It really all comes down to a fundamental understanding of what an unalienable right is.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Listening to Paul Ryan
- Thread starter midcan5
- Start date
PaulS1950
Senior Member
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #123
Quantum Windbag, can you provide links to your natural rights argument.
=============
This thread asked a question that the presumptive VP posed as a principle to guide American politics and policy. The point is the words sound nice but mean nothing. Not only do they mean nothing but when you consider them in the context of Ryan's comments in the article below you must realize they are merely fluff outside of context. Ryans's rights are often contrary to other rights.
"This year’s Republican campaign may be the most dishonest in history. A couple of weeks ago I listed 10 major falsehoods and gaffes of Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan. He repeated several of them in his Tampa speech, and added a few more. In honest political debate, when a candidate says something that is not true, he is confronted by journalists and the public, and either gives evidence that it is true, or backs off. Ryan continues to insist on repeating known falsehoods, to the extent that even Fox Cable News lamented his dishonesty." Top Ten Repeated Paul Ryan Lies | Informed Comment
=============
PaulS1950, so those pesky insects and weeds have a 'right' to life. Are we wrong then in killing them? Free speech has many limits, consider only libel? Is happiness an inalienable right and if so how is it provided? Would that happiness extend to the security provided by UHC? That would make many Americans happy.
'Before that happens, though, "....it might be nice for me to describe what Rights! are. As the name is meant to indicate, a Right! (to do or have something) is just like a right (to do or have) that same thing, only more. In particular, Rights! are thought to be absolute - that is, to apply and take priority regardless of the context, circumstances, or consequences that might follow. The problem with this, as I'd said, is that any two such Rights! are going to collide, sooner or later, at which point there will be no (morally, legally, whatever) available course of action and so one will be forced to do something which one is forbidden to do. What I learned just recently is that you don't even need two of these Rights! to reach that situation. Sometimes, just one will do the trick." Eli Horowitz Rust Belt Philosophy: Property Rights!
=============
This thread asked a question that the presumptive VP posed as a principle to guide American politics and policy. The point is the words sound nice but mean nothing. Not only do they mean nothing but when you consider them in the context of Ryan's comments in the article below you must realize they are merely fluff outside of context. Ryans's rights are often contrary to other rights.
"This year’s Republican campaign may be the most dishonest in history. A couple of weeks ago I listed 10 major falsehoods and gaffes of Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan. He repeated several of them in his Tampa speech, and added a few more. In honest political debate, when a candidate says something that is not true, he is confronted by journalists and the public, and either gives evidence that it is true, or backs off. Ryan continues to insist on repeating known falsehoods, to the extent that even Fox Cable News lamented his dishonesty." Top Ten Repeated Paul Ryan Lies | Informed Comment
=============
PaulS1950, so those pesky insects and weeds have a 'right' to life. Are we wrong then in killing them? Free speech has many limits, consider only libel? Is happiness an inalienable right and if so how is it provided? Would that happiness extend to the security provided by UHC? That would make many Americans happy.
'Before that happens, though, "....it might be nice for me to describe what Rights! are. As the name is meant to indicate, a Right! (to do or have something) is just like a right (to do or have) that same thing, only more. In particular, Rights! are thought to be absolute - that is, to apply and take priority regardless of the context, circumstances, or consequences that might follow. The problem with this, as I'd said, is that any two such Rights! are going to collide, sooner or later, at which point there will be no (morally, legally, whatever) available course of action and so one will be forced to do something which one is forbidden to do. What I learned just recently is that you don't even need two of these Rights! to reach that situation. Sometimes, just one will do the trick." Eli Horowitz Rust Belt Philosophy: Property Rights!
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
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.
jillian, keep in mind who you are arguing with. The creator of this 'profound' statement...
"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi
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.
Unalienable rights is a concept that can and does include your definition, but as the Founders understood it and strived to incorporate into our Constitution, it is a fundamental understanding of unrestricted power over one's own property, thoughts, feelings, choices, options, and destiny, short of violating the unalienable rights of another.
In a nutshell, it is the protected freedom to choose that which requires no contribution or participation from any other person without his/her explicit consent. It is the first and only such concept of national government that has ever existed in the world and the only one that truly allows human freedom.
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. For that federal government to require one person to pay for another person's food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, contraceptives, abortion or anything else was seen as a blatant violation of unalienable rights by the Founders. Such would be decided by social contract within the various states or communities of citizens.
I believe Paul Ryan understands this concept as do all true modern day American conservatives and constitutionalists. I believe this concept is mostly alien and incomprehensible to the statists, political class, modern day progressives/leftists/liberals.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #126
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.
Last edited:
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
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.
You've said nothing that supports your original proposition. People can claim that rights come from God. That simply sets the framwork of how we look at rights. Since God requires faith and does not show himself to us.....we find it necessary to work this out for ourselves.
Some realities do exist.
Does God give us the "right" not to die. Some might claim he does....but nobody has been able (to date) to enforce that one (if he ever gave it to us).
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.
The bible defines no rights.
None.
Neither does the Torah or the Koran.
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.
"Working together". What does that mean?
When I was a little kid growing up in the south, I was sometimes allowed to pull cotton for spending money. There were maybe 20 to30 people working a large field. Each started out with an empty cotton sack and worked the rows, pulling the bolls and filling the sacks. When your sack was full, you returned to the weigh master who weighed it and noted the weight on his ledger. Then you were given an empty sack and you started out again. We kids got small sacks that would hold at the most 15 or 20 pounds. The adults received larger sacks that would hold 50 to 100 pounds.
At the end of the day we were paid 2 cents per pound - $2.00 per hundred. I never made much over a half dollar, a princely sum for me in those days. But even then I wasn't working to help out anybody else. I wasn't working to get in the famer's crop for his benefit. I was working for that 2 cents per pound. For me.
But even though I was working for my own benefit, the farmer's crop was harvested and provided work for the folks operating a gin and then textile manufacturers and eventually income for advertisers, for transport drivers, and sales clerks, and the owners of all those businesses who in turn purchased goods from others providing income for them.
Every single one of us was not working for the mutual good, but for his/her own interests.
That is what the conservative means when s/he says we're all in this together.
The conservative accepts it as just and fair that the people who pulled the most cotton in that field were paid the most. And even though us kids were out there working with them, we were nowhere near as productive and earned much less. But we longed to be bigger and stronger so that we could earn more, and admired a great deal the big strong guys who hauled bag after heavy bag to the weigh master.
Perhaps the liberal thinks the earnings should have been equally divided among all the workers? When you have a system like that, you will invariably have people who will do as little as they think they can get by with, nobody will be recording who picks the most because it won't matter, and it is a near certainty that at the end of the day, the tally will be much less cotton picked than when the pay is based on each individual's ability to earn.
Is there a moral to this story? I think there is.
When I was a little kid growing up in the south, I was sometimes allowed to pull cotton for spending money. There were maybe 20 to30 people working a large field. Each started out with an empty cotton sack and worked the rows, pulling the bolls and filling the sacks. When your sack was full, you returned to the weigh master who weighed it and noted the weight on his ledger. Then you were given an empty sack and you started out again. We kids got small sacks that would hold at the most 15 or 20 pounds. The adults received larger sacks that would hold 50 to 100 pounds.
At the end of the day we were paid 2 cents per pound - $2.00 per hundred. I never made much over a half dollar, a princely sum for me in those days. But even then I wasn't working to help out anybody else. I wasn't working to get in the famer's crop for his benefit. I was working for that 2 cents per pound. For me.
But even though I was working for my own benefit, the farmer's crop was harvested and provided work for the folks operating a gin and then textile manufacturers and eventually income for advertisers, for transport drivers, and sales clerks, and the owners of all those businesses who in turn purchased goods from others providing income for them.
Every single one of us was not working for the mutual good, but for his/her own interests.
That is what the conservative means when s/he says we're all in this together.
The conservative accepts it as just and fair that the people who pulled the most cotton in that field were paid the most. And even though us kids were out there working with them, we were nowhere near as productive and earned much less. But we longed to be bigger and stronger so that we could earn more, and admired a great deal the big strong guys who hauled bag after heavy bag to the weigh master.
Perhaps the liberal thinks the earnings should have been equally divided among all the workers? When you have a system like that, you will invariably have people who will do as little as they think they can get by with, nobody will be recording who picks the most because it won't matter, and it is a near certainty that at the end of the day, the tally will be much less cotton picked than when the pay is based on each individual's ability to earn.
Is there a moral to this story? I think there is.
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.
I not only answered it, I did so with significant specificity. It is obvious that those who believe God created everything and set everything in motion would also see God as the giver of unalienable rights. Those who do not believe in God nevertheless can believe in a concept of unalienable rights or natural rights that are no different from God given rights.
An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation by another person; it requires only his/her non interference. Anything that requires participation or contribution by another is not a right but a privilege.
Last edited:
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
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 ?
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 ?
It is when the government does not respect and secure the unalienable rights of the people. And it doesn't really matter whether it is the biggest and strongest taking what he wants from whomever he wants or the government doing that.
oldfart
Older than dirt
At last! Someone who seems to have actually read and understood Locke, Mill, and the other Philosophical Radicals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A distinction must be made between unalienable rights, constitutional rights, and legal rights. The Constitution was designed to reocognize and protect unalienable rights within a system that would facilitate the individual states being one enduring nation. The Founders never intended the Federal government to enforce anything other than that which recognizes unalienable rights and that which secures them and keeps us an enduring nation.
All legal rights would be decided within the states themselves and would be respected by the federal government who would have no power to interfere when the interests of no other states were involved.
Whether you believe God is nature or God created nature,
that does not affect the point being made: that the
laws of nature that govern human nature
exist independent of government.
Government is supposed to reflect consent of the people where we agree on laws.
Not the other way: government is not supposed to impose laws for us, we are not supposed to depend on government to make decisions for us. We are supposed to form agreements and contracts and base our laws and government on those agreements.
I would summarize these basic rights in the First Amendment, interpreted very generally to cover all applications of them in private and public life:
* free exercise of religion as free will or equal executive power to act or carry out decisions
* free speech to speak opinions or equal judicial power to interpret laws and make decisions
* freedom of the press to express oneself or equal legislative power to write out laws and contracts
* right PEACEABLY to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances or equal checks and balances
right to assemble securely, to due process to resolve conflicts to defend one's interests
(notice that none of the freedoms can be abused to violate equal rights of others, or it causes a breach of the PEACE and violates the same law.
we must agree on how to balance freedom and peace to ensure justice; neither peace can be imposed to violate freedom nor can freedom be abused to disrupt the peace.)
All choices in human experience fall under thought, word or action. So the three branches of govt are collectively these three levels. We naturally have rights and responsibilities on all three levels, and the point is to learn to check and balance against abuses, and learn to manage democratic due process to redress grievances to maintain peace and justice.
http://www.emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/fa/JudgmentCall2011.avi
The Golden Rule still applies: if we want equal protections of the law, we should enforce justice for all people equally as ourselves.
that does not affect the point being made: that the
laws of nature that govern human nature
exist independent of government.
Government is supposed to reflect consent of the people where we agree on laws.
Not the other way: government is not supposed to impose laws for us, we are not supposed to depend on government to make decisions for us. We are supposed to form agreements and contracts and base our laws and government on those agreements.
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.
I would summarize these basic rights in the First Amendment, interpreted very generally to cover all applications of them in private and public life:
* free exercise of religion as free will or equal executive power to act or carry out decisions
* free speech to speak opinions or equal judicial power to interpret laws and make decisions
* freedom of the press to express oneself or equal legislative power to write out laws and contracts
* right PEACEABLY to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances or equal checks and balances
right to assemble securely, to due process to resolve conflicts to defend one's interests
(notice that none of the freedoms can be abused to violate equal rights of others, or it causes a breach of the PEACE and violates the same law.
we must agree on how to balance freedom and peace to ensure justice; neither peace can be imposed to violate freedom nor can freedom be abused to disrupt the peace.)
All choices in human experience fall under thought, word or action. So the three branches of govt are collectively these three levels. We naturally have rights and responsibilities on all three levels, and the point is to learn to check and balance against abuses, and learn to manage democratic due process to redress grievances to maintain peace and justice.
http://www.emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/fa/JudgmentCall2011.avi
The Golden Rule still applies: if we want equal protections of the law, we should enforce justice for all people equally as ourselves.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 627
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 310
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 97
- Views
- 443
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 127
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8049
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-