohibits the federal government from doing, but they still would have to remain true to the the founding principles of life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are the fountain of all the constitution are nation has.

if i did not clear up my meaning please let me know.
 
well i will work here to clean up my meaning.

first with the founders, Madison and Hamilton, both men were against a bill of rights, claiming it would be dangerous to have such a thing. because it listed rights, their argument was that a bill was not needed at all, becuase it was impossible for the federal government to violate the rights of the people, becuase the governments powers were very limited, and none of them intersected with american citizen....the only possible citizen the government could be involved with was the pirate, counterfeiter, or the traitor.

our founders did not create a bill of rights for states but only the federal government, to stop them from infringing on our god-given rights, as their federalist and anti-federalist argument show, added to that the 1833 USSC decision 5-0 which declared the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not the states.

I disagree strongly with this last paragraph.

First that "1833" Supreme Court case you repeatedly reference, really did not deal with rights at all, but rather more with the state having responsibility for its own actions. Despite your not having specifically referenced that case, I believe it to be Barron vs Baltimore. This case involved John Barron, who owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor, suing the city of Baltimore for having diverted water-flow in the construction of streets, resulting in the wharf area being filled with silt and sand and being too shallow to serve as dockage.

The entire intent of the case was to insulate the states, or in this case the city government, from damages caused directly by their own irresponsible action, which is something we would reject today for a wide variety of reasons, and without reference to the Bill of Rights.

However Chief Justice John Marshall's argument here is not just corrupt, but reaching the level of buffoonery. Marshall considered the Constitution generally, and asserted that passages of the Constitution that are not specifically stated to apply to the states, are not applicable thereto, which is true. As example, Marshall specifically referenced Article 1, Section 9 "prohibitions to congress" and specifically the prohibitions of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws, stating that these do not apply to states. Despite this fact, many states themselves specifically prohibit this sort of clearly tyrannous legislation, and if they did not, today's courts would strike down any law demonstrating these applications.

However Marshall took this appraisal of the Constitution generally, and then mistakenly applied it to the Bill of Rights, specifically. when this entire country is founded upon the recognition that those rights are innate to the individual, and unalienable, and not limited to their recognition in the Constitution.

Today, the idea that these Bills of attainder or ex post facto laws might be enacted by the states, would result in those state legislatures being raised to the ground Indeed most state constitutions have prohibitions of those two things as well, and no law would pass muster from those states even if these prohibitions did not exist.

Any government doing these things, be it state of federal, would be, or should be, justifiably be burned to the ground.

Marshall's enormous oversight, so enormous that it can only be deliberate corruption, is failing to recognize that the Constitution only defines the federal government, and the terms of involvement of the states, people and foreign governments with that federal government. However that Bill of Rights is not presented there as being only applicable to the federal government, but solely as emphasis to the boundaries specifically applied to that federal government derived from those rights, giving the Constitution its structure and definition.s.

Those "rights" may well be only referenced there in application to the federal government, but the topic in the Constitution is only the federal government, and those rights were quite obviously not created by that document.

But in an even broader perspective, those rights are undeniably recognized to be "unalienable", unable to be taken, denied, or even willfully given away, ... and this includes for the states themselves.

If our rights can be denied and alienate by those states, then there is no point in recognizing any rights whatsoever! If the states might deny the right to due process, free speech, or even the right to keep and bear arms, then it really is irrelevant that the federal government is prohibited from those denying those rights.

Quite obviously that Bill of Rights does not exist merely because of the Constitution and the Federal government, but because of those rights being innate to the individual regardless of the Constitution and what it asserts about the terms of existence of that federal government.

You're fond of referencing the founders, and the Federalist papers. Kindly point me to any one of the founders writings, anywhere in the federalist, or outside of them, where those founders indicate in ANY APPLICATION whatsoever, that it is for some obscure reason infinitely preferable that the states themselves deny rights, rather than the federal government?

The fact is, it does not exist.

There are a lot of Supreme Court decisions that are not just wrong, but grossly wrong, even intellectually deficient, and corrupt, and this is one of them.


as to state constitutions, ever since the USSC court has ruled the states must obey the federal bill of rights after the civil war, it is the citizen that DOES NOT anymore look at their rights of their state constitution, but look at the federal one.

How is it possible for you to recognize that the Federal government does not grant the rights in the Bill of Rights, which I believe you do recognize, and then turn around with this sort of comment involving the states themselves actually having the authority to fabricate rights, or even deny them?

Do the States have some sort of special box they might pull magical rights, or right-denials from, that makes these fabrications somehow deified by Nature's God? Perhaps this is the divinely authoritative "box" to make up the meaning of marriage itself, turning the very meaning of rights on its ear as well?

Did this country's founders revolt against Britain because they believed the colonies each had the authority to make up their own rights, rights that George was failing to recognize?

Does the Declaration of Independence declare the right of the colony-states to make up whatever rights they want, and proclaim this authority throughout the land, and to the world itself? No, that's not at all what the DOI indicates of rights at all, nor the federalist papers.




if our nation with its states was still following their own constitutions only, instead of the states following our federal, states could have created laws which the federal bill prohibits the federal government from doing, but they still would have to remain true to the the founding principles of life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are the fountain of all the constitution are nation has.

if i did not clear up my meaning please let me know.

How is it possible for those states to have written laws that might still be promoting "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness", yet be in disregard of the those rights held universally by each individual?

Perhaps you believe those states are deliberately set aside and recognized to have ongoing sovereignty, so that they might promote the life, liberty and happiness of but a few, benefited by the denial of the rights of many, but if so, where the hell is this enormous caveat indicated anywhere in the DOI, or even the Federalist?

Oh, you did indeed clear up your meaning, but that did not dispel the expanding clouds of tyranny that are settling in from that meaning.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom