- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The use of the term God, referring to anything, indicates a belief in a higher power. Added to the term Creator, I don't think you can argue that they were leaving this open to a non-religious interpretation. These were religious men who created a government based on Judeo-Christian ideals. They believed in allowing others to freely practice the religion of their choice, but that doesn't change the nature of THEIR beliefs and the impact that those beliefs had on our government. They are saying that these rights are granted by a higher power. Thus, use of the DOI to justify 'natural rights' that do not involve a higher power is the same as playing "Born in the USA" at a patriotic gathering: The user just doesn't understand or admit to the meaning of the words, and is trying to pretend that the very clear language carries ambiguity that was just not intended.
crossed wires here on your part.If you agree, then what are you fussing with me about?
slaves were considered "property" and not people
With the morals of the people, their industry also is [300] destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.—But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is [301] abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.
http://thefederalistpapers.integrat...-Jefferson-Notes-On-The-State-Of-Virginia.pdf
Notes on the State of Virginia, QUERY XVIII: The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that State?
Go ahead if you think the definitions I posted for both law dictionaries are not what they say.
Yes, but there's evidence Jefferson regarded slaves as human, that he had at least a few moral qualms about whether slavery was just, and this posed a prophetic problem for the new republic:
i gave you Bouvier's Law Dictionary ....1856 Edition there 1914 version is the same...both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings
i will post the links of 1828 Websters....both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition
Blacks law 2nd 1910...both have inalienable and unalienable listed separately, with different meanings
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed
when you get into more modern interpretations of the words, they are put together.
I just checked the Webster's link you posted and again 'inalienable' and 'unalienable' mean exactly the same thing and are interchangeable.
I think you may be defending something you thought you saw but maybe read wrong? I think we are pretty much on the same page on this other than our understanding of the definitions of those two words.
remember when i talked about the word "legally"....
with inalienable you can consent by your own will to wave your rights, with unalienable you cannot wave anything.
a good source of info
https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/
time is getting short for me i must go, have a good day, and to everyone else as well
you see you don't even know what you were even arguing about......you are just arguing to argue.
so what did the 2A recognize given the supreme court in Cruikshank held that the 2A recognized a pre-existing right
that is why your argument is specious and you think that the way to obliterate the 2A is to pretend its foundation does not exist
1) the Bill of rights CREATED NO RIGHTS
2) But MERELY recognized pre-existing rights
3) that are not dependent upon the constitution for their existence
How many times have we been through the same field of mud?
Cruikshank expressed an opinion about a belief. That does NOT make that belief suddenly turn into reality. Of course, you should be aware of that since it has not changed with the rising and setting of a few suns since the pastime you were explained the same thing.
now now Turtle - do I have to go into the vault and bring out your own words where you admit that the only place pre-existingrights existed was in somebody head and they protected nobody? Because I will be happy to do that if it helps you remember your own admission on this.
History tells us what happened to them.
The USA's 'founding fathers' fought the Revolutionary War to secure their own rights and freedom. Not for the rights and freedom of the women and slaves that they controlled.
so what did the 2A recognize given the supreme court in Cruikshank held that the 2A recognized a pre-existing right
that is why your argument is specious and you think that the way to obliterate the 2A is to pretend its foundation does not exist
well i was not arguing that point, i was just pointing out how the people of that time got around the principles of the DOI...having slavery
Gentle disagreement. A 'natural' or 'unalienable' or 'inalienable' or 'God given' right cannot be taken away.
1) the Bill of rights CREATED NO RIGHTS
2) But MERELY recognized pre-existing rights
3) that are not dependent upon the constitution for their existence
4) and which only prevents Federal action
Just because people think this is true doesn't mean it actually is, just like people who believe in gods doesn't prove that gods actually exist. When are libertarians going to understand that simple fact? You have to actually prove the existence of a natural right, you can't just keep claiming it is so. Proof matters. When do we get that?
Read once again what I wrote. Only the grantor of a right can alienate it. If rights are "God given" and God can't take back something he gave then he's really not God, is he?
It is not a matter of what libertarians understand. It is very much a matter of what reality they have adopted to keep safe their self imposed belief system and the lengths they will go through to live in an alternate reality that is divorced from the same truths and historical fact that the rest of us live in.
You will never get your proof requested because it does not exist and they know it well.
you were unable to understand what I was saying. and continue to demonstrate that lack of understanding. once the founders adopted the bill of rights, the rights they assumed existed became part of the legal framework of this country
the natural rights the founders recognized determine the scope and intent of the bill of rights. You don't like that scope and that intent so you pretend that arguing "natural rights" don't exist allows you to limit the scope and intent of the BOR
Just because people think this is true doesn't mean it actually is, just like people who believe in gods doesn't prove that gods actually exist. When are libertarians going to understand that simple fact? You have to actually prove the existence of a natural right, you can't just keep claiming it is so. Proof matters. When do we get that?
that is all just so much your own lipstick on your own pig in your own sty. And in the end its still a pig.
In other words Turtle - its still just a belief and all the laws in the world do not change that it is still a belief. The rights given by the Constitution are very much real. Any belief that they come from God or nature is just fantasy no matter how many laws bow down and worship before that same altar.
I do not. It's a great theory, but it's only that, a theory. Reality is that the only "rights" you have are those which people stronger than you allow you to have.This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".
Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
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?