Bill of Non-Rights: Do you agree or not?

[Ringel05]

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

You just don't like it.

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Are you actually saying the cost of health care wont go up if I have to also pay for the indigent?
My hospital bills for those two procedures was just shy of the million mark.
Of which we paid around 40K with our personally paid health savings account.
So tell me genius...who pays for the indigent?
I refuse to give up my excellent health care for substandard care so a lazy **** can receive the same substandard care when they paid Butkus.

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

My father died of ramifications of Agent Orange. He never considered burdening taxpayers with his problems.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new. Again show me historical precedence (that means from day one......) that what you claim it covers it actually does cover. The problem is you can't go back and find that past last year and your interpretation was struck down as unconstitutional. Care to try again?

United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791

Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

Historical based on whose interpretations?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

My father died of ramifications of Agent Orange. He never considered burdening taxpayers with his problems.

I'm very sorry to hear that. America is totally liable when it comes to his health and we should have done everything in our power to make it right before he died.
It's shit like this that makes me question our dedication to our troops.
Every effort should have been made to help your father.
I salute your father and his sacrifice.

 

[Disir]

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

You just don't like it.

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

Technically they were federal limitations on the states until many of those were incorporated and extended to the individual.

Inalienable rights stem from Locke.

 

[Disir]

United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

and stem from here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Document 21

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791

Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Again, nothing to do with your assertion of an inalienable right to healthcare.

You said: Again you're interpretation of the extent and areas the General Welfare clause encompasses is very new.

I provided the framework demonstrating it isn't new.

You don't like that? Try the 9th.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Your interpretation of what you've posted is still a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the historical interpretation, what part of that don't you understand?

Hamilton is pretty danged historical. It's ok for you not to like it but that interpretation still exists.

Historical based on whose interpretations?

I have answered this.

 

[Disir]

Why is it going up?

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

My father died of ramifications of Agent Orange. He never considered burdening taxpayers with his problems.

Are you claiming my father has?

 

[LuckyDuck]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

Article I: Agree.
Article II: Agree.
Article III: Agree.
Article IV: Agree.
Article V: Don't agree. There are numerous homeless people scattered throughout our cities; add in those individuals who are paid crap for wages (i.e., migrant pickers), and you have people who can't afford health care on their own. There are also middle income earners that while they can afford basic health insurance, can't afford extremely expensive hospital procedures such as transplants.
I've travelled all over this planet and the best health care system going is currently in France. It's very progressive and excellent in its preventive health programs and, it's a social government health care system that its public likes very much. You walk into your health provider's office, sign a document, get treated and....never get billed. Bottom line, it works.
Article VI: Agree.
Article VII: Agree.
Article VIII: Higher education and even trade schools aren't free and low income workers are not able to "take advantage" of such educations.
Article VIX: Agree.
Article X: Per the U.S. Constitution....."the freedom of speech, shall NOT be abridged (shortened or curtailed).
Article XI: It would be nice if our culture and heritage wouldn't be changed, but already, too many Islamists have been allowed into the country and with their very high birthrate, religious/political teachings and stated goal of changing this nation to an Islamic Theocracy, I wouldn't bet on our great-great or great-great-great grandchildren being able to live in that culture and heritage we created.

 

[Ringel05]

It's not Hamilton that is the issue here, it's your modern interpretation of Hamilton that is the issue. Read it again in historical context.

You just don't like it.

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

Technically they were federal limitations on the states until many of those were incorporated and extended to the individual.

Inalienable rights stem from Locke.

Technically (based on original intent) they told the Federal government what it could and could not do by calling those rights inalienable therefore are not rights given by the state (Federal government) but rights the Federal government could not abridge.

 

[Disir]

You just don't like it.

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

Technically they were federal limitations on the states until many of those were incorporated and extended to the individual.

Inalienable rights stem from Locke.

Technically (based on original intent) they told the Federal government what it could and could not do by calling those rights inalienable therefore are not rights given by the state (Federal government) but rights the Federal government could not abridge.

Correct. Which is why there was a huge argument over whether listing rights should have been done to begin with. Listing them would have limited them versus these are set in stone. Both sides were correct as it were.

 

[Ringel05]

Wrong. You're arguing a specific interpretation that is in fact modern, I'm trying to get you to at least see it if not accept it as a modern interpretation. Modern interpretation of what the founders wrote is not uncommon and not unexpected but I suspect your approach is to find a way to make an end run around Constitutional Amendment procedures to avoid potential failure of the concept. That's the normal tact to take these days, reinterpret then reapply.

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

Technically they were federal limitations on the states until many of those were incorporated and extended to the individual.

Inalienable rights stem from Locke.

Technically (based on original intent) they told the Federal government what it could and could not do by calling those rights inalienable therefore are not rights given by the state (Federal government) but rights the Federal government could not abridge.

Correct. Which is why there was a huge argument over whether listing rights should have been done to begin with. Listing them would have limited them versus these are set in stone. Both sides were correct as it were.

Well obviously over the decades we've seen what happens with interpretation when they are listed but I shudder to think what would have happened if they weren't listed.
At least you're not one of those who believe our rights under the Constitution are given to us by the State therefore can be taken away anytime the State wants for any reason, especially popular movement reasons.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would advise you look into the last eight years to find your answer.

So, you are as ticked off about the hospital mergers as I am?

I have my choice of hospitals and surgeons. In fact i had the best because I took responsibility for my own healthcare.
Why not let the indigent go to a VA type hospital? After all you seem to think those are just fine for our veterans?
Not that I think our veterans dont deserve better of course.

My dad is a vet. He is dealing with the ramifications of Agent Orange. You are making assumptions of my views that don't exist.

My father died of ramifications of Agent Orange. He never considered burdening taxpayers with his problems.

I'm very sorry to hear that. America is totally liable when it comes to his health and we should have done everything in our power to make it right before he died.
It's shit like this that makes me question our dedication to our troops.
Every effort should have been made to help your father.
I salute your father and his sacrifice.

Dear Disir gallantwarrior and HereWeGoAgain
We all know the VA needs reform
and I've argued that prison reform would pay for health care if done right
by focusing on medical programs that train more providers by combining public service with the supervised internships and residencies.

Instead of fighting back and forth over health care,
would you support petitioning Governors and leaders in Congress to

Allow BOTH the existing ACA to be reformed by Democratic party members as an EQUAL CHOICE
(and to turn it into singlepayer by addressing Prison reform to reorganize resources per state
from there, so if states want more health care, they have to find cost effective ways to reduce the cost of crime)
AND the revised GOP plan to remove mandates AS AN EQUAL CHOICE
(to be developed by Republicans in charge of reforming VA and making that the first focus for funding)

So instead of voting for one version or the other, allow BOTH to be developed
as separate tracks for Democrats and their supporters to fund freely
(where mandates only apply to those convicted of a crime
or owing for debts or damages to public taxpayers thus justifying loss of liberty)
and for Republicans and their supporters to fund who believe in
free market choices and charities, or mandatory taxes paying for Vets etc.

What about Greens Libertarians and other parties:
the reimbursements owed to taxpayers for unconstitutional
abuses and contracts can be assessed with the help of other
parties, who serve as consultants with the other major parties,
whose members in govt are held responsible for the passage of ACA
and negligence in not amending or correcting it while serving in Congress.
So both the major parties owe the costs, and the other parties would be
enlisted to assess those costs and negotiate terms of collecting or crediting
back to taxpayers to invest in reforms as proposed:
the GOP taking on the VA to fix health care
from that angle, and Democrats taking on prison reform.

Would you support this proposal to pitch to the top 4 parties?

 

[Preacher]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

But he like most republitards has ZERO problem seeing our taxes we all pay going towards war,foreign aide and military adventures! So yeah no one cares about his opinion.

 

[Disir]

You're attempting to use the original intent theory and Hamilton provides that you can't guess what you are going to need.

I am not an originalist.

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

Technically they were federal limitations on the states until many of those were incorporated and extended to the individual.

Inalienable rights stem from Locke.

Technically (based on original intent) they told the Federal government what it could and could not do by calling those rights inalienable therefore are not rights given by the state (Federal government) but rights the Federal government could not abridge.

Correct. Which is why there was a huge argument over whether listing rights should have been done to begin with. Listing them would have limited them versus these are set in stone. Both sides were correct as it were.

Well obviously over the decades we've seen what happens with interpretation when they are listed but I shudder to think what would have happened if they weren't listed.
At least you're not one of those who believe our rights under the Constitution are given to us by the State therefore can be taken away anytime the State wants for any reason, especially popular movement reasons.

No, I am a big believer they can't be taken anytime by the State for any reason. I am also a big believer in those rights that have been implied. Like one of the big arguments is it doesn't say you have a right to privacy in there and especially when it is used as justification for state actions.

This was almost fun Ringel.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

But he like most republitards has ZERO problem seeing our taxes we all pay going towards war,foreign aide and military adventures! So yeah no one cares about his opinion.

Well, if you have difficulty with our country going to war/military adventures, you could move to a nation that has no standing army; I believe there are about 15 or so of them. You would be guaranteed that your new nation would not go to war or enter into any military adventures (whatever that is). You can skip all the NATO nations as they go to war periodically. Also, skip Russia, China, India, Pakistan, enter the name of an African nation here, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, they do occasionally get into regional fracases.

 

[Preacher]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

But he like most republitards has ZERO problem seeing our taxes we all pay going towards war,foreign aide and military adventures! So yeah no one cares about his opinion.

Well, if you have difficulty with our country going to war/military adventures, you could move to a nation that has no standing army; I believe there are about 15 or so of them. You would be guaranteed that your new nation would not go to war or enter into any military adventures (whatever that is). You can skip all the NATO nations as they go to war periodically. Also, skip Russia, China, India, Pakistan, enter the name of an African nation here, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, they do occasionally get into regional fracases.

Nope. My taxes therefore I get a say what I want it spent on. The Majority want taxes to cover healthcare and education not making the rich richer via warfare.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I was searching on the Houston Chronicle website to find the comment by someone on the need to address right to health care as a BELIEF.

Instead I found this Bill of Non-Rights below.

If you enjoy this, can someone please return the favor by helping me find any reference to any person I can contact regarding the right to marriage and right to health care as political beliefs, and how to protect opposing political beliefs from imposing on each other or the public through govt where it violates equal rights of others.

Thanks! Please enjoy:

============================================================================

LETTER: Bill of non-rights

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn't expect his essay -- a tart 10-point list of "rights" Americans DON'T have -- to become an Internet legend.

=============================================================

'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self -evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to

make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want
to see you get the blue juice.

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the
rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure..

ARTICLE VIII:

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!

Lastly

ARTICLE XI:

You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the
freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and
history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

But he like most republitards has ZERO problem seeing our taxes we all pay going towards war,foreign aide and military adventures! So yeah no one cares about his opinion.

Well, if you have difficulty with our country going to war/military adventures, you could move to a nation that has no standing army; I believe there are about 15 or so of them. You would be guaranteed that your new nation would not go to war or enter into any military adventures (whatever that is). You can skip all the NATO nations as they go to war periodically. Also, skip Russia, China, India, Pakistan, enter the name of an African nation here, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, they do occasionally get into regional fracases.

Nope. My taxes therefore I get a say what I want it spent on. The Majority want taxes to cover healthcare and education not making the rich richer via warfare.

Last I checked, Article I section VIII and the Sixteenth Amendment gives congress the right to collect taxes and decide where it goes, not you as an individual. Again, if you don't like it, there are other nations out there. Of course, then you would lose that precious right to ***** and whine.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, you openly violate others rights 'just like that.'

There is no justification in allowing it to happen to begin with.

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

Well, no. You are conflating the concept of rights with the concept of governmental powers. Under the current interpretation of tax law, you do not have a RIGHT to free healthcare but the government has the POWER to provide it should they chose to through the tax code.

There is a MASSIVE difference between government powers and rights.

 

[Disir]

There is no justification in allowing it to happen to begin with.

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

I am on target.

No, you're arguing what you believe should be not what is, that's a completely different subject.

You're starting with a bill of non-rights. You do in fact have a right to health care and the authority like in tax and spend and general welfare clauses.

Well, no. You are conflating the concept of rights with the concept of governmental powers. Under the current interpretation of tax law, you do not have a RIGHT to free healthcare but the government has the POWER to provide it should they chose to through the tax code.

There is a MASSIVE difference between government powers and rights.

I know what the difference is.

 

[Ringel05]

That much is obvious, are you also of the school that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are rights given by the state and not inalienable rights restricting the state?
You see I'm a Glubb adherent, The Fate of Empires, I have every faith that humanity will always ultimately destroy that which they claim to love. We are in the age of intellect moving towards the age of decadence followed by the age of collapse and there's nothing you or I can do to stop it so I stopped caring a long time ago, each generation will have to deal with it the best they can on their own.
Heck I suspect (if the country is still around by then) that in three or four generations the First and Second Amendments will become so watered down as to become meaningless, that the interpretations will continue apace even speeding up towards the end. The historical precedence for that possible process is undeniable.
I hope I'm wrong.

Technically they were federal limitations on the states until many of those were incorporated and extended to the individual.

Inalienable rights stem from Locke.

Technically (based on original intent) they told the Federal government what it could and could not do by calling those rights inalienable therefore are not rights given by the state (Federal government) but rights the Federal government could not abridge.

Correct. Which is why there was a huge argument over whether listing rights should have been done to begin with. Listing them would have limited them versus these are set in stone. Both sides were correct as it were.

Well obviously over the decades we've seen what happens with interpretation when they are listed but I shudder to think what would have happened if they weren't listed.
At least you're not one of those who believe our rights under the Constitution are given to us by the State therefore can be taken away anytime the State wants for any reason, especially popular movement reasons.

No, I am a big believer they can't be taken anytime by the State for any reason. I am also a big believer in those rights that have been implied. Like one of the big arguments is it doesn't say you have a right to privacy in there and especially when it is used as justification for state actions.

This was almost fun Ringel.

Almost? Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence.........