blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
But they are in the Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution by more than a decade; so, as I said, the Constitution itself merely articulates and protects several of our unalienable rights.
Our founding fathers eventually realized that while these rights might be self-evident to some; for others, such as yourself, they needed to be spelled out in order to prevent you from attempting to take them away from us.
But, make no mistake, those rights are ours by birth, not by writ.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,697
- 6,257
- 126
They are yours by Birth because of the Writ called the Constitution. Make no mistake about it, they(all in one place anyway) simply did not exist until put to Paper.
Most of what we accept as Normal or Obvious simply is not. Our existence as we know it is based upon Millenia of Philosophical musings, Trial/Error, Religious experience, and just simple Social Interactions. Where/When you're Born has more to do with what you're "Born with" than anything else.
*sigh*
You have to have both a set of rights, and also someone who is willing and capable of recognizing and protecting those rights. If we as a society believe that our rights come from a piece of paper, then that paper can be shredded at any time and we lose our rights.
How exactly do you ensure that those in power will continue to recognize and protect our rights over a long period of time? You do so by electing people into power who view themselves as protectors, not granters of rights.
What a lot of theoretical pontification.....
You guys are totally ignoring how this has been handled in the past. Go check out the history of the government handling of leprosy, or certain other diseases. People were forcibly removed from their families and held in treatment camps for the rest of their natural lives. Like this is something new!
Much better that it's actually codified, and held up to the light of day. How it gets done...you hope for the best. But they put Typhoid Mary in quarantine for the rest of her life.....and hard to say it wasn't the right thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...sen%27s_Disease_Museum
You guys are totally ignoring how this has been handled in the past. Go check out the history of the government handling of leprosy, or certain other diseases. People were forcibly removed from their families and held in treatment camps for the rest of their natural lives. Like this is something new!
Much better that it's actually codified, and held up to the light of day. How it gets done...you hope for the best. But they put Typhoid Mary in quarantine for the rest of her life.....and hard to say it wasn't the right thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...sen%27s_Disease_Museum
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
True states of emergency always trump individual liberties. As long as the duration of the state of emergency is strictly limited and coincides with identifiable "facts on the ground," I don't know why anyone would have a problem with this.
Do you REALLY think that if pandemic SARS (death rate 60%) was spreading in the U.S., the state should be NOT be able to do everything and anything necessary to stop it, and be able to do that NOW rather than be required to wait for days or weeks for every action to be authorized by the courts?
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I think Sandorski was speaking loosely. The Constitution also imposes limits on the power of the state. Those limits are relaxed in states of emergency.
And for those of you acting outraged, where have you been sleeping for the past 200 years:
When a water emergency exists, the state can limit how much water you use.
When there's a wildfire or flooding, the state can FORCE you to evacuate your home, even though you insist that you're safe on your own.
When a person has a highly infectious (and dangerous) disease, the state can FORCE that person into quarantine and essentially keep him imprisoned until the danger has passed..
And on and on an on.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
And Spidey is also telling us that gays right now have the right to marry, even though there's an itty, bitty problem that won't be fully resolved until the Supreme Court takes up the issue - oh - say five years from now and tell us that gays really do have that right.
A "right" that isn't acknowledged and protected by the state is de facto not a right.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
That's fine as far as it goes. But what about "rights" not delineated as protected in the Constitution? How do we identify what our "rights" are? Why do we have a Supreme Court if our rights are "self evident." And how come when deciding what is or is not a right, the Supreme Court continually tries to figure out what the Constitution really says?
How come, in claiming that citizens have a right to bear arms, the NRA justifies it on the basis of what's written in the Constitution?
Frankly, having read innumerable ignorant posts of yours, I really doubt YOU understand the Constitution at all. I think you're one of the LEAST well-informed people I've ever read on these forums. And what makes your brand of ignorance so appalling is that you THINK you understand. And, amazingly, you stated in your ATL&R thread that you're "pretty sharp."
Wow!
Bush is not the issue here. The whole administration was run by a cabal of greedy and corrupt politicians and bankers, with much of their schemes buried in secrecy. Obama and the Dems may be the new face of the govt, but the real power lies where the money is... and those in power only are looking to extend their control and further the agenda.
"How come, in claiming that citizens have a right to bear arms, the NRA justifies it on the basis of what's written in the Constitution?"
Possibly because the 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone that thinks clearly? "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty definite to me.
Possibly because the 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone that thinks clearly? "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty definite to me.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
This thread makes for a fascinating case study in the doublethinks and overall stupidity that is the base nature of partisan politics.
First, they are called 'inherent rights,' and were discovered by John Locke. In summary, inherent rights are those things which you cannot be stopped from doing except by the use of violent force, and generally the use of such force to stop the act benefits only the authority and not the person or the people. Think of it as the ultimate negative right. Inherent rights cannot be granted, only taken away. For example, the use of free speech against the govt harms no one but the govt, and the only way the govt could possibly keep the speaker's mouth shut is through violence. Or the example of slavery, yes, govt can allow slavery, but only by allowing the use of violence for the benefit of itself and the slaveowners, and not the people. Or the example of private gun ownership, the 2nd amendment does not grant that right, it only prohibits the govt from taking it away.
Second, liberals wrote the US Constitution. Silly Southerners, learn to get your political labels correct...
And third, why have both the outcry and the defense now switched 180 degrees along the usual partisan lines from when the topic was GW and 'protecting' us from terrorism? It could be pretty easy to get awfully cynical reading this board.
First, they are called 'inherent rights,' and were discovered by John Locke. In summary, inherent rights are those things which you cannot be stopped from doing except by the use of violent force, and generally the use of such force to stop the act benefits only the authority and not the person or the people. Think of it as the ultimate negative right. Inherent rights cannot be granted, only taken away. For example, the use of free speech against the govt harms no one but the govt, and the only way the govt could possibly keep the speaker's mouth shut is through violence. Or the example of slavery, yes, govt can allow slavery, but only by allowing the use of violence for the benefit of itself and the slaveowners, and not the people. Or the example of private gun ownership, the 2nd amendment does not grant that right, it only prohibits the govt from taking it away.
Second, liberals wrote the US Constitution. Silly Southerners, learn to get your political labels correct...
And third, why have both the outcry and the defense now switched 180 degrees along the usual partisan lines from when the topic was GW and 'protecting' us from terrorism? It could be pretty easy to get awfully cynical reading this board.
n yusef
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2005
- 2,158
- 1
- 0
It's hard for me to get behind the theory of natural rights, and distinctions between negative and positive rights, likely because the inventors and supporters of these theories did and do not believe in them (see their treatment of women; racial, sexual and religious minorities; the poor).
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Yes, the DoI precedes the constitution, I didn't realize that meant the DoI was incorprated into the constitution. There's quite a few documents that predate the constitution, I'm not sure how you get to pick and choose which one's inform the interpretation. But assuming the constitution is merely recognizing the unalienable rights articulated in the DoI, where does it specifically protect the pursuit of happiness? That'd be a bitch to enforce, eh? And "liberty" is a slippery concept. Wasn't prohibition a violation of individual liberty? But it was in the constitution, which as you said merely articulates and protects our rights, so was the constitution wrong, or was the freedom to inbibe not really a liberty? Hmm.
So if the constitution was written to protect rights already granted us, how can we amend it to change those rights? And how can courts or congress limit those rights? Which rights are self-evident and which need to be articulated? And if these rights are so important how come the constitution at its inception merely applied to the federal government and not to the states, who were pretty much free to trample rights as they saw fit?
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I think the difference is that after the immediate post-9/11 panic had subsided, it was difficult for many of us on the left to believe that there was an ongoing "state of emergency" that justified the excesses of the Bush Administration.
Contrast the situation two, three, four years post-9/11 (when the Bushies were still wiretapping, extraordinarily-rendering, and attempting to keep it all secret, even from Congress) with a state of emergency consequent to a dangerous pandemic, where everything the health authorities are doing to control the contagion is out in the open and (Edit) of limited duration.
The two situations really aren't comparable at all.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter