The Constitution grants you nothing

[Ben15]

I always hear people saying "the *insert amendment* gives me *insert right*" No, it does not. The Constitution is there in order to limit the government from taking those rights from you. You were given those right by God/nature/whatever you believe. The Constitution is supposed to act as protection from government.

I'm sick of conservatives and liberals alike using it to limit the People.

What's your take on how the Constitution is supposed to be used? By government to show and tell the people what they can/can't do? Or by the People to stop the government from doing things they shouldn't do?

But, I have to admit, the government ignores the Constitution sometimes anyways.

 

[1750Texan]

I always hear people saying "the *insert amendment* gives me *insert right*" No, it does not. The Constitution is there in order to limit the government from taking those rights from you. You were given those right by God/nature/whatever you believe. The Constitution is supposed to act as protection from government.

I'm sick of conservatives and liberals alike using it to limit the People.

What's your take on how the Constitution is supposed to be used? By government to show and tell the people what they can/can't do? Or by the People to stop the government from doing things they shouldn't do?

But, I have to admit, the government ignores the Constitution sometimes anyways.

Laws in their very nature limit.

 

[Ben15]

Laws in their very nature limit.

That is true. Some are reasonable. Prison time for murder, for example. But laws that prevent you from smoking pot, taking certain items across borders (I know those are state laws, but state laws can be dumb too) etc. are just plain stupid in my opinion. I know some of them aren't a big deal, but that's the point! Why is the government making people pay fines or even sending them to jail for small things, or, things that should be a matter of choice?

 

[WCH]

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.

The FedGov mistook 'empowered' as a mandate to do what they wish.
.

 

[rocket88]

I always hear people saying "the *insert amendment* gives me *insert right*" No, it does not. The Constitution is there in order to limit the government from taking those rights from you. You were given those right by God/nature/whatever you believe. The Constitution is supposed to act as protection from government.

I'm sick of conservatives and liberals alike using it to limit the People.

What's your take on how the Constitution is supposed to be used? By government to show and tell the people what they can/can't do? Or by the People to stop the government from doing things they shouldn't do?

But, I have to admit, the government ignores the Constitution sometimes anyways.

A blanket statement about "the Constitution" isn't really applicable. Most of the document has to do with the structure of government. When you are talking about rights, that's in the Bill of Rights (or the first 10 amendments), which is different.

Usually saying a certain Amendment "grants" a right is just another way of saying that it is guaranteed by the laws of the United States. If you take into account that there may be more rights given by God than those listed by the Constitution....well, what's the legal justification? For example, you could say that slaves were human beings and had the same "rights" granted by God. However there was no legality behind such a statement until the 13th Amendment was added.

Now you might hear it argued if there's a "right" to healthcare. Nobody really knows if that would be a God-given right, but I do know that it's not guaranteed by the Constitution. A liberal might argue that such a right exists. Conservatives will point to the Constitution and say it doesn't. There's validity to both opinions, IMO. Maybe it is a "God-given" right, but there exists no protection for it under the law.

 

[1750Texan]

That is true. Some are reasonable. Prison time for murder, for example. But laws that prevent you from smoking pot, taking certain items across borders (I know those are state laws, but state laws can be dumb too) etc. are just plain stupid in my opinion. I know some of them aren't a big deal, but that's the point! Why is the government making people pay fines or even sending them to jail for small things, or, things that should be a matter of choice?

Laws have been part of our existance from before the formation of this Nation or the signing of the Constitution...to wonder now why we have laws is a long gone moot point.

Laws are societal constraints that have existed from King or God...Government is not different.

 

[obvious Child]

I always hear people saying "the *insert amendment* gives me *insert right*" No, it does not. The Constitution is there in order to limit the government from taking those rights from you. You were given those right by God/nature/whatever you believe. The Constitution is supposed to act as protection from government.

I'm sick of conservatives and liberals alike using it to limit the People.

What's your take on how the Constitution is supposed to be used? By government to show and tell the people what they can/can't do? Or by the People to stop the government from doing things they shouldn't do?

But, I have to admit, the government ignores the Constitution sometimes anyways.

You're operating under the asinine notion that rights inherently exist in the natural state of man. Hence why your argument falls apart.

When we examine the natural world, rights exists solely at the existence of force. Without force, there are no rights. Does a lamb get a right to life from the wolf that's chasing it? Nope, but it does when it's in a group with adult Rams who will defend it. Laws are a type of force Man has created to create rights. They do not exist otherwise. Therefore, the COTUS and all laws both serve to create rights and restrict behavior.

 

[Ben15]

As a human being I have the right to decide what I can and cannot do, to an extent. I shouldn't have someone telling me I can't smoke pot, I can't buy those fireworks, stuff like that.

 

[Ben15]

A blanket statement about "the Constitution" isn't really applicable. Most of the document has to do with the structure of government. When you are talking about rights, that's in the Bill of Rights (or the first 10 amendments), which is different.

Usually saying a certain Amendment "grants" a right is just another way of saying that it is guaranteed by the laws of the United States. If you take into account that there may be more rights given by God than those listed by the Constitution....well, what's the legal justification? For example, you could say that slaves were human beings and had the same "rights" granted by God. However there was no legality behind such a statement until the 13th Amendment was added.

Now you might hear it argued if there's a "right" to healthcare. Nobody really knows if that would be a God-given right, but I do know that it's not guaranteed by the Constitution. A liberal might argue that such a right exists. Conservatives will point to the Constitution and say it doesn't. There's validity to both opinions, IMO. Maybe it is a "God-given" right, but there exists no protection for it under the law.

This made me change my mind a bit. I guess what I was trying to say is that the rights listed aren't only there because of the document. If you were in another country, I believe you would still have the God given right to self defense. Not just here

 

[rocket88]

This made me change my mind a bit. I guess what I was trying to say is that the rights listed aren't only there because of the document. If you were in another country, I believe you would still have the God given right to self defense. Not just here

Yes, but you might not be able to use that in the court there. God and man have 2 different sets of laws sometimew.

 

[Respecthelect]

You're operating under the asinine notion that rights inherently exist in the natural state of man.

I've never seen such a misstatement of U.S. theory of law in my life. From the Declaration of Independence:

"separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Rights come from God, not from a piece of paper created by man. The only limits on those rights are those imposed by the equal rights of others. At least that was the founder's intent. Today, poorly educated liberal progressives shackle themselves, along with the rest of us, with an oppressive, violence-prone government.

 

[obvious Child]

I've never seen such a misstatement of U.S. theory of law in my life. From the Declaration of Independence:

"separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

So? Ink on paper. If we wrote that humans are really pandas, does that make it true? No. Furthermore, the DOI is far more of a laundry list of why we hate the King. If you actually read it, the fluffy stuff about inherent rights is a minority of the piece. Third, the DOI has no actual bearing upon US law and never did from the start. All men are born equal? Is that why the Founders had slaves? Oh wait. You can hold near and dear to your the fluffy crap they teach you in schools, but the simple fact of the matter is that inherent rights do not exist.

Rights come from God, not from a piece of paper created by man. The only limits on those rights are those imposed by the equal rights of others. At least that was the founder's intent. Today, poorly educated liberal progressives shackle themselves, along with the rest of us, with an oppressive, violence-prone government.

Good luck with that belief. I see you completely ommitted the rest of my post which refutes your argument.

 

[obvious Child]

As a human being I have the right to decide what I can and cannot do, to an extent. I shouldn't have someone telling me I can't smoke pot, I can't buy those fireworks, stuff like that.

Which is the natural state of man. That also involves infringing upon the "so called" rights we have today. Does a right exist if there is no method of enforcing it?

 

[Wiseone]

I always hear people saying "the *insert amendment* gives me *insert right*" No, it does not. The Constitution is there in order to limit the government from taking those rights from you. You were given those right by God/nature/whatever you believe. The Constitution is supposed to act as protection from government.

I'm sick of conservatives and liberals alike using it to limit the People.

What's your take on how the Constitution is supposed to be used? By government to show and tell the people what they can/can't do? Or by the People to stop the government from doing things they shouldn't do?

But, I have to admit, the government ignores the Constitution sometimes anyways.

There are no natural rights, the concept is empty rhetoric.

 

[American]

You're operating under the asinine notion that rights inherently exist in the natural state of man. Hence why your argument falls apart.

When we examine the natural world, rights exists solely at the existence of force. Without force, there are no rights. Does a lamb get a right to life from the wolf that's chasing it? Nope, but it does when it's in a group with adult Rams who will defend it. Laws are a type of force Man has created to create rights. They do not exist otherwise. Therefore, the COTUS and all laws both serve to create rights and restrict behavior.

The govt was created by The People. Power of the govt comes from the People. The govt cannot grant something to its creator.

 

[obvious Child]

The govt was created by The People. Power of the govt comes from the People. The govt cannot grant something to its creator.

Yes and no. What the government does is provide the mechanism of force to create rights that otherwise would only exist in the context of an individual's capacity to generate force. Therefore, some people are gaining rights they otherwise would not be able to generate themselves. The notion that rights are inherent in every person is asinine and is reflected nowhere in the natural world. Furthermore, when we look at humans in anarchy, their "rights" only exist when they are able to enforce them themselves. If such rights were in fact inherent, force would not be necessary for such rights.

 

[American]

Yes and no. What the government does is provide the mechanism of force to create rights that otherwise would only exist in the context of an individual's capacity to generate force. Therefore, some people are gaining rights they otherwise would not be able to generate themselves. The notion that rights are inherent in every person is asinine and is reflected nowhere in the natural world. Furthermore, when we look at humans in anarchy, their "rights" only exist when they are able to enforce them themselves. If such rights were in fact inherent, force would not be necessary for such rights.

The govt still isn't granting them rights, it's only saying that it can't pass laws limiting the rights.

 

[obvious Child]

The govt still isn't granting them rights, it's only saying that it can't pass laws limiting the rights.

The government is in fact giving them rights because they otherwise would not have them. You don't seem to understand the flaws in the inherent rights argument. Inherent rights do not exist as evident in nature. Man is functionally no different from the rest of the animal Kingdom in this aspect and we've already had thousands of years, including recent history that points out rights in the absence of an entity providing umbrella force do not exist.

Hypothetically, we pass a law that says every citizen now has an annual right to a new bicycle paid for by the government. How is that not a right that was given to citizens?

The government is both giving and taking away rights. A violent murderer armed and capable of killing people has a right to murder because he has sufficient force to do so. The government restricts that person's rights by force. A disabled person would not have the force to enforce their right to life and therefore would not have in it in the absence of an umbrella force. The government has now provided the mechanism to grant that person's right to life.

 

[American]

The government is in fact giving them rights because they otherwise would not have them. You don't seem to understand the flaws in the inherent rights argument. Inherent rights do not exist as evident in nature. Man is functionally no different from the rest of the animal Kingdom in this aspect and we've already had thousands of years, including recent history that points out rights in the absence of an entity providing umbrella force do not exist.

Hypothetically, we pass a law that says every citizen now has an annual right to a new bicycle paid for by the government. How is that not a right that was given to citizens?

The government is both giving and taking away rights. A violent murderer armed and capable of killing people has a right to murder because he has sufficient force to do so. The government restricts that person's rights by force. A disabled person would not have the force to enforce their right to life and therefore would not have in it in the absence of an umbrella force. The government has now provided the mechanism to grant that person's right to life.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ben15]

Yes, but you might not be able to use that in the court there. God and man have 2 different sets of laws sometimew.

True. But just because a law says you can/cannot is not what gives you the right. Whether or not the government infringes on the right is what is decided in the court, and a law that prevents you from defending yourself is infringing on that right

 

[obvious Child]

What I don't get is why the folks who are pro-gun have such a problem with the argument that rights are not inherent. Given the natural state of man, you should logically accept that rights are generated from the barrel of a gun. If you believe that rights are inherent, why do you need force for self defense? Shouldn't your inherent and inalienable right protect you?

 

[obvious Child]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The inherent rights crowed suffers from a fallacy, they first assume what they wish to prove to be correct, rather than first proving it. The existence of inherent, inalienable rights crowd starts with the fallacy of begging the question. I have yet to see anyone who believes in inherent God given rights to start from a position that first proves such rights exist at all. The believers first assume their belief to be true, rather than look for evidence that supports it. Often they fall back on our historical documents which are just ink on paper. Ink on paper declaring we have such rights does nothing to prove that such rights are inherently God given or even exist.

 

[Joe Steel]

... Rights come from God, not from a piece of paper created by man. ...

You are perfectly wrong.

Rights are declared by the People with constitutions, laws, administrative rules, judicial decisions and, no doubt, other pieces of papers.

 

[American]

The inherent rights crowed suffers from a fallacy, they first assume what they wish to prove to be correct, rather than first proving it. The existence of inherent, inalienable rights crowd starts with the fallacy of begging the question. I have yet to see anyone who believes in inherent God given rights to start from a position that first proves such rights exist at all. The believers first assume their belief to be true, rather than look for evidence that supports it. Often they fall back on our historical documents which are just ink on paper. Ink on paper declaring we have such rights does nothing to prove that such rights are inherently God given or even exist.

I guess the Founders all suffered from a fallacy then.

 

[Respecthelect]

the DOI has no actual bearing upon US law and never did from the start. All men are born equal? Is that why the Founders had slaves?

Slavery was finished the day the founders signed the Declaration, it simply took four-score and seven to enforce it. The Declaration is a founding statement of principle and as such, is far more important than the constitution. The constitution sets up a framework of government, but the Declaration guides us. As evidenced by slavery. The constitution seemed perfectly OK with slavery, but the Declaration relentlessly pushed on slavery, until it was forced to concede.

As further evidence, the constitution is changeable, but the Declaration is not. The Declaration stands forever and while locust progressives may yet tear-down this great Republic, the Declaration will remain as long as man walks the earth.