Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.
The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.
the majority could indeed use the Amendment process to change anything in the Constitution and that includes a right that is now enjoyed.
Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.
The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.
then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?
for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.
Well, I do believe Haymarket wasn't suggesting the creation of a right, but rather the removal of one.
Now, where Haymarket and I differ is in terms of the types of rights there are. But for the sake of this conversation I'll note my view that there are NATURAL rights and there are SOCIETAL rights.
Natural Rights are broad, exist but are not protected sans a social contract, and can never be fully taken away short of death. Societal Rights are simply agreed upon limitations or constructs within the social construct, often built upon or around a natural right, and can never be made permanent.
So you can't take away (or give) a "natural" right, they're just there. So we'll talk of societal rights.
A perfect example of the constitution taking away a societal right would be the 18th amendment, which placed limitations on the rights people had in terms of what they wished to embibe or produce.
A perfect example of the constitution establishing a societal right would be the 14th amendment, establishing that people had the right under the social contract to equal protection under the law.
then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?
for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.
rights are recognized by the constitution, they are not created by the constitution, so changing the constitution, ..............does not remove the recognized right.
James Madison--We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
All that is wrong since Article V clearly places no such limit on what can be in any Constitutional Amendment.
What rights exactly are you suggesting those who wrote the constitution "Created"?
She didn't say they created a right. The reality is that persons in a position to weld power dictate what others can and cannot do. Laws do that. So that sense, the right came from those who wrote the Constitution.
as stated, the constitution does not grant any right........so how can you take from something which does not give in the first place?
Please go back and read my post and read the one from Zyphlin. What I stated was that any part of the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process as outlined in Article V and that includes anything in the Constitution including previous Amendments.
Let us look at a very clear and easy to understand example. The Fifth Amendment states that no person can be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. If the American people became fed up with a series of high profile defendants beating what they felt were justifiable murder charges in trials where they refused to testify, they could go through the amendment process and remove that language from the Fifth thereby changing the rules and procedures where a defendant could indeed be compelled to take the stand in their own case.
incorrect......the constitution grants no rights......it only recognizes rights......
congress cannot create and vote on giving the people rights.........it would violate federal law.
No, liberals don't actually support liberty. I have never seen a liberal support any sort of hint at liberty without government involvement.
And I disagree with you. Practically speaking a person doesn't have a right that they are restricted from exercising. And persons with power determine what can and cannot be done. One way this is done is through laws. The Constitution of the United States is one such law.
Democrats kiss their butts because they want their vote and would say or do anything to get that....
Because democrats are only interested in government power.
you cannot remove a right....because the bill of rights does not give any right......the bill of rights are a restriction placed on the federal government [ this from the bill of rights preamble]
You cannot remove (or create) a natural right.
You can RESTRICT a natural right or define a method in which to more narrowly utilize a natural right, which essentially removes or creates a societal right.
There is no natural right to "Vote". Rather, voting is a societal right created by restricting the natural right of choice into a narrow and orderly construct.
the Constitution is supreme law, and no law is higher.....no federal law can override constitutional law.
federal laws cannot make rights.
federal laws can create privileges, but not rights.
The thing that get's me about most conservatives is that they make a big deal about fiscal responsibility, but then they are willing to spend to high heaven making war around the world. Some of them seem to have never seen a war they don't like.
BTW, Ronald Reagan ran up very large deficits. He was famously criticized by then presidential candidate George H. W. Bush for his policy of increasing military spending while at the same time reducing taxes. Bush, the Father, called it "voodoo economics".
the Constitution is supreme law, and no law is higher.....no federal law can override constitutional law.
federal laws cannot make rights.
federal laws can create privileges, but not rights.
Well there's the problem...
The reality is that right and privlege can be synonyms depending on how they are used. A privledge is simply a right granted to a certain group or person.
By definition, a legal entitlement can be declared a "right". "Right" is used as such in common vernacular. Whlie people can stamp their feet and go "no no no, that's not correct", being obstinent to reality doesn't really change reality.
All you're basically doing is arguing a symantics game.
Even more so as it relates to me, whose even establishing a distinctive and testable difference between what is a "Natural" right and what is a "Societal" right. A societal right could absolutely be thought of as a privledge as well. However I would personally not call them a privledge becuase of the implication in the two words.
For my own views, a societal right is one that, based on the laws of the society, is assumed to be gauranteed to you simply for being a part of said society (so long as that society still is in working order). While the law can futher restrict it, you GAIN that right simply for being a part of the society.
A privledge, meanwhile, would be something that is given to people within a society if they meet certain criteria and come with known and laid out strings attached. You don't get a privledge simply for being a part of society, but based through those additional actions.
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?