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.
Because not everyone in the US is a Communist or Socialist.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?
Rights have clearly been "decided by the government." That's how the Bill of Rights got selected to begin with.our rights are not decided by government or people, becuase they would surely create rights, which violate the rights of other people.
Yes.do i or you in having /exercising a right, effect anyone...no.
Wow, you actually read another nation's constitution?!? I'm shocked.i ask you if you would read the South African constitution of 1996
That's nice, but basically irrelevant.our constitution of 1787 is not built on democracy, or the foundation that you are the servant for you fellow citizen.
Actual protection and enforcement of rights is contingent upon the laws, and the will by significant groups of the polity to defend them.Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws....
Which means, what exactly? That we cannot possibly question which rights are "natural"? And again, who gets to decide which rights are inherent? You?Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss...
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.The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government....
I can't speak for Haymarket, but: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".
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.
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?
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".
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.
Where did you get this rather strange idea?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.
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.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.
Yeah, again, you're missing the point, namely that inherent rights don't exist.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.
Then why didn't the Founders fall into that exact same trap?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.
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.
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.
No, it is a very simple example of how rights are not absolute. You're causing panic -- by speaking freely.advise, never use the "yell fire " example, becuase it is the worst thing to use when stating rights.
Your statement about the "unconstrained man" and political ideologies is obviously wrong.my original statement has to do with the theories of the inner man, which these have been around a long time.
You can use laws as an instrument of tyranny.as i state before man must be constrained by laws, if you give him all direct power he will become tyrannical towards his neighbor...
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.
No, it is a very simple example of how rights are not absolute. You're causing panic -- by speaking freely.
Your statement about the "unconstrained man" and political ideologies is obviously wrong.
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.
I do understand you. I'm disagreeing with you, and illustrating examples of how those rights are not absolute.a right is an absolute, ...... your not understanding me
Yes, really.really?...affirmative action, minimum wage, discrimination laws, anti-trust laws,..they use laws to shape man and society to what they think is better.
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.
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
Nope.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?
Right. Because the right to privacy is not absolute. Savvy?simple again, you dont have a right to privacy out in the public eye.....that's elementary.
What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about statutes, not amendments.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!
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....the left has pushed these laws on the people, becuase they want to impose their brand of morality on the people.
Nope.
And thus, we see how the 4th Amendment is not absolute. There are exceptions to its protections. Savvy?
Right. Because the right to privacy is not absolute. Savvy?
What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about statutes, not amendments.
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
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>
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.
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."
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.ernst barkmann said:rights cannot be taken away by government or the people.
Take it up with the Supreme Court. Me no wears a robe.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?