Ketanji Brown Jackson Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence on Natural Rights

[excalibur]

Which says nothing about Natural Rights

They are rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution

Those are natural rights. You really are a dumbass.

 

[BS Filter]

The constitution is the wellspring of US law. It has it's basis in other documents but none of them can be considered law.

Your opinion, but a lot of Americans consider the DOI a legal document, as well as a declaration of war.

 

[Ringtone]

The constitution is the wellspring of US law. It has it's basis in other documents but none of them can be considered law.

Nonsense!

The Bill of Rights is predicated on the natural law of republicanism per the founding sociopolitical ethos of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[occupied]

Your opinion, but a lot of Americans consider the DOI a legal document, as well as a declaration of war.

It's not my opinion. The constitution was written to be the unambiguous basis for our legal system. Period. The DoI can certainly be called a legal document but it's not the law. When it was issued the law said the signers were traitors.

 

[occupied]

Nonsense!

The Bill of Rights is predicated on the natural law of republicanism per the founding sociopolitical ethos of the Declaration of Independence.

Legal philosophies are not the law.

 

[JGalt]

The Declaration of independence is a series of complaints that seek to justify breaking away from the colonizers. Nothing more.

Written by "old, dead, white men who owned slaves", right? So in other words, these words mean nothing about God-given inalienable rights, correct?

So in other words, I don't have to consider you as being equal to me. I'm free to believe that you're an inferior subhuman that doesn't deserve the same rights I have. You're probably an atheist anyway, so you don't believe in a "Creator." I can deprive you of your life any time I want to, imprison you, torture you, and claim all your possessions for myself, right? Because that document they wrote doesn't have anything to do with anything, except the British, right?

Ya dumb shit. Maybe you should go back and re-read it.

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Text of the Declaration of Independence

 

[BackAgain]

That was the last time. Period. And his liberalism was classic liberalism, not the neo-Marxist insanity of the "liberals" of today.

The “liberals” of those days were different. That’s a certainty. And I can’t think of any more recent liberal nominees who have failed to deliver on their partisan political positions.

 

[occupied]

Written by "old, dead, white men who owned slaves", right? So in other words, these words mean nothing about God-given inalienable rights, correct?

So in other words, I don't have to consider you as being equal to me. I'm free to believe that you're an inferior subhuman that doesn't deserve the same rights I have. You're probably an atheist anyway, so you don't believe in a "Creator." I can deprive you of your life any time I want to, imprison you, torture you, and claim all your possessions for myself, right? Because that document they wrote doesn't have anything to do with anything, except the British, right?

Ya dumb shit. Maybe you should go back and re-read it.

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Text of the Declaration of Independence

I wasn't talking to you but apparently you think the Declaration of Independence is the law as well?

 

[Ringtone]

Legal philosophies are not the law.

What are you talking about? The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and the legislative record of the First Congress regarding the framing and adoption of the Bill of Rights emphatically predicates it on natural law theory

Once again. . . .

The Bill of Rights enumerates the most significant rights of natural law, and the whole point of the Tenth Amendment is to make it clear that these rights are indeed predicated on the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of republicanism per the Declaration of Independence and, accordingly, are not exhaustively enumerated in the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

 

[Abatis]

Good grief! She keeps showing us who and what she is. ANd what she is isn't inside the judicial norm in any sense.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.” ​

That a nominee for a seat on SCOTUS so readily dismisses and even negates the foundational rights theory of the Constitution, is horrifying.

 

[Abatis]

Do you think the declaration of independence is law? Even the founders seemed to regard the concept of natural rights as a mere suggestion when it came to anyone not a white protestant land-owner.

SCOTUS certainly looks to the DoI as the expression of the foundational principles of our republic. The enactment of the Constitution did not erase or negate the inherent rights theory, the Constitution is grounded on it. The Constitution's legitmacy and authority flows from the people as a sovereign, from whom all power originates.

The Constitution is a compact of conferred powers that the people grant to government through the Constitution and for this specific issue, all not conferred is retained (see the 9th and 10th Amendments) . . . Hence the concept of inherent rights (with the most important being deemed unalienable, unable to be conferred to the care and control of another).

How can rights be "retained" if they were not possessed by the people before the Constitution was ordained (by their hand)?

.

 

[Abatis]

Isn't historical perspective a wonderful thing?

When correct? Yes it is.

When it is the collectivist drivel being promoted by the leftists here, that "historical perspective" is a perversion and mutation.

Marx was not a founding father nor a framer of the Constitution.

 

[Abatis]

Any constitutional "originalist" has to square their wish to return to the original intent of the founders with the way the founders wrote themselves a lot of rights few actually enjoyed.

True, the politics of the day did not allow the full realization of their principles the founders and framers espoused.

Whet is undeniable is that it was those principles that forced the elimination of slavery and formed the moral and legal authority for the laws written and enforced to extinguish its discriminatory residual effects.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is law.

Bullshit!

It is NOT law and is not part of any law in these United States. I keep listening to you uneducated folks talk as thought it was, when nothing could be further from the truth! How can it be law when it predates the United States of America by 13 years?

 

[Abatis]

The Constitution makes no reference to “Natural Rights”

Judge Jackson is sworn to defend the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence

She can not defend and enforce the Constitution without an understanding and reliance of the principle of inherent and unalienable rights.

If she is really intent on blinding herself to those principles, she must also blind herself to a broad foundation of SCOTUS precedent that specifically cites those principles as the foundational rights theory the Court recognizes and enforces.

.

 

[Abatis]

Which says nothing about Natural Rights

They are rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution

What do you use to arrive at that conclusion? Are there writings or records contemporaneous with the debate and ratification of the Constitution and Amendments, that argued that rights only exist when they are recognized in the Constitution?

Is there a subsequent SCOTUS decision that holds, rules or orders that your idea is the legal condition of rights recognition and protection, under the Constitution?

 

[Abatis]

I don’t have a problem with that

She supports the Constitution and the Constitution has no mention of Natural Rights…real or implied

Uhhhh, . . .

Let me try to get your rights theory straight in my head . . .

You claim the people only have rights because they are specifically stated in the Constitution.

But then I see the Constitution say the people possess a wide swath of undefined / unquantified rights specifically NOT stated in the Constitution and that we possess these unenumerated rights because the people "retained" them.

AMENDMENT IX​

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

What does that word, "retained" tell us about the previous condition of those unenumenrated rights?

Who possessed those rights before they were specifically NOT stated in the Constitution, in order for the people to retain them and be recognized as possessing them in the 9th Amendment?

 

[BS Filter]

It's not my opinion. The constitution was written to be the unambiguous basis for our legal system. Period. The DoI can certainly be called a legal document but it's not the law. When it was issued the law said the signers were traitors.

British law said they were traitors. The DOI was telling the British that there was a new law for the American colonies.

 

[BS Filter]

Bullshit!

It is NOT law and is not part of any law in these United States. I keep listening to you uneducated folks talk as thought it was, when nothing could be further from the truth! How can it be law when it predates the United States of America by 13 years?

Then why do we celebrate the 4th of July? You're confused.

History of the Fourth of July - Brief History, Early Celebrations & Traditions

The Fourth of July—also known as Independence Day or July 4th—has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1941. The tradition of Independence Day celebrations goes back to the 18th century and the American Revolution.

www.history.com

 

[Abatis]

Legal philosophies are not the law.

They're called foundational principles for a reason. Principles form the unalterable bedrock of the Constitution. The law is nothing without reference to the foundation of its power and authority.

That is why this leftist digbat judge's statements are so abnormal and unacceptable.

SCOTUS told Justices and judges how it works . . .

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.​

​

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?​

​

The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​