What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Abatis

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
643
Points
940
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Judges cannot rule on undefined “Natural Laws”or inalienable rights
Judge Jackson was correct in restricting her decisions to the law

Certain rights pre-existed the Constitution and were excepted out of the contract which empowered government. That means they are not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution, thus are in no manner dependent on the Constitution for their existence.

The Supreme Court has had no problem being boringly consistent for nearly a century and a half recognizing and enforcing this principle of inherent rights. That they have done it for the right that you have the greatest hostility for seems only fitting.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not granted by the Constitution thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of armed self-defense, in public, from the KKK, by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

From the Court's inception this principle has been recognized and enforced, that rights are not granted but were excepted out of the powers being granted, otherwise known as "retained' by the people who owned them before the constitution and surrendered no aspect of them to government.

  • "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
  • "The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
  • "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
  • The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
  • "[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

Give up, you have not a single clue what you are prattling on about.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,029
Reaction score
68,626
Points
2,190
Certain rights pre-existed the Constitution and were excepted out of the contract which empowered government. That means they are not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution, thus are in no manner dependent on the Constitution for their existence.

The Supreme Court has had no problem being boringly consistent for nearly a century and a half recognizing and enforcing this principle of inherent rights. That they have done it for the right that you have the greatest hostility for seems only fitting.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not granted by the Constitution thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of armed self-defense, in public, from the KKK, by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."​
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

From the Court's inception this principle has been recognized and enforced, that rights are not granted but were excepted out of the powers being granted, otherwise known as "retained' by the people who owned them before the constitution and surrendered no aspect of them to government.

  • "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
  • "The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
  • "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
  • The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
  • "[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

Give up, you have not a single clue what you are prattling on about.
Sorry

But there is no legal standing of undefined natural rights
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,825
Points
1,893
Judge Jackson is doing exactly what Conservatives are demanding.

Follow the law, not some “feel good” explanation of natural law
Yes. So at this point we can segue into legal "philosophy", which is something Judge Jackson didn't really address.

I don't agree that "feel good" is an appropriate description.

In my view there is a scientific and experimentally verifiable connection between natural rights and political rights.

Natural Rights are... well... you've heard the term "God given", what that really means is they're part of human nature and they can't be divorced from it. If you don't believe in God, substitute the phrase "by virtue of biology".

So, you know, the right to life, and to defend one's life, to express oneself, to believe as one's conscience demands, to be judged fairly... all these things are "human nature", yes?

IMO, the political systems that succeed are those in which political rights are most closely aligned with natural rights.
 

otto105

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
18,711
Reaction score
4,877
Points
170
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.” (See p. 79 of her response to written questions.)
Jackson’s answer comes immediately after this Q&A:
Thus, by her own account, Jackson doesn’t embrace the basic American creed set forth in that passage from the Declaration.
As one friend commented to me, since Jackson can’t say what a woman is, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t believe that human beings have natural rights.
I​

If the founding fathers believed in "natural rights" how did some not get the equal part right?

And would not "liberty" include a right to privacy?
 

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
2,298
Points
1,918
Location
Texas
Sorry

But there is no legal standing of undefined natural rights
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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


If that does not refer to natural rights, what could it refer to?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,029
Reaction score
68,626
Points
2,190
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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


If that does not refer to natural rights, what could it refer to?
Says nothing about any Natural Rights

It refers to any rights defined by the states
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,825
Points
1,893
natural rights is a liberal philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.
This is an interesting statement.

True. But... what happened? :p

Two things are true today. Number one, our political left is no longer liberal. The political left in America today, is unquestionably trying to squash both political and natural rights.

And the second thing is, the political left in America is pulling non-existent rights out of their butt. There is no natural right to healthcare. There is no natural right to immigrate. The desire is for these things to be political rights - and okay, but then what we're doing is building an edifice of political rights that aren't based on natural rights.

Which in turn leads to big complex government, and I go the opposite way, I agree with Jefferson that government is a necessary evil and therefore we should use Occam's razor and have the least amount needed to get the job done.

I would be very happy too see the American left return to traditional liberal values. Because, really, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing.

But this progressive trip is a lot more about authoritarianism, it's antithetical to traditional liberal values.

What I see in the partisan brouhaha, is people talking across each other. The most important thing is not the priorities, the most important thing is the boundaries. We have extremists on both sides who want to trample on the boundaries. You know, like, the Bible thumpers want to outlaw abortion, and the trannies want to get into my kid's classroom. How about we put our heads together, understand where each others' boundaries are, and then I'll stay out of your body if you stay out of my child's mind. Y'know? We have a lot in common, we don't have to be at loggerheads all the time.

The partisan crap is driven by the politicians, because they profit from it. The more we're busy bashing each other, the more they get away with not doing their jobs. THEY should be reaching the compromises, why should we have to do it? Instead they're sitting on their fat lazy butts, insider trading and grandstanding at public expense.

We need to raise the bar on these clowns. And we need to put our heads together to make it happen.
 

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
2,298
Points
1,918
Location
Texas
Says nothing about any Natural Rights

It refers to any rights defined by the states
In liberal (socialist) world "the people" means "the state." That wasn't the world of the founders.

But since you are a typical states-rights Democrat, what rights does Texas have that the federal government may not violate?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,029
Reaction score
68,626
Points
2,190
In liberal (socialist) world "the people" means "the state." That wasn't the world of the founders.

But since you are a typical states-rights Democrat, what rights does Texas have that the federal government may not violate?
Nope
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,825
Points
1,893
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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


If that does not refer to natural rights, what could it refer to?
I think that means, we ARE allowed to define political rights that aren't based on natural rights, as well as defining political rights that ARE based in natural rights, that the Constitution simply omitted or forgot about.

We have the amendment process, and we also have laws at the state and local level, that we can use for that purpose.

Is there a particular natural right, that you think our Constitution omitted or should have in place?
 

Tumblin Tumbleweed

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
14,283
Reaction score
4,003
Points
170
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.” (See p. 79 of her response to written questions.)
Jackson’s answer comes immediately after this Q&A:
Thus, by her own account, Jackson doesn’t embrace the basic American creed set forth in that passage from the Declaration.
As one friend commented to me, since Jackson can’t say what a woman is, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t believe that human beings have natural rights.
So what? I'm not a follower of Locke either.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,897
Reaction score
11,269
Points
1,140
Thus, by her own account, Jackson doesn’t embrace the basic American creed set forth in that passage from the Declaration.

As one friend commented to me, since Jackson can’t say what a woman is, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t believe that human beings have natural rights.[/b]


[/indent]
Maybe it's because from Dredd Scott through Plessy V Ferguson, the highest court in the land said otherwise.
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,825
Points
1,893
Certain rights pre-existed the Constitution and were excepted out of the contract which empowered government. That means they are not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution, thus are in no manner dependent on the Constitution for their existence.

The Supreme Court has had no problem being boringly consistent for nearly a century and a half recognizing and enforcing this principle of inherent rights. That they have done it for the right that you have the greatest hostility for seems only fitting.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not granted by the Constitution thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of armed self-defense, in public, from the KKK, by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."​
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

From the Court's inception this principle has been recognized and enforced, that rights are not granted but were excepted out of the powers being granted, otherwise known as "retained' by the people who owned them before the constitution and surrendered no aspect of them to government.

  • "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
  • "The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
  • "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
  • The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
  • "[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

Give up, you have not a single clue what you are prattling on about.
Yes. So, see my previous three posts.

Our Constitution, as near as I can tell, was the best effort by our Founders to align political rights with natural rights.

And, to put a political structure into place that would support and guarantee those rights.

As far as I'm concerned, it's still the best and most enlightened system that exists.

It is vastly superior to any of the European systems, and the UN is a sorry joke compared to our Constitution.

Why?

I'll tell you exactly why.

Our Constitution is the only political document in the whole entire world, that codifies the concept of individual sovereignty.

What is sovereignty? A sovereign is "he who makes the law". The King says "I declare", and whatever comes out of his mouth after that is the law. He's the sovereign, he makes the law.

In our country, there's only one person who can make law: you. And me. We the People. The President can't do it, the Courts can't do it - only the People can do it, via our representatives.

We are the sovereigns. We make the law.
 

Tumblin Tumbleweed

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
14,283
Reaction score
4,003
Points
170
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?
Magaturds are fucking stupid, that's how.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
49,309
Reaction score
10,560
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
And as I have told you before, your failure to grasp the historical connection between the theoretical and literal stems from ignorance!

See post #69 and #71.
I don't deal in theoretical. You should lay off the drugs and come back to literal. It is not a law and no argument by you can make it one.
 

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
2,298
Points
1,918
Location
Texas
I think that means, we ARE allowed to define political rights that aren't based on natural rights, as well as defining political rights that ARE based in natural rights, that the Constitution simply omitted or forgot about.
Yes.
We have the amendment process, and we also have laws at the state and local level, that we can use for that purpose.

Is there a particular natural right, that you think our Constitution omitted or should have in place?
Not really. You can't enumerate them all, and the founders were to have enumerated hundreds of them, that would have been taken as a sign that the list was comprehensive.

Besides, if jurists like Judge Jackson are willing to ignore the IX amendment, what would prevent her from ignoring those enumerated rights?
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,897
Reaction score
11,269
Points
1,140
Give up, you have not a single clue what you are prattling on about.
You actually doom your "inalienable" rights theory, in that the court specifically said that those inalienable rights, were not granted to all people.

Scott v. Sandford :: 60 US 393 (1856)
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,897
Reaction score
11,269
Points
1,140
In our country, there's only one person who can make law: you. And me. We the People. The President can't do it, the Courts can't do it - only the People can do it, via our representatives.

We are the sovereigns. We make the law.
Whenever something is expressed "via" something, it means it's no longer under the control of the originator. The people don't make laws, the people elect people who may or may not represent them, to make the laws. This is clear when the American people are polled about a proposed law, and even though 60% or even 70% or more oppose it, the legislature writes the law anyway.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top