CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A new convention would be torn apart by progressives, regressives, and libertarians.

A 'new convention' is unwarranted and ridiculous, a pathetic fantasy maintained by those hostile to current Constitutional jurisprudence for solely subjective, partisan reasons.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

It is the very fact that so many progressives (and even a conservative or two) seem to love to say that there is no such thing as an unalienable right no matter how much those who accept the concept try to explain it is why we need a Constitution that spells it out so folks can't say it doesn't exist.

 

[boedicca]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

You are incorrect. The Founders believed in property rights. It is too bad the phrase is "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" instead of the alternate version "life, liberty, and property.

Read up:

The Constitution and Property Rights Tenth Amendment Center

 

[Derideo_Te]

Here you go, bub.

View attachment 34856

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

The "evidence" you provide corroborated my position that the government was providing the funding for elections.

"Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958."

You are twisting yourself in knots, hun. Try reading for comprehension.

Ironic!

Here's Irony:

boedicca says: "They aren't limited to the government provided financing you are advocating."

you say: "BUT THEY ARE IN THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD'S ELECTIONS."

Breaking it down:

I say they aren't limited.

You say they are.

So, again: provide the proof that candidates in the Rest of the Civilized world are limited to government provided financing.

Context is everything. Let's begin at the beginning. This is what I stated;

... Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.​

Followed by links prefaced with;

... some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. ​

Campaign financing is limited in one form or another. By doing so they eliminate the gross corruption that exists in this nation that has only worsened since the Koch Bros managed to subvert the SCOTUS with Citizens United. A decision that rivals Dred Scott when it comes to being unconstitutional.

Now feel free to defend the current corruption to your heart's desire but your words will ring hollow when you complain about government spending exactly what their Wall Street Casino Bosses order them to spend.

 

[Spare_change]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. He said it. He probably won't acknowledge it, but he said it. I have already provided evidence of how that is incorrect however.

The "evidence" you provide corroborated my position that the government was providing the funding for elections.

"Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958."

You are twisting yourself in knots, hun. Try reading for comprehension.

Ironic!

Here's Irony:

boedicca says: "They aren't limited to the government provided financing you are advocating."

you say: "BUT THEY ARE IN THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD'S ELECTIONS."

Breaking it down:

I say they aren't limited.

You say they are.

So, again: provide the proof that candidates in the Rest of the Civilized world are limited to government provided financing.

Context is everything. Let's begin at the beginning. This is what I stated;

... Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.​

Followed by links prefaced with;

... some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. ​

Campaign financing is limited in one form or another. By doing so they eliminate the gross corruption that exists in this nation that has only worsened since the Koch Bros managed to subvert the SCOTUS with Citizens United. A decision that rivals Dred Scott when it comes to being unconstitutional.

Now feel free to defend the current corruption to your heart's desire but your words will ring hollow when you complain about government spending exactly what their Wall Street Casino Bosses order them to spend.

Yup context is everything. Right down to the part where you say I have defended current corruption which is so ridiculous you lose all credibility when you say it. You have not admitted that you said what you said--you conveniently left out any incriminating evidence in your context that we quoted--and you have provided absolutely no evidence that government spends what "Wall Street Casino Bosses" order them to spend.

And even if that is true, the solution I have offered, which you have religiously ignored, would fix that.

The drummer I'm following isn't going off that cliff you seem to see. The whole flawed system plummeted off the cliff into runaway government some time back.

I am proposing that we discuss what would fix that. And giving yet more power to the government and taking more power from the people just doesn't make much sense on the face of it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yup context is everything. Right down to the part where you say I have defended current corruption which is so ridiculous you lose all credibility when you say it.

I was replying to Boedicca, not you. I didn't say that you defended the current corruption either. I was making a rhetorical statement about how it is the cause of the government spending we see today because the representatives answer to the Wall Street Casino Bosses instead of the people.

Your solution does nothing whatsoever to stop the WSCB from continuing to own the politicians and they can simply pass laws that will negate your constraints. The alternative is to make what the WSCB is doing a crime. That will accomplish the end you want even though you refuse to even consider it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

PS Should I be expecting a visit from the mods anytime soon, Foxy?

Just wondering if I need to put my tie back on.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

It is the very fact that so many progressives (and even a conservative or two) seem to love to say that there is no such thing as an unalienable right no matter how much those who accept the concept try to explain it is why we need a Constitution that spells it out so folks can't say it doesn't exist.

No, we really don't. An unalienable right is a propaganda tool and a myth. In real life it does not exist and would not work if it did. Property rights are an excellent example. If property rights were unalienable you couldn't build a highway, install a sewer system or lay down rails. That pipeline from Canada? Impossible to build. The Founders understood this, which is why you won't find that word in the Constitution.

The only place you will find it is in the Declaration of Independence, and that is nothing but propaganda. The unalienable right to life? Don't we have a death penalty? Right to liberty? Are there not prisons? Pursuit of happiness I will give you, because you can pursue happiness while being burned at the stake - you just won't catch it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'd like to see two rights made explicit:

- The right to privacy
- Property rights

Two other changes:

- A cost benefit analysis requirement before passing a law.
- A requirement that making violations of regulations or laws "criminal offenses" must be justified with a valid harm being done. Dealing with crimes entails force, which in the extreme is deadly. Minor infractions of social engineering schemes don't warrant such force.

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

You are incorrect. The Founders believed in property rights. It is too bad the phrase is "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" instead of the alternate version "life, liberty, and property.

Read up:

The Constitution and Property Rights Tenth Amendment Center

I didn't say they didn't believe in property rights. I said they did not see it as an unalienable right. Everyone does understand what unalienable means, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

The right to breathe.

You want some more?
The right to think.
The right to believe.
The right to speak what one thinks and believes.
The right to hope.
The right to dream, aspire, covet, reach for whatever doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights.
The right to worship as we please.
The right to form the society we wish to have.
The right to use our property as we wish so long we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.
The right to negotiate with another a legal agreement regarding any product or service or shared responsibility.
The right to be who and what we are and do what we please so long as no involuntary contribution or participation is required of any other person.

 

[boedicca]

I am convinced that if they stop just living their lives long enough to consider their perception of better and best, good and evil, right and wrong, most people are pretty conservative (aka libertarian little "L" or classical liberal) in their point of view. But my greatest fear is that a new constitutional convention would include so many hard core progressives as they are defined these days that we would immediately lose all the protections we now enjoy via the existing constitution. They would give all authority to govern to a central government instead of to the people as the Founders intended.

Property rights are certainly among those unalienable rights the Founders intended to be secured by the federal government even as they struggled to find a means to ensure that all the land and resources did not wind up in the hands of a very few. As it turned out, the Homestead laws coupled with liberty were more efficient to distribute resources than they had even hoped.

And IMO, except for situations that involve shared water, land, air, and any other resources that cross state lines, the federal government should have no involvement whatsoever in how people use their property and should be involved in no social engineering whatsoever.

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

It's clear you don't grok the definition of "unalienable right". Let's see how you define it before I provide a reply.

 

[PratchettFan]

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

The right to breathe.

You want some more?
The right to think.
The right to believe.
The right to speak what one thinks and believes.
The right to hope.
The right to dream, aspire, covet, reach for whatever doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights.
The right to worship as we please.
The right to form the society we wish to have.
The right to use our property as we wish so long we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.
The right to negotiate with another a legal agreement regarding any product or service or shared responsibility.
The right to be who and what we are and do what we please so long as no involuntary contribution or participation is required of any other person.

Ok. Taken in order
Breathe - death penalty
Think - I'll give you this
Believe - I'll give you this
Speak - shout fire in crowded theatre (which was actually a case of an anarchist handing out pamphlets)
Hope - I'll give you this
Dream - Ok
Worship - You can't sacrifice animals, practice polygamy, etc
Form a society - have you heard of the civil war?
Use property as you wish - you need to read your local building and zoning codes
Negotiate agreements - same sex marriage
Right to do what you please - drug laws

So you can think, believe and dream to your heart's content. As to the rest, those are not unalienable rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

If property rights were considered unalienable, then there would be no such thing as imminent domain.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

It's clear you don't grok the definition of "unalienable right". Let's see how you define it before I provide a reply.

Unalienable means it cannot be taken away from you. What do you think it means?

 

[boedicca]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And it's not Imminent, it's Eminent.

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

It's clear you don't grok the definition of "unalienable right". Let's see how you define it before I provide a reply.

Unalienable means it cannot be taken away from you. What do you think it means?

Well, let's take a look at some Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

 

[BlackSand]

I have pointed out very specific denial of rights done by the states. What exactly are these rights and liberties you claim are currently being denied by the federal government?

If you want battle over specifics ... I can discuss three of many issues to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Justice Department still oversees some (I am not qualified to indicate whether or not it is all or how many if not) Louisiana Public School Boards. Public School Boards are designated as Parish wide. Each Parish is divided into school districts. The Parish I will be talking about has four Districts within one Parish.

The main school district is in the Parish seat which is solidly controlled by Democrat representatives in all levels from the Parish School Board to the Mayor's Office. The other three Districts are centered in the outlying communities ranging from 18-25 away.

Over the past 10 years ... The white citizens who lived in the Parish Seat started moving out to the surrounding communities to escape the Democrat controlled city and what they felt were destructive policies. This out-migration resulted in a catastrophic drop in Public School scores within the Parish Seat. The Justice Department was asked to investigate.

First Issue ... Parish-Wide Student Mobility

Since the test scores were directly tied to the exodus of white children ... Rules were put in place to stop the flow. Minority students were subsequently allowed to attend any school of their choice within the Parish and at the appropriate grade level. The Parish provides transportation for these students and minorities take advantage of this opportunity.

White students whose parents move to another District within the Parish are not allowed to transfer schools when they do. Transportation is not provided for white students whose parents choose to relocate within the Parish even though they are required to attend school as much as 28 miles away.

I have no problem with the first part. The second part is wrong and infringes upon the rights of the white students ... And without even the slightest attempt to accommodate the required compliance of white students. The Justice Department has no right to make white children continue to attend failing schools for no other reason than to prop up their scores.

Second Issue ... Minority Teacher Initiative

I will refer to it as an initiative because they won't assign a specific number thus qualifying it as a quota.

There is a gross disparity in regards to African American students and African American teachers. There is also a disparity in regards to African American teachers and the fact they are primarily employed in the failing schools. Overall there are far more white teachers in the outlying schools.

To increase the number of African American teachers in the Parish as a whole, an initiative was started to recruit these minorities. Recruiting includes traveling to Universities in neighboring states or further and attracting minority graduates. The employment requirements in regards to scores on the National Teacher's Exam are lower for minority teachers. To encourage minority teachers to apply ... Signing bonuses are rewarded once they agree to work for the Parish.

White teachers are not recruited in the same manner. Equal bonuses are not offered to new white teachers. White certified teachers with higher scores who live in the community are not recruited until the School Board runs out of other options. White teachers are frequently relocated to the failing school districts as the failing teachers are spread out across the Parish. Minority teachers are not assigned to the failing schools unless there are no other options.

The first part ... I don't really have a problem with (except for the NTE scores). The second part is discriminatory in every way, shape and form ... And fails to protect the rights of the teachers involved.

Third Issue ... Artificial Turf
(included to demonstrate the absolute pettiness of the policies)

While things were moving around, the population swelled particularly in a majority white District (85% which is particularly high in this region). The school facilities recognized a 100% enrollment increase in 5 years. Local and community taxes supported expansion that was eventually approved by the Justice Department ... But fell short of meeting what the community was satisfied with in regards to athletics facilities.

The school district (without any support from the Parish School Board) aggressively started a campaign to raise money through private donations and upgrade their facilities. They were successful in doing so. The stadium was upgraded. Premium equipment in a college class weight room and training center were put in. Everything was brought up to desired standards including artificial turf on the football field with private donations collected within the community.

This flew all in the face of the two minority (classification only because minorities are not a minority there) controlled school districts who were upset that the one district had far better facilities.

Once it was brought to the attention of the Justice Department officials investigating the School Board ... They instructed the board they would have to upgrade the other districts to the same standards using Parish School Board funding from Parish taxes (the vast majority of which comes from the community that privately financed their own upgrades). The School District that did the initial upgrade was never reimbursed by the Parish School Board for the upgrades they made.

....

The instances above are not the only issues, just a broad representation of how far the Justice Department has taken its liberty with the law. It is particularly interesting that the measures enacted ... Seem more to punish some people and reward others.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

I didn't make a judgment on it. I simply pointed out that if the Founders actually thought property rights were unalienable there wouldn't be eminent domain. There is no such thing as an unalienable right.

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

It's clear you don't grok the definition of "unalienable right". Let's see how you define it before I provide a reply.

Unalienable means it cannot be taken away from you. What do you think it means?

Well, let's take a look at some Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

Very nice. Interesting ideas from a man who owned human beings. Do as I say, not as I do?

 

[boedicca]

Well, there's a leap .... founders didn't think property rights were unalienable, therefore there is no such thing as an unalienable right?

Perhaps you will enlighten us on that logic ....

Name me one unalienable right.

It's clear you don't grok the definition of "unalienable right". Let's see how you define it before I provide a reply.

Unalienable means it cannot be taken away from you. What do you think it means?

Well, let's take a look at some Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

Very nice. Interesting ideas from a man who owned human beings. Do as I say, not as I do?

Just like you're using a computer to access the internets while you hate the people who produce?

I'll note that Jefferson freed his slaves upon his death. Somehow, I don't see you renouncing the benefits of Capitalism.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have pointed out very specific denial of rights done by the states. What exactly are these rights and liberties you claim are currently being denied by the federal government?

If you want battle over specifics ... I can discuss three of many issues to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Justice Department still oversees some (I am not qualified to indicate whether or not it is all or how many if not) Louisiana Public School Boards. Public School Boards are designated as Parish wide. Each Parish is divided into school districts. The Parish I will be talking about has four Districts within one Parish.

The main school district is in the Parish seat which is solidly control by Democrat representatives in all levels from the Parish School Board to the Mayor's Office. The other three Districts are centered in the outlying communities ranging from 18-25 away.

Over the past 10 years ... The white citizens who lived in the Parish Seat started moving out to the surrounding communities to escape the Democrat controlled city and what they felt were destructive policies. This out-migration resulted in a catastrophic drop in Public School scores within the Parish Seat. The Justice Department was asked to investigate.

First Issue ... Parish-Wide Student Mobility

Since the test scores were directly tied to the exodus if white children ... Rules were put in place to stop the flow. Minority students were subsequently allowed to attend any school of their choice within the Parish and at the appropriate grade level. The Parish provides transportation for these students and minorities take advantage of this opportunity.

White students whose parents move to another District within the Parish are not allowed to transfer schools when they do. Transportation is not provided for white students whose parents chose to relocate within the Parish even though they are required to attend school as much as 28 miles away.

I have no problem with the first part. The second part is wrong and infringes upon the rights of the white students ... And without even the slightest attempt to accommodate the required compliance of white students. The Justice Department has no right to make white children continue to attend failing schools for no other reason than to prop up their scores.

Second Issue ... Minority Teacher Initiative

I will refer to it as an initiative because they won't assign a specific number thus qualifying it as a quota.

There is a gross disparity in regards to African American students and African American teachers. There is also a disparity in regards to African American teachers and the fact they are primarily employed in the failing schools. Overall there are far more white teachers in the outlying schools.

To increase the number of African American teachers in the Parish as a whole, an initiative was started to recruit these minorities. Recruiting includes traveling to Universities in neighboring states or further and attracting minority graduates. The employment requirements in regards to scores on the National Teacher's Exam are lower for minority teachers. To encourage minority teachers to apply ... Signing bonuses are rewarded once they agree to work for the Parish.

White teachers are not recruited in the same manner. Equal bonuses are not offered to new white teachers. White certified teachers with higher scores who live in the community are not recruited until the School Board runs out of other options. White teachers are frequently relocated to the failing school districts as the failing teachers are spread out across the Parish. Minority teachers are not assigned to the failing schools unless there are no other options.

The first part ... I don't really have a problem with (except for the NTE scores). The second part is discriminatory in every way, shape and form ... And fails to protect the rights of the teachers involved.

Third Issue ... Artificial Turf
(included to demonstrate the absolute pettiness of the policies)

While things were moving around, the population swelled particularly in a majority white District (85% which is particularly high in this region). The school facilities recognized a 100% enrollment increase in 5 years. Local and community taxes supported expansion that was eventually approved by the Justice Department ... But fell short of meeting what the community was satisfied with in regards to athletics facilities.

The school district (without any support from the Parish School Board) aggressively started a campaign to raise money through private donations and upgrade their facilities. They were successful in doing so. The stadium was upgraded. Premium equipment in a college class weight room and training center were put in. Everything was brought up to desired standards including artificial turf on the football field with private donations collected within the community.

This flew all in the face of the two minority (classification only because minorities are not a minority there) controlled school districts who were upset that the one district had far better facilities.

Once it was brought to the attention of the Justice Department officials investigating the School Board ... They instructed the board they would have upgrade the other districts to the same standards using Parish School Board funding from Parish taxes (the vast majority of which comes from the community that privately financed their own upgrades). The School District that did the initial upgrade was never reimbursed by the Parish School Board for the upgrades they made.

....

The instances above are not the only issues, just a broad representation of how far the Justice Department has taken it liberty with the law. It is particularly interesting that the measures enacted ... Seem more to punish some people and reward others.

.

Let me understand. The Justice Department's involvement in this is to instruct the School Board they must apply the same upgrades to the schools on an equal basis?