Constitutional Idiocies Produced by Fringe Ideologies

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

It is not a right. 7 Judges can not fabricate a right that does not exist cause they like a case. Go ahead find anywhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to privacy and that you can murder for that right.

You are the lost one here. The ENTIRE argument is that it is NOT a right.

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

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

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

 

[Bern80]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

It is not a right. 7 Judges can not fabricate a right that does not exist cause they like a case. Go ahead find anywhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to privacy and that you can murder for that right.

You are the lost one here. The ENTIRE argument is that it is NOT a right.

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

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

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

If there are more rights than what are explicitly stated, what prevents people from simply making up ridiculous rights?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

If there are more rights than what are explicitly stated, what prevents people from simply making up ridiculous rights?

That is part of the responsbilties the Founding Fathers left up to future generations. A healthy reading of the influences on the FF and their thoughts on matters makes it clear that they assumed certain rights not enumerated.

Rights are what society and the courts agree on. When there is disagreement...the whole messy process of democracy kicks in. It is what we have been experiencing - a nation since day one.

The FF were comprised of men with great and small differences who put aside most of those differences in order to perfect a more just and reasonable union.

I my speech better than Fritz's?

*grin
D.

 

[Bern80]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:


The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

If there are more rights than what are explicitly stated, what prevents people from simply making up ridiculous rights?

That is part of the responsbilties the Founding Fathers left up to future generations. A healthy reading of the influences on the FF and their thoughts on matters makes it clear that they assumed certain rights not enumerated.

Rights are what society and the courts agree on. When there is disagreement...the whole messy process of democracy kicks in. It is what we have been experiencing - a nation since day one.

The FF were comprised of men with great and small differences who put aside most of those differences in order to perfect a more just and reasonable union.

I my speech better than Fritz's?

*grin
D.

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If there are more rights than what are explicitly stated, what prevents people from simply making up ridiculous rights?

That is part of the responsbilties the Founding Fathers left up to future generations. A healthy reading of the influences on the FF and their thoughts on matters makes it clear that they assumed certain rights not enumerated.

Rights are what society and the courts agree on. When there is disagreement...the whole messy process of democracy kicks in. It is what we have been experiencing - a nation since day one.

The FF were comprised of men with great and small differences who put aside most of those differences in order to perfect a more just and reasonable union.

I my speech better than Fritz's?

*grin
D.

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

The better question is...'What rights do I not have that are not prohibited in the Constitution?' That would seem to be the more relevant and pressing question since the government and 'factions' of the citizenry are usually trying to limit rights.

 

[Oddball]

The Constitution confers no rights to anyone.

All it does is provide a few and specifically enumerated and constrained powers to lawful de jure government, from "we the people" who have all the rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution confers no rights to anyone.

Who said 'confer'?

All it does is provide a few and specifically enumerated and constrained powers to lawful de jure government, from "we the people" who have all the rights.

The Constitution mentions rights enumerated . It also lays out the limitations of powers.

what is your point?

 

[Bern80]

That is part of the responsbilties the Founding Fathers left up to future generations. A healthy reading of the influences on the FF and their thoughts on matters makes it clear that they assumed certain rights not enumerated.

Rights are what society and the courts agree on. When there is disagreement...the whole messy process of democracy kicks in. It is what we have been experiencing - a nation since day one.

The FF were comprised of men with great and small differences who put aside most of those differences in order to perfect a more just and reasonable union.

I my speech better than Fritz's?

*grin
D.

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

The better question is...'What rights do I not have that are not prohibited in the Constitution?' That would seem to be the more relevant and pressing question since the government and 'factions' of the citizenry are usually trying to limit rights.

Isn't prohibiting a right a bit of an oxy moron? But fine. Have it your way. Now answer the question.

 

[Oddball]

The Constitution mentions rights enumerated . It also lays out the limitations of powers.

what is your point?

I does not...It lays out a few areas in which lawful government may act and the limited powers to do so.

The rights belong to the people, from which that government derives its very few and just powers.

You really suck at early American history, Bubba.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

The better question is...'What rights do I not have that are not prohibited in the Constitution?' That would seem to be the more relevant and pressing question since the government and 'factions' of the citizenry are usually trying to limit rights.

Isn't prohibiting a right a bit of an oxy moron? But fine. Have it your way. Now answer the question.

It may seem like an oxymoron, but government and factions of the people are always trying to abridge rights and prohibit the exercise of rights.

The question of yours...

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

...is ridiculously ignirant...and I am not on trial, am I? LOL

Most all my rights are not listed in the Constitution. The FF assumed rational men of reason would understand what rights they possess.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution mentions rights enumerated . It also lays out the limitations of powers.

what is your point?

I does not...It lays out a few areas in which lawful government may act and the limited powers to do so.

The rights belong to the people, from which that government derives its very few and just powers.

You really suck at early American history, Bubba.

Do the words below look familiar to you?

clue: look in the Constitutuon

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

as for your argument...like talk radio hosts you are having a one sided argument...with yourself.

I mention the Constitution lays out limited powers and you say it does not...you say 'It lays out a few areas... and the limited powers to do so.'

D'oh!

 

[Bern80]

The better question is...'What rights do I not have that are not prohibited in the Constitution?' That would seem to be the more relevant and pressing question since the government and 'factions' of the citizenry are usually trying to limit rights.

Isn't prohibiting a right a bit of an oxy moron? But fine. Have it your way. Now answer the question.

It may seem like an oxymoron, but government and factions of the people are always trying to abridge rights and prohibit the exercise of rights.

The question of yours...

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

...is ridiculously ignirant...and I am not on trial, am I? LOL

Most all my rights are not listed in the Constitution. The FF assumed rational men of reason would understand what rights they possess.

What are these rights that you think you have that you believe people are trying to take away? Why is this so hard to answer for you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Isn't prohibiting a right a bit of an oxy moron? But fine. Have it your way. Now answer the question.

It may seem like an oxymoron, but government and factions of the people are always trying to abridge rights and prohibit the exercise of rights.

The question of yours...

So what rights do you have that are not in the Constitution?

...is ridiculously ignirant...and I am not on trial, am I? LOL

Most all my rights are not listed in the Constitution. The FF assumed rational men of reason would understand what rights they possess.

What are these rights that you think you have that you believe people are trying to take away? Why is this so hard to answer for you?

Look up court cases where the rights of citizens to act/do/speak were upheld...where government and factions of the citizenry were made to back off and allow the exwrcise of those rights.

Particulars in my case are irrelevant to the argument. The thread is not about me.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The Constitution mentions rights enumerated . It also lays out the limitations of powers.

what is your point?

I does not...It lays out a few areas in which lawful government may act and the limited powers to do so.

The rights belong to the people, from which that government derives its very few and just powers.

You really suck at early American history, Bubba.

 

[Oddball]

Particulars in my case are irrelevant to the argument. The thread is not about me.

Every one of your threads is all about you.

You're the far left wackaloon version of tha malignant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Particulars in my case are irrelevant to the argument. The thread is not about me.

Every one of your threads is all about you.

You're the far left wackaloon version of tha malignant.

Me...Far left? LOL

I think people from the left like Chris would beg to differ.

The sad thing is how clouded your judgement and awareness are....dope will do that to you.

go figure

 

[Bern80]

It may seem like an oxymoron, but government and factions of the people are always trying to abridge rights and prohibit the exercise of rights.

The question of yours...
...is ridiculously ignirant...and I am not on trial, am I? LOL

Most all my rights are not listed in the Constitution. The FF assumed rational men of reason would understand what rights they possess.

What are these rights that you think you have that you believe people are trying to take away? Why is this so hard to answer for you?

Look up court cases where the rights of citizens to act/do/speak were upheld...where government and factions of the citizenry were made to back off and allow the exwrcise of those rights.

Particulars in my case are irrelevant to the argument. The thread is not about me.

Still dodging, but fine. Don't rights have to be held up on the basis of something? The role of the judicial system is to interpret our laws. Therefore it can't uphold anything that isn't already established as law. For it to do that a country's government must recognize in some form what things are rights and what are not? How is it to do that, without some founding document to go on?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still dodging, but fine.

Don't rights have to be held up on the basis of something? The role of the judicial system is to interpret our laws. Therefore it can't uphold anything that isn't already established as law. For it to do that a country's government must recognize in some form what things are rights and what are not?

How is it to do that, without some founding document to go on?

Not dodging. Go back to the begining of this thread and see what the issue is.

Great Britain has what some refer to as a constitution that is unwritten. It goes to the definition of 'Constitution' here.

The founding fathers argued over whether it was neccessary to enumerate any rights at all...because of tradituon and common law among other things.

So most agree that the 'form' you argue about does not have to be a written form only.

 

[Bern80]

Still dodging, but fine.

Don't rights have to be held up on the basis of something? The role of the judicial system is to interpret our laws. Therefore it can't uphold anything that isn't already established as law. For it to do that a country's government must recognize in some form what things are rights and what are not?

How is it to do that, without some founding document to go on?

Not dodging. Go back to the begining of this thread and see what the issue is.

Great Britain has what some refer to as a constitution that is unwritten. It goes to the definition of 'Constitution' here.

The founding fathers argued over whether it was neccessary to enumerate any rights at all...because of tradituon and common law among other things.

So most agree that the 'form' you argue about does not have to be a written form only.

I guess my question is how the law uphold people's rights, as you argue, without knowing whether it has a legal basis to uphold them in the first place?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess my question is how the law uphold people's rights, as you argue, without knowing whether it has a legal basis to uphold them in the first place?

The Law....meaning the Courts, settle legal issues. It is their role. Once something enters the courts...they get to decide whether an issue has legal merit.

Cases cannot get a hearing unless the judiciary agrees the case has merit. The courts routinely dismiss filings the courts think they have no duty to rule on. The courts also refuses to hear cases that do not address legal issues in legitimate ways.

The law is something we all agree to abide by, unless it is so unjust it offends sensibilities... and when there is no avenue to address that it can lead to civil revolt.

The courts constitutional duties are laid out. The courts (as well as government entities...as some have argued here), have the duty to interpret the constitution.

Disputes are settled by the courts.