Are all rights created equal?

[USMCSergeant]

Our founding fathers defined them in our bill of rights.

 

[ThinkCritically]

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man". (Second Treatise, Chapter 2) - John Locke.

We are all free in our natural state. The government takes away our natural rights and in its place give us privileges.

 

[Dr Grump]

Our founding fathers defined them in our bill of rights.

And what gave them the right to do that? Who said they were right?

 

[Dr Grump]

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man". (Second Treatise, Chapter 2) - John Locke.

We are all free in our natural state. The government takes away our natural rights and in its place give us privileges.

That is one man's opinion....

 

[USMCSergeant]

Our founding fathers defined them in our bill of rights.

And what gave them the right to do that? Who said they were right?

Declaring Independence from King George III started this. Then winning the Revolution gave them that right. The States individually ratifying the Constitution is what said they were right. Exactly what is this leading to.. a point I presume?

 

[Dr Grump]

Our founding fathers defined them in our bill of rights.

And what gave them the right to do that? Who said they were right?

Declaring Independence from King George III started this. Then winning the Revolution gave them that right. The States individually ratifying the Constitution is what said they were right. Exactly what is this leading to.. a point I presume?

Well, you guys seem to hold a lot of stock in your constitution, yet like anything, it is a flawed document. Certainly a great starting point for establishing a country....

Some people, including some on this board, believe these rights were endowed by a creator. To us non-believers that is a load of rubbish...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The way that I look at it, I "can" do anything I am capable of doing.

What are generally referred to as "rights" are just things that the government approves of me doing.

 

[Dr Grump]

The way that I look at it, I "can" do anything I am capable of doing.

What are generally referred to as "rights" are just things that the government approves of me doing.

Yeah, I agree with the description...although must righties would say that it's the constitution that gives them that right, not the govt. After all personal freedom is the most important thing in the whole world...

 

[USMCSergeant]

And what gave them the right to do that? Who said they were right?

Declaring Independence from King George III started this. Then winning the Revolution gave them that right. The States individually ratifying the Constitution is what said they were right. Exactly what is this leading to.. a point I presume?

Well, you guys seem to hold a lot of stock in your constitution, yet like anything, it is a flawed document. Certainly a great starting point for establishing a country....

Some people, including some on this board, believe these rights were endowed by a creator. To us non-believers that is a load of rubbish...

I can see how the semantics of rights given to us by a God can be thought of as non-sense. However the wording it is clearly defined of what the rights of citizens are in general, and it was ratified. The fact that all the states did so, gives it validation. In the time this document was written most people believed in a supreme God, and it was written as so. What was also included in this document is how these rights can be modified over time. Over time the document has been changed, as in women's right to vote, banning slavery, etc. Our founding fathers were merely men. Very brave, intelligent men, but flawed nontheless.

One of the great rights included is freedom of religion. While it may be rubbish to some to believe in any God at all, it is their right to do so, as it is yours to be athiest or agnostic.

 

[Dr Grump]

Declaring Independence from King George III started this. Then winning the Revolution gave them that right. The States individually ratifying the Constitution is what said they were right. Exactly what is this leading to.. a point I presume?

Well, you guys seem to hold a lot of stock in your constitution, yet like anything, it is a flawed document. Certainly a great starting point for establishing a country....

Some people, including some on this board, believe these rights were endowed by a creator. To us non-believers that is a load of rubbish...

I can see how the semantics of rights given to us by a God can be thought of as non-sense. However the wording it is clearly defined of what the rights of citizens are in general, and it was ratified. The fact that all the states did so, gives it validation. In the time this document was written most people believed in a supreme God, and it was written as so. What was also included in this document is how these rights can be modified over time. Over time the document has been changed, as in women's right to vote, banning slavery, etc. Our founding fathers were merely men. Very brave, intelligent men, but flawed nontheless.

One of the great rights included is freedom of religion. While it may be rubbish to some to believe in any God at all, it is their right to do so, as it is yours to be athiest or agnostic.

That's my take too..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The way that I look at it, I "can" do anything I am capable of doing.

What are generally referred to as "rights" are just things that the government approves of me doing.

Yeah, I agree with the description...although must righties would say that it's the constitution that gives them that right, not the govt. After all personal freedom is the most important thing in the whole world...

The Constitution and "the government" are both manifestations of the same drive of human nature, and for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

 

[bripat9643]

The way that I look at it, I "can" do anything I am capable of doing.

What are generally referred to as "rights" are just things that the government approves of me doing.

What an utterly servile bootlicking toad.

 

[Artevelde]

No right is absolute and unlimited. Neither is any obligation or duty.

 

[dblack]

Our founding fathers defined them in our bill of rights.

Probably the most insidious, and most persistent, misconception Americans have about our Constitution.

 

[uscitizen]

Mad Cow!

 

[Ernie S.]

Does our Constitution and Bill of Rights describe rights of citizens (We THE People OF the United States) or to all people within our reach?
We seem to want to confer our rights to people openly at war with us, people who have crossed our borders illegally and people who have forfeited their citizenship through felonious activities.
But! Some would like to see only certain of our rights "inalienable", as the right to vote or government services.
Requiring identification to vote is a horrible injustice, but requiring an ID to bear arms is a reasonable restriction.
Nowhere that I can find, in either document, does it say anything like the right to vote "shall not be infringed"

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Obama's EPA has sent armed tactical teams in to arrest people for drinking milk fresh from a cow. Eat a deer or pig, you're ok. Drink the cows milk, go to jail.

Erm... that legislation that you are talking about was bought and paid for by big agra. They can't have backyard farm competition now, can they? This is NOT legislation pushed by the left. You can blame IBP, Cargill and Monsanto (not to mention the very powrful dairy lobby) for their anti-small farmer legislaion. Moron.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The way that I look at it, I "can" do anything I am capable of doing.

What are generally referred to as "rights" are just things that the government approves of me doing.

What an utterly servile bootlicking toad.

I think you might have missed my point by a mile or so...

 

[California Girl]

And what gave them the right to do that? Who said they were right?

Declaring Independence from King George III started this. Then winning the Revolution gave them that right. The States individually ratifying the Constitution is what said they were right. Exactly what is this leading to.. a point I presume?

Well, you guys seem to hold a lot of stock in your constitution, yet like anything, it is a flawed document. Certainly a great starting point for establishing a country....

Some people, including some on this board, believe these rights were endowed by a creator. To us non-believers that is a load of rubbish...

It worked pretty fucking good for almost 200 years.... until we forgot what it meant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An always smarter-than-me liberal refused to answer this question. So, why not post it to all? Very simple. Are all rights created equal?

He likely didn’t respond because the question makes no sense.

Rights are not ‘created,’ they are part of the human condition, hence they are inalienable. Rights can not be taken or given by any government, person, or constitution. With regard to the American Constitution, rights are not absolute, government may limit certain activities provided it has a compelling reason, supported by evidence, as defined by Constitutional case law. Yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater is the classic example of a limit on free speech.

Do some rights warrant a permit to exercise that right, thus meaning it's not really a right but a privilege that the government can permit, or not?

No, in general it’s not an issue of ‘allowing’ but appropriate restriction, preemption, or prior restraint.

For example, one has the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and protest, to gather in a given place and make known one’s grievances. That right does not extend to ‘camping out’ at that site, or having a ‘sleep-in,’ or an OWS-type demonstration where tents or similar temporary shelters are erected. See: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984).

Do some rights warrant a fine or payment of cash to be allowed to practice it?

Governments may not create barriers to rights which are unreasonable, hinder exercise of a given right, where government can’t demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting the right, and is unable to provide evidence in support. In general, requiring payment to exercise a right, such as voting, is deemed un-Constitutional. See: Harper v. Virginia (1966).

Do some rights carry the burden of showing an ID or going through a background check to practice them?

Again, in general, Constitutional case law establishes boundaries limiting government restriction with regard to individual liberty; with regard to the right to privacy, for example, one has an expectation of privacy in his home but not on a public street. Consequently it is not a matter of satisfying some criteria before one is ‘allowed’ to practice a given civil right, he practices that right as he sees fit until at some point the government places a restriction on the exercising of that right. For example, pornography is protected free speech, obscenity, not.

If one believes the restriction placed upon him by the government is unreasonable, he files suit, resulting in review of the restriction by a court; the burden is on government to provide a compelling reason for the restriction and evidence in support accordingly.

Very simple question. Are rights created equal? If the govt can give/take the right, is it really a "right" or a privilege? If we have no rights, but only privileges that the govt can take, give, manage, then what exactly are we as a people?????????

All rights are the same, they can not be ‘taken’ or ‘given,’ the extent by which one may exercise a given right is determined by judicial review in the context of Constitutional case law.