Powers, Rights, and the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Nov 2, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The constitution does not declare one right that you have and doesn't even mention itself as a document of human rights. It does mention powers that the federal government has and those powers define the purpose of that government. Since the federal government has those powers it is reasonable to assume that it also has the right to execute those powers because you can't grant something powers and then deny them the right to execute those powers.

    The federal constitution not only defines its own powers but also makes it clear that any powers that is not defined in the constitution remains in the hands of the citizen. Those powers, whatever they may be, are not a creation of the government but are intrinsic to the individual. There is no action government needs to take for any person to have any power in their own life because any power we do have is the result of our existence within a society. Any ability you have (or power) also includes the the right to execute that power which is identical to the government's right to execute whatever power it has in the constitution.

    This is what a right really is; it is simply the right to execute a power that you possess such as the power to print newspaper articles (free press). This is a fundamental concept about rights that must be understood because not everyone has the same power to do something in their life but they retain the right to execute whatever powers they do have. This can range from the power to purchase adequite health insurance, to engage in trade, marry the person we want, live where we want, and etc. All of these things mentioned are examples of powers that we have and while not everyone has the same ability to obtain these things every person retains the right to execute what powers they are capable of executing in their own lives.

    So yes, not everyone has the power to obtain health insurance but those that do retains the right to execute that power. Not everyone has the power/ability to become a millionaire CEO but someone who does still retains the right to execute that power.

    The spirit of the constitution essentially is a document that separates powers between citizen and government and any power retained by either side also includes the right to execute that power as they see fit which is why freedom exist in our society.
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Actually the Powers not Granted to the Federal Government reside with the States and then the people. Each State has its own Constitution which define what powers that Government has, after THAT the people have the rest.

    But as evidenced by idiots on this very board the federal Government is in fact not limited by the Constitution. Congress is talking of giving DC a voting Representative, something they have no power to do. The President and Congress are even now working on a Government take over of the medical Industry, another power NOT granted them, and the debate is not how dare they but how soon will they.

    FDR illegally created Social Security and since then we have Medicare , a Department of Education, Housing and Development, A take over of the Banking Industry, A take over of the Car Industry, illegal Courts that meet in secret, Family Courts that deny Parents equal protection under the Constitution, and a HOST of other illegal entities and powers usurped by the Federal Government. AND NO ONE CARES. In fact we have lawyers on this very board that argue that the Constitution has a General Welfare clause allowing the Government to do just about anything they want.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I see what you are saying but the point I was trying to make is that having the power to do something such as pass on millions of dollars to your kids also gives you the right to do it as well so its really not possible to deny someone the right to do something (unless it is a stated power of the federal constitution) if they are capable of doing it. In other words, just merely having the power to do something gives you the right to do it.

    I prefer to think in terms of powers we or the government have instead of rights because the left believes you may have the right to housing so now the government has to provide it to you. Powers on the other hand are different because not everyone has the power to obtain housing but if we did (like having a good source of income) then we have the right execute that power.

    Its the same thing with "the right to health care". They believe its a right but what you actually have is the right to execute that power to obtain health care not the right to posses that power by the fact you merely exist.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009
  4. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,960
    Thanks Received:
    6,098
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +19,877
    Though you hold a right, it doesn't mean you excerise the right.

    If you had the right to health care coverage (which you don't), it is still up to you to decide if you will use the right. Mandatory health care coverage in not a right on that basis alone.
     
  5. xÞx
    Offline

    xÞx BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    226
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    You fail
     
  6. EriktheRed
    Offline

    EriktheRed Eh...

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,031
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    IL
    Ratings:
    +1,732
    You mean the Federal Gov't is outlawing free speech, right to assembly, habeas corpus, etc.?



    Yeah, what a totalitarian pit we live in because of Social Security. I was just thinking that myself when watching thousands of anti-government protestors march on Washington a while ago without being water-cannoned and rounded up en-masse by the cops.
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    could you link me to which article of the constitiution that is contained in....

    anyway...

    the opening aludes to rights

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    and our elected officials have the ability to write amendments and creat rights and they use the above preamble to do it....
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009
  8. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Elected officials don't create rights but lets assume for a minute that you are correct that amendments created rights. What part in that pre-amble gives the government to ability to write new amendments and in the process gives it the ability to create rights?
     
  9. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I believe that the entire thing is a single sentence in which the first part declares that congress does not have the power to abridge our right to assemble so its not creating a right but establishing a power congress can't enact which is why it starts out with congress shall pass no law... Again, we are talking about the establishment of powers and not of rights.

    Anyways, having the right to petition assumes that you must have the power to do so in the first place by either buying the paper and organizing a group to petition. This is a "power" you may have depending on your own social skills but if you have this power congress can't infringe on your right to execute that power. So having the "power" to do something automatically gives you the right to do it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009
  10. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Social Security is another example of control over society. Every single retirement law revolves around the social security number of 65 and because most of the funds of either our retirement saving or social security don't get unlocked until then it sets the age that most Americans decide to retire.

    I'm not saying its a great evil being done to us but it is a passive way to set the age Americans retire by controlling when they have access to retirement funds.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2009

Share This Page