- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I don't see anyone proposing that we give the government the power to create rights.
The whole idea is just a piece of fiction
it has been stated that, that government will define rights.
You will have to excuse me if doubt the ability of another human to prognosticate
Yet someone must.its a fact, those who have the power to define.....will also have the power of abuse.
its a fact, those who have the power to define.....will also have the power of abuse.
Yet someone must.
Because without defining what is unacceptable harm (that's basically what the bill of rights did), you cannot punish those who harm.
No one has proposed giving the govt that power.
harm as you speak falls under state, local law, not federal.
when one violates the rights of another, or threatens the health and safety of the public, government can use force on that person, however if the person is not committing either of those actions, government has no authority to act.
rights, should never be under the thumb of anyone or entries authority, ..meaning to control them, because it leads to tyranny.
i shall give an example of tyranny going on in america today ..the violation of the right of property.
France is a socialist democratic republic. where rights are defined by government, they dont have natural rights.
our founders created a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.... not a democratic form, ..so government does not define rights.....there is no authority over rights, they come from our humanity, people cannot vote on rights.
today...direct democracy is taking place in america which is a violation of constitutional law, because every state in the union must be republican, not democratic.
how is tyranny rearing its head?, thru referendums and initiatives [democracy], where people are given the power to determine what rights a person is going to have on his own property.
people are voting ....no to allow a business owner to have or not have smoking on his own property......where did the people get to vote on property which belongs to another Citizen?
by entrusting themselves in democracy and believing the will of the majority has the power to create rights for the .......collective.
It is my opinion that, barring some activity that causes significant negative affects to nearby properties or causes harm to people without their knowing consent, restrictions on activity on privately owned property should be zero.harm as you speak falls under state, local law, not federal.
when one violates the rights of another, or threatens the health and safety of the public, government can use force on that person, however if the person is not committing either of those actions, government has no authority to act.
rights, should never be under the thumb of anyone or entries authority, ..meaning to control them, because it leads to tyranny.
i shall give an example of tyranny going on in america today ..the violation of the right of property.
France is a socialist democratic republic. where rights are defined by government, they dont have natural rights.
our founders created a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.... not a democratic form, ..so government does not define rights.....there is no authority over rights, they come from our humanity, people cannot vote on rights.
today...direct democracy is taking place in america which is a violation of constitutional law, because every state in the union must be republican, not democratic.
how is tyranny rearing its head?, thru referendums and initiatives [democracy], where people are given the power to determine what rights a person is going to have on his own property.
people are voting ....no to allow a business owner to have or not have smoking on his own property......where did the people get to vote on property which belongs to another Citizen?
by entrusting themselves in democracy and believing the will of the majority has the power to create rights for the .......collective.
I really don't understand why you think states are less tyrannical than the federal govt. I think we can point to many cases of states stepping on people's rights.
It is my opinion that, barring some activity that causes significant negative affects to nearby properties or causes harm to people without their knowing consent, restrictions on activity on privately owned property should be zero.
This would basically mean that so long as you're not doing some **** like testing out your homemade plastic explosives on the neighborhood kids in your backyard on the corner of 8th and chestnut, or some ****, you are allowed. Extreme example, I know.
Edit: That said, states are basically a smaller version of the federal government, these days. Why are they allowed to do things you don't want the federal government to do? Or how are you thinking this will play out?
who says states cannot be tyrannical?..... they sure can, that why we have the federal government [federal courts] to stop RIGHTS violations, and to see that privileges and immunities of states are granted equally.
but no where is congress granted the power to legislate rights violations by law...no where....because that would put them into state powers, where they are not granted any authority.
athe federal government would have authority.
but they have no authority, via smoking, food, buildings, wages.
I apologize, I'm sure I'm just not getting what you are saying - but it seems like you are saying "states can be tyrannical, therefore the fed'l govt can step in, but the fed'l govt can't legislate rights violations"
how does the fed'l govt step in if they can't legislate rights violation?
I apologize, I'm sure I'm just not getting what you are saying - but it seems like you are saying "states can be tyrannical, therefore the fed'l govt can step in, but the fed'l govt can't legislate rights violations"
how does the fed'l govt step in if they can't legislate rights violation?
sorry, again, can't agree. Someone has to set a floor for wages, for buildings standards, for food safety, for smoking regs; and states can go beyond those rules if they want.
I believe he is saying that the federal courts can overrule state laws that are unconstitutional because they infringe on people's rights.
I'm also certain that he has also said that the courts cannot overturn laws based on unconstitutionality because the courts do not have the power of judicial review.
by the federal courts:
really ?show where the link is in the constitution, i would love to see it.
my problem only with the courts, is when they reach a decision, that is complete opposite of what the founders say on that issue.
then its comes to the Constitution, Madison states it is up to the states [the compact] to be the final determining factor it something is constitutional.
But, but, but....you have argued that the federal courts do not have the power of judicial review
where is the federal government or state government granted authority to set wages?
building standards fall under state /local code, the federal government has no authority for building codes of state/cities
again food safety falls under state /city code...where is no federal authority granted, except, food that would enter the u.s., from a foreign nation.
government has no authority to apply no smoking to private business,..pubic buildings... yes...
the courts are supposed to read the Constitution, and to determine what it means on the matter at hand.
when these conditions below arise the court has the authority....but not congress.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
the courts are supposed to read the Constitution, and to determine what it means on the matter at hand.
then its comes to the Constitution, Madison states it is up to the states [the compact] to be the final determining factor it something is constitutional.
Indeed. But we don't really have states here, unless we imagine that the states as they currently are composed (plus maybe a few territories?) are theoretically behind this constitution, and operate under that premise?anything that causes the harm of the health and safety of the public, government can intervene, ..but not federal.
now if there was a threat, which is on a scale of foreign powers, or domestic terrorist... yes...the federal government would have authority.
but they have no authority, via smoking, food, buildings, wages.
states are government themselves with powers, more then federal powers....and no where is the state subservient to the federal government.
only when the federal government and the state government have a conflict of exercising the same power, does the federal government have.... the right of way....
the federal government was create after the state governments.
So you accept the courts setting rights, but not Congress? interesting.
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?