First Amendment

[pegwinn]

It's not bestowed by the First Amendment. If that was the case then it could be taken away simply by a constitutional amendment. The government doesn't grant you that right - get that idea out of your head immediately. It's dangerous.

I think our rights as it says are endowed by our creator, whether you believe in god or not, for the very purpose that the government cannot take them away.

Both of you are attempting to argue philosophy with a reality based person. I understand your thoughts, but the factual reality is that your rights in this country exist solely because the constitution grants them. The courts , the .gov, the .mil, law enforcement, and activism preserve them.

They (your rights) can in fact be taken away simply by amending the constitution. There are four routes an amendment to the constitution may be made

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times) Source

There is no language in the constitution forbidding modification of or repeal of any amendment. If there is, please source it.

Oh, and ideas in and of themselves are not dangerous. Acting on them (ideas) may or may not be (dangerous that is).

 

[jillian]

Both of you are attempting to argue philosophy with a reality based person. I understand your thoughts, but the factual reality is that your rights in this country exist solely because the constitution grants them. The courts , the .gov, the .mil, law enforcement, and activism preserve them.

Exactly right. And if the courts and government won't enforce those rights or infringe on them, they exist only in theory.

They (your rights) can in fact be taken away simply by amending the constitution. There are four routes an amendment to the constitution may be made

True. Though less likely than simple non-enforcement.

There is no language in the constitution forbidding modification of or repeal of any amendment. If there is, please source it.

Correct again. No such language exists.

Oh, and ideas in and of themselves are not dangerous. Acting on them (ideas) may or may not be (dangerous that is).

True. I also agree that even nefarious ideas should be brought out into the open so they can be quickly dispatched and held up to the cold light of day.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

if laws are not enforced, like immigration, too me it is the same thing as taking away our rights. Like the right to safety.

 

[pegwinn]

if laws are not enforced, like immigration, too me it is the same thing as taking away our rights. Like the right to safety.

You don't have a right to safety. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is about as close as the Constitution comes to safety. Failure to enforce Immigration law has a plethora of side effects, but I don't know if it abridges the rights of citizens.

An example of your statement that is true would be IF you fail to enforce the law on privacy issues you can claim your fourth amendment rights are being taken away.

Most "failures" to enforce rules are not as wide ranging as some believe. But I get your point and have no problem with it.

 

[Gunny]

I'd probably agree with that. I don't see human rights as being given by God but I also don't see human rights as something we can assume. I understand then the US Constitution was framed it was on the assumption that certain - inalienable - human rights existed and I have to say, that was a stroke of genius. In that sense then, it doesn't matter where they come from. I have been told many times that the Constitution didn't grant rights, that's complete anathema to the idea of human rights existing irrespective of any government, the Constitution merely acknowledged those pre-existing rights and make sure government was constrained from unreasonably restricting those rights.

That assumption is based on the desires of religious outcasts, and 1st and 2nd generation Americans who made the presumption to justify telling Georgie boy to piss up a rope, by claiming he was denying people their God-given rights.

As the Supreme Law of the Land, of course the Constitution grants rights. It is the embodiment of those "inalienable" rights (that I might remind you CAN be amended as society redefines "inalienable).

 

[Gunny]

if laws are not enforced, like immigration, too me it is the same thing as taking away our rights. Like the right to safety.

Right to "safety?" Your "right to safety" begins and ends with your ability to defend it.

 

[jillian]

Right to "safety?" Your "right to safety" begins and ends with your ability to defend it.

I thought this was a thread about the first amendment.

What I will say is that no right exists except to the extent that it's enforced and defended.

 

[Gunny]

I thought this was a thread about the first amendment.

What I will say is that no right exists except to the extent that it's enforced and defended.

That was in my first post.

 

[Diuretic]

That assumption is based on the desires of religious outcasts, and 1st and 2nd generation Americans who made the presumption to justify telling Georgie boy to piss up a rope, by claiming he was denying people their God-given rights.

As the Supreme Law of the Land, of course the Constitution grants rights. It is the embodiment of those "inalienable" rights (that I might remind you CAN be amended as society redefines "inalienable).

I'm always read to learn. My impression was that relative to the First Amendment, the first principle was that humans have a right to freed of expression simply by being humans and not, for example, Bonobos.

As far as the granting of rights by the Constitution, again, always read to learn.

 

[Diuretic]

I would argue that rghts exist independent of enforcement/defending.

How do we know what to enforce or defend until we're forced to enforce or defend? We wouldn't have a clue why were were enforcing/defending would we?

 

[no1tovote4]

Right to "safety?" Your "right to safety" begins and ends with your ability to defend it.

Exactly, hence we were given that right too.

This also led to one of the most quoted things that Ben Franklin said, I'll paraphrase.

"Those who are willing to give up essential rights for security, deserve neither."

 

[no1tovote4]

I thought this was a thread about the first amendment.

What I will say is that no right exists except to the extent that it's enforced and defended.

I'd put Rosie and Randy Rhodes right up there with them.

 

[no1tovote4]

I think our rights as it says are endowed by our creator, whether you believe in god or not, for the very purpose that the government cannot take them away.

Such rights can be taken by the government, look to N. Korea if you don't believe me. They believed it was eggregious sin to infringe specifically on those rights and thus enumerated them.

 

[William Joyce]

I would argue that rghts exist independent of enforcement/defending.

How do we know what to enforce or defend until we're forced to enforce or defend? We wouldn't have a clue why were were enforcing/defending would we?

At some point this can become too philosophical to go back and forth on. I think both points have validity - we have rights ab initio, AND they're only as good as the defense. The rubber-on-the-road question is about where my rights end and yours begin.

The founders, to be cynical, were purifying the way for their fight for independence. They were up against questioning THE CROWN, which you simply did not do back then. It was practically inconceivable. So they needed some strong stuff to back them up. It was as heretical back then as, I don't know, questioning racial equality would be today.

 

[pegwinn]

At some point this can become too philosophical to go back and forth on. I think both points have validity - we have rights ab initio, AND they're only as good as the defense. The rubber-on-the-road question is about where my rights end and yours begin.

The founders, to be cynical, were purifying the way for their fight for independence. They were up against questioning THE CROWN, which you simply did not do back then. It was practically inconceivable. So they needed some strong stuff to back them up. It was as heretical back then as, I don't know, questioning racial equality would be today.

It's not cynical at all. History shows that a significant percentage of the common folk of the revolutionary era sided with the CROWN. In fact a high enough percentage of them did so that the Continental Congress resolved to pardon them provided they turned themselves in.

 

[William Joyce]

It's not cynical at all. History shows that a significant percentage of the common folk of the revolutionary era sided with the CROWN. In fact a high enough percentage of them did so that the Continental Congress resolved to pardon them provided they turned themselves in.

True --- maybe cynical was the wrong word... I meant to convey that the founders were up against strong convention and had to think of clever ways to achieve their goals.

 

[Diuretic]

At some point this can become too philosophical to go back and forth on. I think both points have validity - we have rights ab initio, AND they're only as good as the defense. The rubber-on-the-road question is about where my rights end and yours begin.

The founders, to be cynical, were purifying the way for their fight for independence. They were up against questioning THE CROWN, which you simply did not do back then. It was practically inconceivable. So they needed some strong stuff to back them up. It was as heretical back then as, I don't know, questioning racial equality would be today.

That's a valid point. I'm now thinking of the trial of William Pitt, you didn't mess with the establishment back then.