It really all comes down to a fundamental understanding of what an unalienable right is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.
in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....
and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...
which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.
and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia) and a myriad of other issues
Interned Japanese Americans received compensation. Women were not denied any rights. People were free to move to states that recognized interracial marriage.
Pointing out examples like this really isn't much of an argument.
they received compensation...but what do you think their freedom was worth?
if all jews were suddenly interned, and twenty years from now, our kids got money, would that make up for stealing our freedom?
freedom to move to other states is not what we're talking about. we're talking about existence of rights.
and why when the constitution guarantees equality of treatment, should anyone HAVE to move? people don't just get up and leave family, homes, careers, jobs... and why should they?
i think that proves my point about rights only existing which government enforces.
An unelienable right. If the right is inherent to living then it is an unelienable right. (God given, granted by the Creator, a natural right)
1. Self defense - all animals and most plants use self defense
2. the right to life - all life has a right to exist, plants and animals all have a means to proliferate
3. free speech - because we speak, think and learn through speech it is proper that we discuss ideas and debate them to learn more. There are many other animals that communicate freely and even some plants are known to communicate with others of their species about threats and produce defenses against the threat before it arrives.
4. To feel secure - even your dog and cat have the right to feel secure - and you can be charged with animal cruelty if you fail to provide a secure home for them.
I could go on but lets see what others say about this so far.
In order for there to be a concept of government that would secure and protect our unalienable rights and allow for a union of states to exist as one country, there would be of necessity of some funding of government that would be collected without prejudice and without influence by a person's class, means, or sociopolitical standing. ... Such would be decided by social contract within the various states or communities of citizens.
In order for there to be a concept of government that would secure and protect our unalienable rights and allow for a union of states to exist as one country, there would be of necessity of some funding of government that would be collected without prejudice and without influence by a person's class, means, or sociopolitical standing. ... Such would be decided by social contract within the various states or communities of citizens.
You are close.
No one has answered the thread question. No one can. Face it folks, rights cannot be disconnected from real world consequences, they do not magically come from nature nor gawd, they come from people working, arguing, and sometimes litigating solutions, it's what politics is about in the end. It is a nice sentiment to assume a metaphysical right but no one owns metaphysical property. All property exists in some context and a setting that dictates what can be done with it. Even if we assume metaphysical rights, we still live in a social setting in which these rights must be negotiated.
"A man has a right not to be insulted in front of his children." President Lyndon Johnson 'the moral necessity of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'
"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." Ronald Reagan
"Conservatives believe in providing Constitutional rights to our citizens, not to enemy combatants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Mitt Romney
"The moral case for individual initiative in a free economy holds that people have a God-given right to use their creativity to produce things that improve our lives." Paul Ryan
"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to be, to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they're not discriminated on the job." Barack Obama
"Every successful individual knows that his or her achievement depends on a community of persons working together." Paul Ryan
"The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." Barack Obama
Note the context of each quote.
Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.
Jay states in Federalist 2 (I believe that is correct) that we form government and give up some rights to protect others.
What rights did we give up ?
In order for there to be a concept of government that would secure and protect our unalienable rights and allow for a union of states to exist as one country, there would be of necessity of some funding of government that would be collected without prejudice and without influence by a person's class, means, or sociopolitical standing. ... Such would be decided by social contract within the various states or communities of citizens.
You are close.
No one has answered the thread question. No one can. Face it folks, rights cannot be disconnected from real world consequences, they do not magically come from nature nor gawd, they come from people working, arguing, and sometimes litigating solutions, it's what politics is about in the end. It is a nice sentiment to assume a metaphysical right but no one owns metaphysical property. All property exists in some context and a setting that dictates what can be done with it. Even if we assume metaphysical rights, we still live in a social setting in which these rights must be negotiated.
"A man has a right not to be insulted in front of his children." President Lyndon Johnson 'the moral necessity of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'
"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." Ronald Reagan
"Conservatives believe in providing Constitutional rights to our citizens, not to enemy combatants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Mitt Romney
"The moral case for individual initiative in a free economy holds that people have a God-given right to use their creativity to produce things that improve our lives." Paul Ryan
"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to be, to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they're not discriminated on the job." Barack Obama
"Every successful individual knows that his or her achievement depends on a community of persons working together." Paul Ryan
"The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." Barack Obama
Note the context of each quote.
Jay states in Federalist 2 (I believe that is correct) that we form government and give up some rights to protect others.
What rights did we give up ?
The right to take what you want when you want by force.
Jay states in Federalist 2 (I believe that is correct) that we form government and give up some rights to protect others.
What rights did we give up ?
The right to take what you want when you want by force.
That was a right ?
What the Framers referred to as privileges or immunities, the rights which predate both the government and Constitution, and can be taken by neither man nor government, as they are a manifestation of ones humanity.
Ones rights are not absolute, however, as government is authorized by the Constitution to enact limitations, provided such limitations comport with Constitutional case law.
One has the right to free speech and assembly, for example, but not the right to have a sleep-in in a city park, setting up tents and the like, jurisdictions are authorized to limit or prohibit such activities. See: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984).
One has the right to practice whatever religion he wishes, or no religion at all, but that right does not extend to religious activities that violate a legitimate law. See: Employment Div. v. Smith (1988).
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
--
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
At last! Someone who seems to have actually read and understood Locke, Mill, and the other Philosophical Radicals.
What the Framers referred to as privileges or immunities, the rights which predate both the government and Constitution, and can be taken by neither man nor government, as they are a manifestation of ones humanity.
I think there is another crucial distinction to be made. As both men and governments are imperfect, both aspire to goals they do not achieve. The fact that aspirational statements are not reflected in action is a measure of progression or recession in our institutions rather than a reason to abandon those goals. For example, the internment of Japanese American citizens in WWII was a denial of a constitutional right, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court and was thus as a matter of law constitutional. That decision does not make the offense any more right. The fact that the decision still stands and is used as precedent says a lot about our commitment to liberty. Despite the ruling and its use to justify other measures of detention without due process, many of us are not ready to abandon the concept that right to due process when life and liberty are at stake is a near absolute right.
Ones rights are not absolute, however, as government is authorized by the Constitution to enact limitations, provided such limitations comport with Constitutional case law.
One has the right to free speech and assembly, for example, but not the right to have a sleep-in in a city park, setting up tents and the like, jurisdictions are authorized to limit or prohibit such activities. See: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984).
One has the right to practice whatever religion he wishes, or no religion at all, but that right does not extend to religious activities that violate a legitimate law. See: Employment Div. v. Smith (1988).
I would agree that there is a heirarchy of rights, but I believe that some rights are in a sense absolute. The doctrine of necessity can be stretched only so far. Preventative detention for years should require a high standard of due process. Whle I appreciate the legal references, in a discussion of basic rights there will be a vast difference between what the Nine Wise Men say and what most people would regard as right in an ethical or philosophical sense. And the people have recourse.
Ultimately the question of rights in America is best stated by our greatest constitutional lawyer.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
--
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.