Governments do not protect rights

[Seawytch]

I am not going back and rereading the thread, but I think I have been consistent in my opinions. I don't think I ever said that any kind of marriage was a "right" guaranteed by the constitution.

And you were subsequently shown that the SCOTUS had declared marriage a fundamental right and they cited the 14th Amendment in doing so.

You actually said that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it should have been put to a popular vote. You actually said it, that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so "fundamental" rights are those bestowed by the constitution? well, the founders used the words, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..,... siooooo, looks like the founders beleived that "fundamental" rights came from God.

Who cares? When God reveals himself in a manner that proves his existence, and then when he gives us a list of the rights he endowed us with, then I'll take that theory seriously.

people of all religions believe that God has already done that.

So? Given that the Constitution defends religious freedom, and given that God's commandment demands that you have no other gods before Him,

I'd say there's an irreconcilable difference between the rights God thinks we should have and what the Founders claimed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who cares? When God reveals himself in a manner that proves his existence, and then when he gives us a list of the rights he endowed us with, then I'll take that theory seriously.

people of all religions believe that God has already done that.

So? Given that the Constitution defends religious freedom, and given that God's commandment demands that you have no other gods before Him,

I'd say there's an irreconcilable difference between the rights God thinks we should have and what the Founders claimed.

Excellent point. Religions demand that only their specific deity be worshiped (thou shalt have no other gods before me) while the Founding Fathers granted the right to worship any or no deities at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am not going back and rereading the thread, but I think I have been consistent in my opinions. I don't think I ever said that any kind of marriage was a "right" guaranteed by the constitution.

And you were subsequently shown that the SCOTUS had declared marriage a fundamental right and they cited the 14th Amendment in doing so.

You actually said that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it should have been put to a popular vote. You actually said it, that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters

No it was not.

It was about equal protection of the law, where the state of Virginia sought to disallow a class of persons – interracial couples – from accessing that state’s marriage law.

The law was invalidated because the state failed to establish a compelling governmental interest, it failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of its law, and the law was solely motivated by animus toward interracial couples.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters.

The issue with regard to marriage equality concerns 14th Amendment equal protection rights, the right of residents of a given state to access that state’s laws. One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, one’s civil liberties is not subject to popular vote. Consequently, the states do not have the authority to decide who may marry, and who may not; ‘left to the states’ is to endorse the tyranny of the states with regard to equal protection rights.

With regard to laws prohibiting polygamy, those law are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, everyone is disallowed to have multiple spouses, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.

 

[Redfish]

Who cares? When God reveals himself in a manner that proves his existence, and then when he gives us a list of the rights he endowed us with, then I'll take that theory seriously.

people of all religions believe that God has already done that.

So? Given that the Constitution defends religious freedom, and given that God's commandment demands that you have no other gods before Him,

I'd say there's an irreconcilable difference between the rights God thinks we should have and what the Founders claimed.

Why? the constitution is consistent with the Bible, the Torah, and most of the Koran. It is also consistent with most of Buddism, shintoism, taoism, and the basic precepts of every other religion.

 

[Redfish]

And you were subsequently shown that the SCOTUS had declared marriage a fundamental right and they cited the 14th Amendment in doing so.

You actually said that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it should have been put to a popular vote. You actually said it, that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

 

[Redfish]

And you were subsequently shown that the SCOTUS had declared marriage a fundamental right and they cited the 14th Amendment in doing so.

You actually said that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it should have been put to a popular vote. You actually said it, that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters

No it was not.

It was about equal protection of the law, where the state of Virginia sought to disallow a class of persons – interracial couples – from accessing that state’s marriage law.

The law was invalidated because the state failed to establish a compelling governmental interest, it failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of its law, and the law was solely motivated by animus toward interracial couples.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters.

The issue with regard to marriage equality concerns 14th Amendment equal protection rights, the right of residents of a given state to access that state’s laws. One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, one’s civil liberties is not subject to popular vote. Consequently, the states do not have the authority to decide who may marry, and who may not; ‘left to the states’ is to endorse the tyranny of the states with regard to equal protection rights.

With regard to laws prohibiting polygamy, those law are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, everyone is disallowed to have multiple spouses, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.

the voters of california voted down gay marriage twice, should the will of the people be ignored and a minority view mandated on them?

I am trying to get you guys to THINK. I am not always expressing my personal opinions, just trying to get you to open your minds and put the talking points aside and THINK

 

[Derideo_Te]

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

 

[Redfish]

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Same thing happened in Russia. Soviets first told their citizens all firearms must be registered. Then came the gun ban and confiscation of all firearms. Then came the murder of 20 million civilians who could not defend themselves. Same story repeated over and over and over again throughout history. When will people ever learn? - Jeremiah

Yea we seen millions of Britians murderd with their gun bans, I hope my friends in australia dont suffer the same fate.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

No, a majority of the population DOES NOT elect the President. Have you never heard of the electoral college?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

A majority of what? A majority of the country doesn't decide a local bond issue.

A majority vote in Chicago banned handguns -

do you support their right to do so because within the confines of that jurisdiction that is what the majority wanted?

 

[NYcarbineer]

people of all religions believe that God has already done that.

So? Given that the Constitution defends religious freedom, and given that God's commandment demands that you have no other gods before Him,

I'd say there's an irreconcilable difference between the rights God thinks we should have and what the Founders claimed.

Why? the constitution is consistent with the Bible, the Torah, and most of the Koran. It is also consistent with most of Buddism, shintoism, taoism, and the basic precepts of every other religion.

Are you daft? The God of the Bible demands that he, whoever he is, be the one God above all. Where does the Constitution demand that?

For that matter, where in the Bible is there any evidence of God endowing us with inalienable rights? Where in the Bible is God's advocacy for democratic, secular government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My objection is that governments, as they are ran by people, are fallible and single examples of violations of people’s rights are going to happen everywhere. You are claiming that governments DO NOT protect rights – period. I read that as an affirmative statement. IOW, I read that as government never protect right. If that is not your intention then that would be where the problem lies.

Like I said, I understand that people that work in government are not perfect, and that, as a result, there will be mistakes. What I want is a government that, when people makes mistakes, admits it, and deals with it appropriately. If a police officer gets a bit overzealous the system should step up and protect the public, not the cop. Can you honestly tell me that is the way it works?

The government, first and foremost, protects itself from the prying eyes of the public.

• It protects itself by hiding when police, or prosecutors, lie in court or suppress evidence in favor of the defendant.
• It protects itself when judges, knowing that police lied to a suspect, still allow any information they gained as a result of that lie to be used against someone.
• It protects itself when courts rule that, because the government needs to be able to do its job, it is OK to not have a warrant for all searches.
• It protects itself when, again because it is hard to do its job, courts rule that the government flat out does not need a warrant to search people if they are within 25 miles of the border.

Seriously, I can go on for hours providing broad categories and specific instances of the government putting itself first and rights second. Frankly, I find it amazing that, in the midst of going out of its way to protect itself, it finds time to look out for the occasional right of anyone.

Agree whole heartedly. That, however, does not demonstrate that governments do not protect rights. That demonstrates that governments tend to START OUT protecting rights and then slide into tyranny later. I agree completely that is the case and that we are currently in that slide as well. I stated:

“It even tends to slide in the exact opposite direction, leaning to oppression over time”

And that is exactly what I meant with that statement.

Hence my use of the qualifier consistently. It might not have been the best word to use, but I wanted to point out that governments, generally, see more of a need to ignore rights than defend them. We should always remember that, and refuse to give the government enough power to be able to get away with ignoring rights, and we should never accept any government that can read the words "Congress shall make no law" as a license to make laws.

I agree again. It is not fine by me that rouge cops invade someone’s property. It is also not acceptable to me even if this were isolated and not indicative of a larger problem. What you are missing though is that you did not say THIS government at this time is not protecting our rights. You stated flatly that government (period) does not protect rights. That is my problem with your statement. Governments demonstrably protect rights.

I stated that because I believe it.

Less than ten years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to criticize the government.

Governments do not protect rights. Occasionally they pay lip service to the concept, and sometimes accidently protect a specific individual, but they are much more interested in protecting power.

Agree again. The problem, as I see it, is that government does not tend to work twords perfection but rather works to the opposite.

Always have and always will. Which is why people need to be involved, informed, and keep the power themselves.

It should be.

So glad we agree on that much.

By the way, thanks for making me think about, and actually defend, my position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Interracial marriage was already legal in more than half the states when the Supreme Court decided Loving, but we do appreciate your display of ignorance about the progression of civil rights.

I'm well aware of how many states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. So? They still existed in many states...which is why it had to go to the SCOTUS.

Were you not paying attention to the conversation with Redfish? He was the one that said rights should be a popularity contest. He actually thinks that the SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled and we should have waited for the 90s when it became "popular" for blacks to marry whites.

Did it really have to go there? Why should courts decide issues like that? Leaving it to courts got us a century of state enforced discrimination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please establish how the question fits the definition of "straw man" given that you were the one who raised the subject of tyranny and the limitations on number and types of weapons in the first place. Or are you now conceding that limitations on the number and types of weapons you may possess are not a "step towards tyranny"?

Where did I say I need weapons to stave off tyranny?

Right here...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-not-protect-rights-post6961265.html#poststop

Originally Posted by Quantum Windbag on 03-16-2013, 04:30 PM

Feinstein's bill allows us to own over 2000 different weapons, but specifically exempts police, firemen, government employees, and various other groups from those restrictions.

If her bill was reasonable it would apply to everyone. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone means that it is a step toward tyranny, just like everything Hitler did.

Since I never said that, and that is the position you are knocking down, that is, by definition, a straw man.

Where do I send the bill?

Wow, you really are desperate.

You already had someone explain to you why that does not say what you claim it says, so I see no need to repeat the point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

Yet, for some reason, people complain when the minority stand up and demand that they have rights. In fact, you specifically are complaining about the fact that some people do not want to be forced to give up their religious views simply because the majority disagrees with them.

Interesting, is your defense of the minority based solely on opportunity, or are you a hack?

 

[PaulS1950]

In all of nature - the natural world around you - all things exhibit certain rights.
1. the right to life - at birth you are granted the right to life - not a right to live but a right to life.
2. the right of self defense - plants, animals and even bacteria and viruses exhibit the right to defend themselves.
3. The right to choose a partner - all animals choose mates - since mankind is the only animal that we can prove loves and the only animal that has government we are the only animal that has "marriage" as a formal definition of partnering. The basic right hold true and government cannot keep two loving people from partnering in marriage unless it does away with the institution completely. Mankind has had marriage since before the earliest record were kept. Once records began things changed but the right to marry did not. The Catholic church - before the schisms took place - even had same gender rights for marriage. They were based on the "Love is the greatest attribute of all" and by the greatest commandment as quoted by Jesus Christ, because love is the greatest commandment.
Governments are supposed to protect the rights that we are born with - not interfere with them. The only way a person can lose a right is to interfere with the rights of others.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

I suggest that you ask your teacher to explain the concept of individual rights to you again since you obviously failed civics class.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

Yet, for some reason, people complain when the minority stand up and demand that they have rights. In fact, you specifically are complaining about the fact that some people do not want to be forced to give up their religious views simply because the majority disagrees with them.

Interesting, is your defense of the minority based solely on opportunity, or are you a hack?

You have even less understanding of the term individual rights than you do of the term straw man.