Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

[NYcarbineer]

1. If it ever became necessary to prove that you are a dunce....although, that would be akin to adding a dunking stool to the Titanic....this would do the trick:

"...an immaterial point..."

Further...it is proof that you are ill equipped to understand or discuss the subject.




a. There is the Constitution...and there is case law, often decided by misguided individuals who believe that there personal views surpass the views within the Constitution.

b. Therefore, my feathered friend, it is hardly semantics to differentiate between the Constitution and decisions which alter same.
To be concise, rather than judicial decisions, the way to alter the Constitution is the amendment process.





2. "I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not."
Certainly simple.
Unfortunately, you are more than simple.

But...I'll try:



a. Justice Wm. Brennan, jr, in 1985, Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

How to do that?

By imposing his or any current view of what is just, no matter what the Constitution says. Figure out what result you (Liberals) want...then claim that it's in the law.


b. No…each generation remains bound by the rights its predecessor entrenched, as opposed to a doctrine in which each generation could bring its own meaning to the Constitution.

c. Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.



d. In "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’”
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13.



Do you understand? Either the Constitution holds sway, or the whim of any judge does.

Is abortion in the first trimester a constitutional right or not?

Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers.

What powers? It's a privacy issue. The fetus has no rights in the Constitution. In order to constitutionally violate a woman's right to privacy you have to invent personhood for the fetus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm acknowledging them as self-evident and universal.

So why did the people of Hiroshima die, if they had a right to life? Did the US commit one of the single biggest human rights violation in history on that day in 1945?

Sure I guess you could say that.

So, if a state passes a law that bans certain firearms from being owned, and you believe it's unconstitutional,

what do you do?

Question 2, why are you so loathe to directly discuss the issue of whether abortion is a God given right?

I'll say it again that bringing up the hot button issues like abortion and gun control tend to make for an unproductive discussion about which rights are a function of policy and which are fundamental/natural. Life/liberty/property are widely regarded as fundamental/natural, but we have some folks he suggesting any rights only exist to the extent that society enforces and protects them.

Shouldn't any discussion of natural rights be prefaced with a discussion of which rights are natural and which are not?

 

[sfcalifornia]

What a brilliant post.

Next time read the OP, not just the title.

You didn't answer my question.

There you are, once again....on the outside drooling in….

See....there's a title....

....then there is a reading comprehension passage, that follows.



The bad news, you've utterly failed.
The good news?
Having achieved a zero, you have nowhere to go but up.

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You didn't answer my question.

There you are, once again....on the outside drooling in….

See....there's a title....

....then there is a reading comprehension passage, that follows.



The bad news, you've utterly failed.
The good news?
Having achieved a zero, you have nowhere to go but up.

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

Well, look at that in positive light. The fact that PC has no respect for PC might just mean that occasionally she's a very good judge of character.

 

[there4eyeM]

Shouldn't any discussion of natural rights be prefaced with a discussion of which rights are natural and which are not?

As 'natural' and 'rights' are human concepts, they are whatever we say they are. The subjectivity is absolute.

 

[koshergrl]

So why did the people of Hiroshima die, if they had a right to life? Did the US commit one of the single biggest human rights violation in history on that day in 1945?

Sure I guess you could say that.

So, if a state passes a law that bans certain firearms from being owned, and you believe it's unconstitutional,

what do you do?

Question 2, why are you so loathe to directly discuss the issue of whether abortion is a God given right?

I'll say it again that bringing up the hot button issues like abortion and gun control tend to make for an unproductive discussion about which rights are a function of policy and which are fundamental/natural. Life/liberty/property are widely regarded as fundamental/natural, but we have some folks he suggesting any rights only exist to the extent that society enforces and protects them.

Shouldn't any discussion of natural rights be prefaced with a discussion of which rights are natural and which are not?

No. That's just an excuse for fascist pieces of shit like you to explain why we shouldn't have any at all, and how all rights are "relative" and "granted" by government.

 

[konradv]

Sure I guess you could say that.



I'll say it again that bringing up the hot button issues like abortion and gun control tend to make for an unproductive discussion about which rights are a function of policy and which are fundamental/natural. Life/liberty/property are widely regarded as fundamental/natural, but we have some folks he suggesting any rights only exist to the extent that society enforces and protects them.

Shouldn't any discussion of natural rights be prefaced with a discussion of which rights are natural and which are not?

No. That's just an excuse for fascist pieces of shit like you to explain why we shouldn't have any at all, and how all rights are "relative" and "granted" by government.

Since the government is US, it's not rights we've been granted, but rights we've agreed upon. Funny you should keep bringing up fascism, since you're the one engaged in the BIG LIE.

 

[daveman]

Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?

Nothing. But how does that negate my rights?

Hint: It doesn't.

 

[daveman]

Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

 

[daveman]

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

But we ARE the government. We're affirming the rights we acknowledge and wish to protect for everyone within our domain. You and PC are wrong in looking at the government as "the other" when it should be looked on as "us". We aren't "granted" rights by the government, they're rights that WE have agreed are important enough to us to codify.

Then rights changed when you cross national borders?

Do people in China have the innate human right to free speech or not?

 

[daveman]

You didn't answer my question.

There you are, once again....on the outside drooling in….

See....there's a title....

....then there is a reading comprehension passage, that follows.



The bad news, you've utterly failed.
The good news?
Having achieved a zero, you have nowhere to go but up.

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

Pssst! "Disagreeing with leftists" =/= "no self-respect".

 

[konradv]

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?

Nothing. But how does that negate my rights?

Hint: It doesn't.

Didn't say it negates them. I said they're imaginary, barring something to back them up. If they're inalienable, no one stronger than you should be able to take them away. Since that's demonstrably untrue, the line is political rhetoric rather than fact.

 

[konradv]

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

But we ARE the government. We're affirming the rights we acknowledge and wish to protect for everyone within our domain. You and PC are wrong in looking at the government as "the other" when it should be looked on as "us". We aren't "granted" rights by the government, they're rights that WE have agreed are important enough to us to codify.

Then rights changed when you cross national borders?

Do people in China have the innate human right to free speech or not?

There is no such thing as an innate human right. It's something that needs to be fought for and protected. Absent that, they're just words.

 

[konradv]

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

You have the ability to jump off, but "right" is a different question. Why should anyone have the right to endanger those on the street below? If you're talking suicide in general, it's a choice and "right" doesn't seem to come into it at all.

 

[daveman]

PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?

Nothing. But how does that negate my rights?

Hint: It doesn't.

Didn't say it negates them. I said they're imaginary, barring something to back them up. If they're inalienable, no one stronger than you should be able to take them away. Since that's demonstrably untrue, the line is political rhetoric rather than fact.

The Government's Prayer

Our Government in D.C.,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy nanny state come
Thy mandate be done
On flyover country as it is in the coasts.
Give us this month our monthly check,
And audit us our trespasses,
As we file suit against those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into liberty,
But deliver us from ourselves.
For thine is the oligarchy,
And the power, and the glory,
Forever and ever.
Amen.

All hail Government, from whom all blessings flow!

 

[daveman]

But we ARE the government. We're affirming the rights we acknowledge and wish to protect for everyone within our domain. You and PC are wrong in looking at the government as "the other" when it should be looked on as "us". We aren't "granted" rights by the government, they're rights that WE have agreed are important enough to us to codify.

Then rights changed when you cross national borders?

Do people in China have the innate human right to free speech or not?

There is no such thing as an innate human right. It's something that needs to be fought for and protected. Absent that, they're just words.

This reveals a great deal about you.

And it's not complimentary.

 

[daveman]

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

You have the ability to jump off, but "right" is a different question. Why should anyone have the right to endanger those on the street below? If you're talking suicide in general, it's a choice and "right" doesn't seem to come into it at all.

You don't believe in rights anyway, so it's useless discussing this with you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is abortion in the first trimester a constitutional right or not?

Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers.

What powers? It's a privacy issue. The fetus has no rights in the Constitution. In order to constitutionally violate a woman's right to privacy you have to invent personhood for the fetus.

"What powers? It's a privacy issue."

Article I, section 8, dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You didn't answer my question.

There you are, once again....on the outside drooling in….

See....there's a title....

....then there is a reading comprehension passage, that follows.



The bad news, you've utterly failed.
The good news?
Having achieved a zero, you have nowhere to go but up.

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

Read the OP.....I challenge you to respond rather than obfuscate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure I guess you could say that.



I'll say it again that bringing up the hot button issues like abortion and gun control tend to make for an unproductive discussion about which rights are a function of policy and which are fundamental/natural. Life/liberty/property are widely regarded as fundamental/natural, but we have some folks he suggesting any rights only exist to the extent that society enforces and protects them.

Shouldn't any discussion of natural rights be prefaced with a discussion of which rights are natural and which are not?

No. That's just an excuse for fascist pieces of shit like you to explain why we shouldn't have any at all, and how all rights are "relative" and "granted" by government.

No need to throw a tantrum, it's just an internet message board.

Is the right to an abortion a natural right? If not why not?