Civil Rights - what are included?

[Kosh]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

And here's an example of the stupidity expressed by most conservatives protected by the inalienable rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

Here is a perfect example of far left drone that does not understand the Constitution, to them it is just another GD piece of paper..

 

[OKTexas]

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

No, rights cannot be abridged by the people.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, or rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government reflecting the will of the people, consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

And when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those so disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, where measures inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated.

As for the Ninth Amendment:

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

Ninth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

This is why the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI - “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

So where does the government get the power to arbitrarily impose it's definition of marriage on the people, destroying millenniums of precedent?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

What are you suggesting? That people can? Or should?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And the majority who claim to be Christian fail to practice the words of Jesus, be he man or the son of God.

And the people who don't want religion inserted into their lives are the ones using it to bend people to their narratives. You hypocrites.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have no duty to me to answer them, but posting a personal attack in response is both defensive and suggests you are incapable of critical thinking.

Is this what you just did?

 

[Bonzi]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

It's already been attempted, in Houston. they told ministers they had to submit copies of their sermons when the HEOR ordinance was a hot topic.

I realize that, and it might be attempted again. Matter of time perhaps, perhaps not. The fact that anyone at all would support such a thing is a little troublesome....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

I'll put it this way. This line of reasoning is terribly flawed and a dishonest reading of the 9th Amendment. If we use such logic, we can make a right out of anything, simply because it isn't in the constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

It's already been attempted, in Houston. they told ministers they had to submit copies of their sermons when the HEOR ordinance was a hot topic.

I realize that, and it might be attempted again. Matter of time perhaps, perhaps not. The fact that anyone at all would support such a thing is a little troublesome....

Your can thank a regressivecrat lesbo mayor for Houston, and they just elected another dimwitted regressive to take her place. Houston is fast on it's way to becoming another Chicago.

 

[Abatis]

Notice, the crazy right wings cannot answer the question, for others sidetracked by CrusaderFrank and other screwballs, here is the questions:

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

Jefferson was discussing unalienable rights, which pre-suppose the reader's understanding of the concept of inherent rights and the Lockean ideal of what a legitimate government is. Unalienable rights are rights that are considered so vital and intrinsic to being a human that they can not be transferred to the care and control of another.

"Unalienable rights" is a meaningless concept if there isn't a government being established to NOT surrender rights to.

What happens nowadays is leftists like the OP filter these foundational political principles through their modern (20th Century) collectivist political ideology. To claim that the principles of conferred powers and retained rights is no longer applicable because you embrace second generation "positive" rights (social, cultural and economic rights) and need to misrepresent the Constitution as recognizing, endorsing and even providing for them, is just plain stupid.

 

[billyerock1991]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

obabble and sharpton never said they were ... only you right wing nut jobs like to take them away when they don't support your goose stepping way

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Which aren't how Rights work. They don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Marriage of any kind isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.

And if it is a right then it is one referred to in the 10thA as being a power of the states.

It is a Right, and therefore can not be abridged by the States.

Where do you find this "right"?

The Right to marry?

It is a human right and I would think that is sufficient, but otherwise consult Constitutional case law. It has been upheld numerous times.

Marriage was always a religious ceremony until government insinuated itself into it.

But would you agree that marriage is a god-given right?

 

[deltex1]

And if it is a right then it is one referred to in the 10thA as being a power of the states.

It is a Right, and therefore can not be abridged by the States.

Where do you find this "right"?

The Right to marry?

It is a human right and I would think that is sufficient, but otherwise consult Constitutional case law. It has been upheld numerous times.

Marriage was always a religious ceremony until government insinuated itself into it.

But would you agree that marriage is a god-given right?

Far more a responsibility than a "right".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

It's already been attempted, in Houston. they told ministers they had to submit copies of their sermons when the HEOR ordinance was a hot topic.

One idiotic attempt by one mayor to subpoena sermons from 5 Houston area pastors which she subsequently dropped because of the public outcry against this infringement of the separation of church and state (which I support as a Godless Liberal) is not the harbinger of the end of Christianity in the United States, the most Christian 1st world nation on Earth.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It is a Right, and therefore can not be abridged by the States.

Where do you find this "right"?

The Right to marry?

It is a human right and I would think that is sufficient, but otherwise consult Constitutional case law. It has been upheld numerous times.

Marriage was always a religious ceremony until government insinuated itself into it.

But would you agree that marriage is a god-given right?

Far more a responsibility than a "right".

You're avoiding the question, deltex1...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

No, rights cannot be abridged by the people.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, or rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government reflecting the will of the people, consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

And when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those so disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, where measures inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated.

As for the Ninth Amendment:

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

Ninth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

This is why the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI - “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

So where does the government get the power to arbitrarily impose it's definition of marriage on the people, destroying millenniums of precedent?

From the Constitution of the United States. And it hasn't been imposed on you, has it? Or, have you been forced into a same-sex marriage?!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

It's already been attempted, in Houston. they told ministers they had to submit copies of their sermons when the HEOR ordinance was a hot topic.

I realize that, and it might be attempted again. Matter of time perhaps, perhaps not. The fact that anyone at all would support such a thing is a little troublesome....

It probably won't happen again after the political backlash the mayor received as a result, and the subsequent lawsuit filed by Houston-area pastors whose lawyers are most likely dancing with glee.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

What are you suggesting? That people can? Or should?

Suggesting? The effort by the people, at least a small majority in CA to vote for and pass prop. 8

California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly gay marriage is the most recent example, but Jim Crow laws were an historic example of the people's representatives acting for the majority and Red lining abridged equal treatment by the private sector.

Bigotry and racism existed in the past and exist today among the unenlightened and ignorant of all races and creeds.

 

[Preacher]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

Perhaps, but without a government to enforce them, it doesn't mean much. In nature might makes right.

Which is how it should be.

 

[OKTexas]

And if it is a right then it is one referred to in the 10thA as being a power of the states.

It is a Right, and therefore can not be abridged by the States.

Where do you find this "right"?

The Right to marry?

It is a human right and I would think that is sufficient, but otherwise consult Constitutional case law. It has been upheld numerous times.

Marriage was always a religious ceremony until government insinuated itself into it.

But would you agree that marriage is a god-given right?

No, I would agree that government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is a Right, and therefore can not be abridged by the States.

Where do you find this "right"?

The Right to marry?

It is a human right and I would think that is sufficient, but otherwise consult Constitutional case law. It has been upheld numerous times.

Marriage was always a religious ceremony until government insinuated itself into it.

But would you agree that marriage is a god-given right?

No, I would agree that government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

should they get the hell out of:
Custody
Alimony
Real Estate
Bankruptcy
Criminal law
as well?