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

[meaner gene]

Yes.

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?

How did the IX th play out in Scott v. Sandford :: 60 US 393 (1856)

 

[Seymour Flops]

How did the IX th play out in Scott v. Sandford :: 60 US 393 (1856)

Not well.

The U.S. Constitution was a deeply flawed document from the beginning. Its embrace of slavery doomed the nation to strife and hardship.

My quoting the IX was in answer to another poster claiming that there are no natural rights in the law.

 

[meaner gene]

Not well.

The U.S. Constitution was a deeply flawed document from the beginning. Its embrace of slavery doomed the nation to strife and hardship.

My quoting the IX was in answer to another poster claiming that there are no natural rights in the law.

But there are no natural rights in the law, as Scott v Sandford clearly points out. Not until the 14th amendment did "we the people" actually mean it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

But there are no natural rights in the law, as Scott v Sandford clearly points out. Not until the 14th amendment did "we the people" actually mean it.

There were natural rights, but the constitution expressly forbade the U.S. government from enforcing those natural rights for African-American slaves.

When the XIV was passed, the protection of the IX was granted to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and at the same time, taken away from most of those who fought for the Confederacy.

All of those having died off, the courts are duty bound to enforce the IX for all persons born or naturalized in the United States, but Judge Jackson refuses to acknowledge the natural rights protected by the IX.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

He said as he disregarded the underlying, constitutional reality.

 

[meaner gene]

All of those having died off, the courts are duty bound to enforce the IX for all persons born or naturalized in the United States, but Judge Jackson refuses to acknowledge the natural rights protected by the IX.

Chief Justice Tanney expressly refuted the IX th's granting inalienable rights.

 

[scruffy]

Yes.

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?

I wish Article I Section 8 was comprehensive.

It was supposed to be, wasn't it?

But it hasn't been kept up to date.

Probably one of the reasons the libs say our Constitution is 'living and breathing" ha ha.

Kind of more like squirming, if you ask me...

 

[scruffy]

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.

Yes. Many of our "representatives" are corrupt.

 

[scruffy]

Good. Excellent discussion, thanks everyone.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He said as he disregarded the underlying, constitutional reality.

Please explain as clearly as mud what relationship there is between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You and others have failed to do that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I wish Article I Section 8 was comprehensive.

It was supposed to be, wasn't it?

But it hasn't been kept up to date.

Probably one of the reasons the libs say our Constitution is 'living and breathing" ha ha.

Kind of more like squirming, if you ask me...

What would you change?

 

[toobfreak]

Ketanji Brown Jackson Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence​

How can she? She's not a paper miller.

 

[Votto]

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.​

​

​

KBJ Won’t Embrace Declaration of Independence on Natural Rights | National Review

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: ‘I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.’

www.nationalreview.com

Knowing what we now know about the lack of understanding of human rights and what it actually means to be human, the democrat stance on abortion now can be uderstood.

 

[Votto]

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.

You don't believe in natural rights?

Why?

Explain it.

The entire concept of natural rights is what doomed slavery in the US.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The Founding Fathers did not apply natural rights to all people in the US.

They applied them to all that mattered. Our founders were snobs---they only liked other intelligent people.

 

[Flash]

Democrats hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No wonder they have no appreciation for the Declaration of Independence. They don't understand the concept of Individual rights. That is why a Liberal judge will always make the wrong ruling.

Now ask them something about the Communist Manifesto and collective rights and the turds are Johnny on the Spot.

 

[occupied]

You don't believe in natural rights?

Why?

Explain it.

The entire concept of natural rights is what doomed slavery in the US.

It's a political philosophy that I happen to believe in but it's not the law. The hard truth is that you only have as many rights as the government you live under allows you to have. They are not nearly as interested in philosophy as preserving the social order.