The nature of our rights, Constitutionally speaking.

[gipper]

Charters, fooundational documents, pacts, orders, constitutions, rarely affect the ruling class and have been that way since the beginning of human beings.

Agreed. Yet somehow many Americans still don’t know this, even though it’s evermore conspicuous.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

well then unfuzz me Frank......i musta missed 'life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness' in my King James......~S~

If you lived alone out in the world, would you have life, liberty and the pursuit or would you be sitting waiting for a government to give that to you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Under our Constitution, do you believe that our rights are “given” to us by the Constitution, itself, or that those rights are only guaranteed to us by the Constitution but that the source of those rights existed before the Constitution was even drafted?

The language of the constitution necessitates the rights held by the people pre-exist the constitution and are not dependent on it for their existence.

The SC agrees:
...The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection....
...The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

Certain rights - the right to trial, the right to vote, the right to demand a warrant - cannot be exercised without government because they concerns functions of the government, but rights like free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to keep and bear arms do not fall in that category.

 

[gipper]

The language of the constitution necessitates the rights held by the people pre-exist the constitution and are not dependent on it for their existence.

The SC agrees:
...The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection....
...The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

Certain rights - the right to trial, the right to vote, the right to demand a warrant - cannot be exercised without government because they concerns functions of the government, but rights like free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to keep and bear arms do not fall in that category.

It’s funny to see Americans debating the Constitution, when obviously it’s meaningless today.

 

[there4eyeM]

It’s funny to see Americans debating the Constitution, when obviously it’s meaningless today.

It isn't that it is meaningless, it is that voters do not hold politicians' feet to its fire.

 

[gipper]

It isn't that it is meaningless, it is that voters do not hold politicians' feet to its fire.

It’s meaningless because the ruling class refuses to abide by it, and the people refuse to hold them accountable.

However, can we really expect the people to do this? I think not.

I believe it was Jefferson and Adams who said our system of government can’t work if government politicians are untrustworthy and corrupt.

Well guess what? We’re way past that.

 

[dblack]

A thread started by Votto quoting Justice Thomas got me thinking. (Always dangerous, I suppose.)

Here is the link to Votto ‘s OP. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America

ANYWAY, my question is open to both our more or less liberal/progressive posting members and our conservative members.

Under our Constitution, do you believe that our rights are “given” to us by the Constitution, itself, or that those rights are only guaranteed to us by the Constitution but that the source of those rights existed before the Constitution was even draft

Public vote. Feel free to add other answers.

Inalienable rights is just another way to characterize free will and volition. We are born with the freedom to think and act. No one grants that to us, other than our parents - or God, if that's your belief.

We create government to protect, as much as possible, the freedom that we're born with.

 

[Lockback]

A thread started by Votto quoting Justice Thomas got me thinking. (Always dangerous, I suppose.)

Here is the link to Votto ‘s OP. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America

Actually, I started that thread but, hey, I'm willing to share the glory.

 

[dblack]

It’s funny to see Americans debating the Constitution, when obviously it’s meaningless today.

I read an article this week about how Trump's reign is showing just how much of our civility is held together by custom, not laws. And if a significant minotory decides to ignore custom, all bets are off, regardless of the law, regardless of the Constitution.

 

[Lockback]

I read an article this week about how Trump's reign is showing just how much of our civility is held together by custom, not laws. And if a significant minotory decides to ignore custom, all bets are off, regardless of the law, regardless of the Constitution.

You've just described the Democrat Party.

 

[dblack]

You've just described the Democrat Party.

No, it's both. We have authoritarian statists running both parties, and they want power more than anything else. If we let them, they'll take it, and we'll suffer for our apathy.

 

[Independent thinker]

A thread started by Votto quoting Justice Thomas got me thinking. (Always dangerous, I suppose.)

Here is the link to Votto ‘s OP. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America

ANYWAY, my question is open to both our more or less liberal/progressive posting members and our conservative members.

Under our Constitution, do you believe that our rights are “given” to us by the Constitution, itself, or that those rights are only guaranteed to us by the Constitution but that the source of those rights existed before the Constitution was even drafted?

Public vote. Feel free to add other answers.

While I answered yes I'm afraid the left will claim all sorts of rights not in the Constitution. Like, the right to abortion, the right for men to play in women's sports and use their restrooms, the right to be called by the pronoun they prefer or the right to free healthcare, etc. Anyone can make up whatever "right" they want to imagine. There's a reason why our founders thought long and hard about about all the rights they imagined and only enshrined a certain few in our constitution.

 

[gipper]

While I answered yes I'm afraid the left will claim all sorts of rights not in the Constitution. Like, the right to abortion, the right for men to play in women's sports and use their restrooms, the right to be called by the pronoun they prefer or the right to free healthcare, etc. Anyone can make up whatever "right" they want to imagine. There's a reason why our founders thought long and hard about about all the rights they imagined and only enshrined a certain few in our constitution.

How does one who claim to be independent not know both parties are right wing parties, serving the interests of the 1%?

Why use a deceptive screen name?

 

[sparky]

If you lived alone out in the world, would you have life, liberty and the pursuit or would you be sitting waiting for a government to give that to you?

A fair Q Frank

I would counter that humans have a huge sense of entitlement that nature could give two ***** about

~S~

 

[Independent thinker]

How does one who claim to be independent not know both parties are right wing parties, serving the interests of the 1%?

Why use a deceptive screen name?

I used this screen name before the left veered far left off the planet, to the point they don't even know what the definition of a woman is anymore. I used to vote a mix of Republicans, democrats, independents, third parties, and write ins. In fact, I used to be a diehard democrat in my earlier life. I even more recently voted for Bill Clinton the second time, Al Gore, and even Obama the second time. Since then the left have entered into a different demension, outside of reality. The left are not a right wing party, they are a progressive/socialist party. But, you are right about both parties serving the 1%.

 

[norwegen]

Depends on the specific right.

Some rights are inherent. The right to life, the right to defend oneself, etc.

Some rights are human constructs (marriage, for example.)

Marriage is a privilege.

 

[Votto]

No it doesnt its says "their creator" which allows an atheist to say nature is his creator

Atheists can say anything they damn well please. In fact, they claim the unborn are not human and we need a trained biologist to determine what a woman is. They are all a bunch of insane loons, so what?

The bottom line is, you either view the human species as mere animals, or you treat them as above the animal real by saying that they were created in the image of God himself, thus assigning them protection from what human beings do to animals. It is either that, or you can sit back and watch the powers that be treat human beings like humans treat animals, which is to herd them around, enslave them in zoos for our entertainment, use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them. Only the Judeo-Christian religion makes such a distinction from what I know.

Now left-wing groups like PETA make no such distinction, often treating animals better than human beings. But to be fair, if there is no God, why the hell not? Adolf Hitler, for example, loved animals more than people, especially his German Shepherds. The Nazi's passed cutting-edge legislation to protect animals as well while he led the chronically sick and handicapped Germans to the basements of hospitals to end their lives because they were a burden on the state.

No doubt, they would have also done this to animals had they had similar problems.

This is the type of government we have today, who value animal life more than human life

 

[BackAgain]

Depends on the specific right.

Some rights are inherent. The right to life, the right to defend oneself, etc.

Some rights are human constructs (marriage, for example.)

Why wouldn’t the right to be married be inherent? And I ask this next question in all seriousness.

If two guys happen to wish to get married, what difference does that make to heterosexuals? How is it my concern? And why should the government be permitted to claim it has any legitimate interest in that “marriage?”

 

[norwegen]

Why wouldn’t the right to be married be inherent? And I ask this next question in all seriousness.

If two guys happen to wish to get married, what difference does that make to heterosexuals? How is it my concern? And why should the government be permitted to claim it has any legitimate interest in that “marriage?”

What right to marriage?

If you're single and no one wants to marry you, how do you exercise that "right"?

 

[BackAgain]

I believe that the Constitution enshrines rights given to us by the Creator.

The only true role of government is to protect the rights of the People

Augustus ran Rome without a Federal Register or even a police force; disputes were handled by the Courts

Assuming Western Civilization actually does collapse later this year, your OP will be worth remembering

I — uhm — don’t assume the collapse of Western Civilization any time soon.

If the day comes where it does collapse, the nature and view of what our rights are — or ought to be — will be of major interest to all. In the interim, maybe we need to start publicly appreciating what we have; and fight to keep it.