Who are we?

[Dooble]

Does anyone else feel like we're becoming more and more like a nation of rights over a nation of laws? So here's the question: First, and foremost, are we a nation of rights, or are we a nation of laws?

 

[iacardsfan]

The founding fathers specifically outlined RIGHTS not REGULATIONS in regards to the people.

 

[Lutherf]

The choices don't even make sense. Laws are supposed to be enacted and enforced to preserve rights. They aren't supposed to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Dooble]

The founding fathers specifically outlined RIGHTS not REGULATIONS in regards to the people.

Do you think that outline was intended for illegal immigrants as well?

 

[TwEnTY-SiX]

Does anyone else feel like we're becoming more and more like a nation of rights over a nation of laws? So here's the question: First, and foremost, are we a nation of rights, or are we a nation of laws?

Rights are nothing more than an agreement between a people and their government over appropriate action, and so all nations with a government is an establishment of law. Even those "inalienable" rights granted to us by our Creator are subject to an agreement of degree between the people and government. And so we are a nation of laws.

 

[Captain America]

We are a nation of laws.

But we should be able to have the freedom to change those laws and not be yoked by mandated laws that are 200 years old.

 

[Dooble]

The choices don't even make sense. Laws are supposed to be enacted and enforced to preserve rights. They aren't supposed to be mutually exclusive.

So you're cool with laws being broken until they are made to support the law breakers?

 

[SMTA]

We are a nation of laws.

But we should be able to have the freedom to change those laws and not be yoked by mandated laws that are 200 years old.

Right - throw out that pesky Bill of Rights and that nasty COTUS.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Lutherf]

So you're cool with laws being broken until they are made to support the law breakers?

I don't think so but, then again, I don't have the decoder ring necessary to figure out what you're asking.

 

[Fisher]

We must be a nation of idiots, in which case we are well represented in government.

 

[Michael Stewart]

We're both. I think Luther said it well, the purpose of laws is to protect the rights of the citizenry.

 

[iacardsfan]

Do you think that outline was intended for illegal immigrants as well?

The Constitution was based for American citizens, therefore anybody that is in the United States illegally is not protected by the Constitution. If they are in the transition period of becoming an American citizen then they should also be protected. But just because somebody is here doesn't mean they are protected.

 

[Surtr]

Does anyone else feel like we're becoming more and more like a nation of rights over a nation of laws? So here's the question: First, and foremost, are we a nation of rights, or are we a nation of laws?

Trick question. Rights are laws, so both.

 

[rathi]

The Constitution was based for American citizens, therefore anybody that is in the United States illegally is not protected by the Constitution. If they are in the transition period of becoming an American citizen then they should also be protected. But just because somebody is here doesn't mean they are protected.

That is made up nonsense. The constitution applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. Clauses that apply only to citizens are specifically stated as such.

You are a good example of who we have become. Inventing made up arguments to deny people their fundamental legal rights because you don't like them politically. The funny part is that you probably will act surprised when your own rights are on the chopping block.

 

[iacardsfan]

That is made up nonsense. The constitution applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. Clauses that apply only to citizens are specifically stated as such.

You are a good example of who we have become. Inventing made up arguments to deny people their fundamental legal rights because you don't like them politically. The funny part is that you probably will act surprised when your own rights are on the chopping block.

Ok fair enough, then why are we unjustly detaining people in US jurisdiction (Guantanamo Bay) Even though the 14th Amendment provides for such protection of all in US jurisdiction we still don't follow such laws. Why is it different for a "terrorist" than somebody crossing the boarder illegally? And let's be realistic, when the Bill of Rights was written they did not intend to protect every single person who set foot in this nation, it was a time where the people were afraid of government to the point the framers had to make the Constitution overprotective of people.

 

[Gipper]

We're a nation that thinks everything is a right.

 

[grip]

Does anyone else feel like we're becoming more and more like a nation of rights over a nation of laws? So here's the question: First, and foremost, are we a nation of rights, or are we a nation of laws?

You're comparing apples with apples. Legal rights are upheld by laws.

 

[Paschendale]

Right - throw out that pesky Bill of Rights and that nasty COTUS.

Knock yourself out.

Acknowledging that something is not set in stone is hardly the same as calling for complete dismissal.

 

[SMTA]

Acknowledging that something is not set in stone is hardly the same as calling for complete dismissal.

So you are an expert on what other folks think?

 

[Dooble]

I don't think so but, then again, I don't have the decoder ring necessary to figure out what you're asking.

Isn't it obvious? Where do you stand on the illegal immigrants who already reside in this country? What's your stance on the legal definition of marriage?

 

[Lutherf]

Isn't it obvious? Where do you stand on the illegal immigrants who already reside in this country? What's your stance on the legal definition of marriage?

I see. Well, no, it wasn't that obvious from where I was sitting but anyway...

As far as illegal immigrants go I have no need for them in this country. If you're here illegally and you get caught then you should be sent home. As far as marriage, I define it as one man and one woman united in their commitment to eachother and to God. As far as I'm concerned the government doesn't have any business in the issue.

 

[Kreton]

We're both. I think Luther said it well, the purpose of laws is to protect the rights of the citizenry.

I agree that the purpose of laws should be to protect the rights of the citizenry. But how often is that really the reality?

 

[DaveFagan]

Add one more in complete agreement with Lutherf that laws are to enforce the rights of the people. We should not have to be afraid of our gov't. Our gov't should not be exporting/creating wars. Our gov't should not be discussing marriage of any kind. Illegal aliens are illegal, if caught, send them back, or just don't bother them, they seem OK to me. The gov't policies screwed up the job market starting with Saint Ronnie and the service economy, not aliens. Banking recently, 2008, screwed up the economy and still can't get it organized because it requires real money to give the system credibility. We back our current fiat money with our military. That's probably not a good basis for the future. Hell, it's not even a good basis for the right now.