Yes and since WE made the constitution, rights, any rights, exist only to the extent that WE agreed to and recognize and have NOTHING to do God or nature. Moreover, rights, any rights can be curtailed, revoked or limited as WE decide to.
rights enumerated by constitution existed before the constitution.
if they are recognized then they are not man-made rights then are they?
whether or not you believe in natural rights, does not matter because the founders did when they created our founding documents, and its part of the organic laws of the u.s., and natural law is recognized by u.s. federal law.
Yet in an earlier post you stated that the government gives them.
The topic is not privileges but rights.government grants privileges , the term civil rights /legal rights ......are the same as privileges just with a different name, and created by government
The topic is not privileges but rights.
That rights enumerated in the Constitution existed before the Constitution is irrelevant to the fact that there is nothing natural about rights. If they existed they did solely because the powers in the societies where they existed decided so.
Yes, if they are recognized they are still a man made concept much like your drivers license is recognized in Canada.
What I believe or not is also irrelevant. Facts matter and the fact is that nature or God has nothing to do with rights. The beliefs of the founding fathers is also irrelevant to the origin of rights and mistaken too. They also believed in slavery after all.
What natural law is recognized by federal law and how is that relevant to rights?
PS. When replying could you please use the quote feature as it was meant to be. Thanks.
I did not say it did. The rights we enjoy in our nation are nothing more than a conscious decision by the founders. I am sure you recall that there was heated debate about them.it means the constitution did not create any rights
If so why did they not apply to slaves. In the least they also came from nature.life liberty and property is in the constitution twice and they are natural rights.
Man has a lot of abilities which he was born and many of them do not qualify as rights.they exist because man recognized the abilities he was born with
Rights follow the behavious by which we as a society agree to conduct ourselves and nothing else.rights follow nature
Such as? What right could cost anything?which is why no right exist which lays a cost or burden...man making is own rights would
To this topic and discussion.whether you believe in god thats not important
They also believed that one man can own an other. Was that from higher power too? There is nothing objective about their beliefs.the founders believe rights came for a higher power which is objective
I am not certain what you mean here. Please explain.and they made it where they came from subjective
Can you cite that?it means that the federal law along with the constitutional law states rights are not man made
Of course they do, especially since both are an extension of us and our will.they do not arise from law and government has no authority over of the rights of Man.
1.Because there is not a "one at a time" clause in the first amendment.Meaning they can preach about Jesus, run a newspaper, talk about politics, petition for a redress of grievances to the government, protest peacefully, and or talk about politics all at the same time.
2.Its the duty of any good religious leader to inform his or her congregation/members what moral choices their members should be making including picking politicians who are moral. I know leftist and die hard atheists believe that when you go vote that you are supposed to tell what ever god you believe in to go **** him or herself that you are going to vote however you want regardless if the candidate contradicts those religious beliefs.
I did not say it did. The rights we enjoy in our nation are nothing more than a conscious decision by the founders. I am sure you recall that there was heated debate about them.
If so why did they not apply to slaves. In the least they also came from nature.
Man has a lot of abilities which he was born and many of them do not qualify as rights.
Rights follow the behavious by which we as a society agree to conduct ourselves and nothing else.
Such as? What right could cost anything?
To this topic and discussion.
They also believed that one man can own an other. Was that from higher power too? There is nothing objective about their beliefs.
I am not certain what you mean here. Please explain.
Can you cite that?
Of course they do, especially since both are an extension of us and our will.
negative - meaning no action is required .....its a natural right
positive - meaning an action is required.........its a civil right/legal right/ privilege of the constitution
speech is a negative right, because it takes no action from government for me to exercise that right
being a licensed contractor is positive right, its a privilege, because i must pass exams set by the state and any other requirements so i can receive my license from the state, so the state is giving me something they are preforming an action.
OK, in terms of EXERCISING any particular right, I can sorta see the point, especially procedural rights.
In terms of the existence of that right, it doesn't apply. The rights existed before the government.
Still, pretty much just an exercise in semantics.
i brought up both to show the difference
it means the constitution did not create any rights, life liberty and property is in the constitution twice and they are natural rights.
they exist because man recognized the abilities he was born with
rights follow nature which is why no right exist which lays a cost or burden...man making is own rights would
whether you believe in god thats not important the founders believe rights came for a higher power which is objective , and they made it where they came from subjective,
it means that the federal law along with the constitutional law states rights are not man made, they do not arise from law and government has no authority over of the rights of Man.
natural rights go back as far as i have read to the Roman Republic, but i think they also go back to ancient Greece
Goverment recognizes be have natural rights and Goverment is created for the purpose to secure those rights, that being the end of govermentThe Constitution of the United States is the supreme LAW of the land. LAW means that it is protected and enforced by government. Without aggressive government enforcement of these laws, such rights do not exist naturally. They wouldn't last two seconds. That's just how things work in nature. The only "natural law" that exists out in nature is the law of the jungle, where the strong rule and the weak are eaten for lunch. Forget your right to any property, to speak, or assemble, or carry arms. Forget concepts of justice or fairness. In nature, you don't even have the right to breathe if someone stronger than you doesn't want you to. I don't know if that's just how it is or if a creator made those rules, but it is what it is in nature. Human civil societies arose NOT because man embraced this natural law, but because it decided that if the very young, the very old, the vulnerable, the weak, in our society were to have any rights at all, if there was to be any human conception of fairness or justice, it would have to be clearly written out by us and enforced by a rigorous system of government and clear, well-written, strictly enforceable laws.
Take away those man made laws and man-made government enforcement, and your "natural rights" would go away so fast you wouldn't even know what hit you.
natural to the romans as well as the founders refers to what is natural to the bodyYes. Actually, I believe the first reference to "natural law" is in Aristotle's writings. He thought this natural law included the right to own slaves.
"In book I of the Politics, Aristotle addresses the questions of whether slavery can be natural or whether all slavery is contrary to nature and whether it is better for some people to be slaves. He concludes that
"...those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery
Aristotle believed that anyone who was not Greek-speaking ("barbarian" by the ancient Greek definition of the term) was a good candidate to be a "natural" slave. He also stated that it was unnatural for women to be involved in political decisions. Their "natural" place was only, in essence, to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
It just goes to show how we humans just have a tendency to project our latest cultural norms and beliefs to natural or divine laws. As our cultures, mindsets, and traditions change, so do what we consider to be 'natural" or what our god/gods want.
natural to the romans as well as the founders refers to what is natural to the body
Voting in the time of the founders is not a right.Natural to the Romans and to the founders was that women should not be out voting, but remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The ancient Vikings thought that it was natural to die a heroic death while plundering others and that's how you would go to Valhalla and be rewarded by the gods.
We just project our latest cultural biases and opinions to nature and our deities. It's not the other way around. When our cultures and traditions and worldviews change, so does what we say nature and our gods want.
Goverment recognizes be have natural rights and Goverment is created for the purpose to secure those rights, that being the end of goverment
Voting in the time of the founders is not a right.
I'd question how Christlike someone can be if they consider themselves a "Wall Builder".
"Natural" should not mean you need artificial man-made means of enforcement to make it happen.
Yes, thank you. Proves my point.
Were you thinking about taking voting rights away from women and non-property owners as some kind of "unnatural" rights liberals have cobbled up?
"Natural" should not mean you need artificial man-made means of enforcement to make it happen.
Yes so did the Earth in the same form that it is today, yet that did not stop people believing that it is flat or that everything revolved around it.no they existed before the founders, even back to the time of Rome
So much for natural rights then. All you have to do is declare a person property and puff their natural rights vanish.slaves were considered property and not people
One what?name one?
I have no idea what yo are trying to say.and please dont give me one where you infringe on the rights of other people...ie...like killing someone
You mean like procreate? Last I looked it was a privilege not a right.rights follow nature, because they are our natural abilities
It is not if, man does.if man made rights on his own accord
Not without infringing on other's rights. When a "right" infringes on an other's rights it is no longer a right but an assertion of power.he would create rights to material goods and services
They are from the people just like the government in our nation.the founders made it known that where rights came from objective because they are not from government
Nor did they really want to. Had that been a true objective it could have been done.the founders had no power to end slavery within the states
That did not end slavery.when they did have power they ended it [Northwest Ordinance].
And we know that they were wrong.whether you believe rights are from god, nature, a huge beast beneath the sea, the founders left that up to you its subjective, but they made it objective that rights don't come from man.
Did not for slaves. Why do you think that their rights if natural did not count?u.s. federal enabling laws recognize the principles of the DOI
There is not such thing.and one principal is natural law...
Rights arise from us, the people.the constitution states, the federal courts have authority over things which arise from the constitution, ..rights don't arise from the constitution
Yes so did the Earth in the same form that it is today, yet that did not stop people believing that it is flat or that everything revolved around it.
So much for natural rights then. All you have to do is declare a person property and puff their natural rights vanish.
One what?
I have no idea what yo are trying to say.
You mean like procreate? Last I looked it was a privilege not a right.
It is not if, man does.
Not without infringing on other's rights. When a "right" infringes on an other's rights it is no longer a right but an assertion of power.
They are from the people just like the government in our nation.
Nor did they really want to. Had that been a true objective it could have been done.
That did not end slavery.
And we know that they were wrong.
Did not for slaves. Why do you think that their rights if natural did not count?
There is not such thing.
Rights arise from us, the people.
What a moronic post.prisons have walls to keep the liberals in. Our country needs walls to keep the liberals out. Without walls 2 billion people would try to come here. This is something a child could grasp, but not a liberal.
It addresses the points you made, all of them. What is the problem reading a few words?guy you need to shorten this.
It addresses the points you made, all of them. What is the problem reading a few words?
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?