What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

Then I gave my definition of a right, which is that no right can interfere with the rights of others or it is not truly a right. The 9th amendment doesn't negate this definition.

But it doesn't affirm it either. The USSC has been hearing cases for decades regarding the RIGHTS of a plaintiff/defendent in specific cases. I don't even pretend to have an answer. I defer to the justices who are far smarter than any of us. The question, imo, is therefore moot.

Which why I'm curious as to why you brought it up. It neither helps nor hinders either of our arguments. Do you believe that you can have a right to something that comes at the expense of somebody else?

 

[bodecea]

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

An interesting nuance to our federal government is that all tax legislation must start in the House. That is the part of government that is most easily controlled by the smallest group of citizens (districts)...and the most frequently (2 year terms). We ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves.

All appropriations bills must begin in the House. However, that constitutional rule was ignored back when the Senate voted for the $700 billion bailouts before the House did.

Did they? I'd love to read about that. Seriously.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

An interesting nuance to our federal government is that all tax legislation must start in the House. That is the part of government that is most easily controlled by the smallest group of citizens (districts)...and the most frequently (2 year terms). We ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves.

All appropriations bills must begin in the House. However, that constitutional rule was ignored back when the Senate voted for the $700 billion bailouts before the House did.

Did they? I'd love to read about that. Seriously.

Well if you recall the bailout bill was originally defeated in the House. After that the Senate passed the bill, and then the House followed suit. If we followed the Constitution the Senate wouldn't have been able to vote on the bill until after the House passed it.

 

[Intense]

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

Then I gave my definition of a right, which is that no right can interfere with the rights of others or it is not truly a right. The 9th amendment doesn't negate this definition.

But it doesn't affirm it either. The USSC has been hearing cases for decades regarding the RIGHTS of a plaintiff/defendent in specific cases. I don't even pretend to have an answer. I defer to the justices who are far smarter than any of us. The question, imo, is therefore moot.

Maggie, Honestly, We were taught that, but let me ask you this. Why are these Great Minds so Often split 5/4, on The Most Important Issues? Why are they not closer to Unanimous? When You read the Opinions, there is Wisdom, there are also holes. Preferred Truth and Arbitrary Justification, sometimes Ignoring Relevance, Weight, Priority, The Greater Truth, suffers for a Tangent. This Power when misused is Tyrannical. It is the Government of the Few at Best, a Government of One for the Deciding Vote. Oligarchy.
The One, The Few The Many, in Great Britain meant, King, House Of Lords, and House of Commons. Here that Should have Meant, President, Senate, and House of Representatives in Relation to Governing and Construction of Law. The Court was Supposed to Serve Justice, The Rule Of Law, and Protect Integrity, Defending against Tyranny and Contradiction. The Court Clarifies Intent when needed, and Point out the Error where there is Fault.

The Court Should not be Dictating Policy, but instead point out the Foul, and should never hold against a 75% Majority.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm aware of the 9th amendment and it doesn't negate anything I said at all. How does the 9th amendment give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

Treaty Power can really effect Us and Hurt us. Texas recently went through an issue with The World Court. Bush sided with The World Court, Texas Ignored Bush. Go Texas.

Exactly... My position on TWC is that it is a court of absolutely NO Legal Authority and has no bearing on my rights, at any level, in any way... GW was dead assed wrong; and while I voted for GW four times... twice as governor and twice as President; his failure to tell TWC to go pound sand was a low point, similar in depth to his signing the education and Social Entitlement expansion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm aware of the 9th amendment and it doesn't negate anything I said at all. How does the 9th amendment give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

Gee, Pubi--thanks for speaking for me. Incorrectly, I might add. Do you have puppets at home?

It's too early to say for sure... but it seems that we may have hit dead-center.

Mags if you would answer the query, you could set aside all the angst.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

All appropriations bills must begin in the House. However, that constitutional rule was ignored back when the Senate voted for the $700 billion bailouts before the House did.

Did they? I'd love to read about that. Seriously.

Well if you recall the bailout bill was originally defeated in the House. After that the Senate passed the bill, and then the House followed suit. If we followed the Constitution the Senate wouldn't have been able to vote on the bill until after the House passed it.

tried to Rep this one Kevin... but was unable to do so. Excellent point...

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry for not reading all 16 pages.
Anyway, rights are what society generally and characteristically deem them to be. Someone can insist he has a right to smoke pot all he wants but he will find himself in jail before long. There is no constructive difference between a right which doesn't exist and one which is denied.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

Is that Debating or Scheming for Power and Money?

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution is to specifically enumerate the powers granted to the Federal Government. We retained 100% of the rights. We are supposed to be FREE PEOPLE.


.

 

[Intense]

Sorry for not reading all 16 pages.
Anyway, rights are what society generally and characteristically deem them to be. Someone can insist he has a right to smoke pot all he wants but he will find himself in jail before long. There is no constructive difference between a right which doesn't exist and one which is denied.

We live in a Society that Recognizes an Authority above, Society, Culture, and Government. There are Rights, that We Inherit From that Authority. This Distinction Separates Us from All Other Nations. You desperately are in need of some alone time with the Boss. Do a "First Kings Chapter 8" Will Ya Please. and relate it.

 

[manu1959]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

except if i can defend it and you can't take it then i have it.....

 

[manu1959]

Sorry for not reading all 16 pages.
Anyway, rights are what society generally and characteristically deem them to be. Someone can insist he has a right to smoke pot all he wants but he will find himself in jail before long. There is no constructive difference between a right which doesn't exist and one which is denied.

We live in a Society that Recognizes an Authority above, Society, Culture, and Government. There are Rights, that We Inherit From that Authority. This Distinction Separates Us from All Other Nations. You desperately are in need of some alone time with the Boss. Do a "First Kings Chapter 8" Will Ya Please. and relate it.

there is a cool quote about this in our nations founding documents......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....where did i put that......

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry for not reading all 16 pages.
Anyway, rights are what society generally and characteristically deem them to be. Someone can insist he has a right to smoke pot all he wants but he will find himself in jail before long. There is no constructive difference between a right which doesn't exist and one which is denied.

We live in a Society that Recognizes an Authority above, Society, Culture, and Government. There are Rights, that We Inherit From that Authority. This Distinction Separates Us from All Other Nations. You desperately are in need of some alone time with the Boss. Do a "First Kings Chapter 8" Will Ya Please. and relate it.

Im pretty familiar with the "Old Testament" and don't recall a single mention of a right to bear arms, or a right to free speech, or a right to exercise religion. In fact I am pretty sure G-d tells Moses to wipe out the idols in the land of Israel when they cross in.
So I don't know what "Authority above" you are talking about.

 

[Intense]

Sorry for not reading all 16 pages.
Anyway, rights are what society generally and characteristically deem them to be. Someone can insist he has a right to smoke pot all he wants but he will find himself in jail before long. There is no constructive difference between a right which doesn't exist and one which is denied.

We live in a Society that Recognizes an Authority above, Society, Culture, and Government. There are Rights, that We Inherit From that Authority. This Distinction Separates Us from All Other Nations. You desperately are in need of some alone time with the Boss. Do a "First Kings Chapter 8" Will Ya Please. and relate it.

there is a cool quote about this in our nations founding documents......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....where did i put that......

Ya Think???

 

[JBeukema]

'love it or leave it ' is for ******* morons

If you don't like it, change it


that's kinda why we have elections

 

[JBeukema]

It is a true statement. One can have sex without marriage and one can have marriage without sex.

You're ******* retarded. Being mutually exclusive means one cannot have both. The statements says that you cannot be married and have sex. Kinda like how voting for Obama and having an honest president are (by all appearances) mutually exclusive.


Definitions of mutually exclusive on the Web:

• contradictory: unable to be both true at the same time
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In simple terms, two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time (i.e. they have no outcomes in common).
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive
• Describing multiple events or states of being such that the occurrence of any one implies the non-occurrence of all the others
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutually_exclusive
• Is a set of events in which if one happens the other does not. An example is the tossing of a "normal" coin. ...
  www.oasismanagement.com/frames/TECHNOLOGY/GLOSSARY/m.html
• Describing two events, conditions, or variables which cannot occur at once. For example, subjects in a study cannot be both female and male, HIV positive and HIV negative, pregnant and not pregnant, for those are mutually exclusive categories. ...
  www.etr.org/recapp/research/researchglossary.htm
• Each option is distinct from all other options.
  www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/dp/mktg_resrch/gloss.shtml
• if two sets have no elements in common (interjection is empty) - 5 misses
  quizlet.com/42788/math-definitions-flash-cards/
• Mutually exclusive procedures are two or more procedures usually not performed during the same patient encounter on the same date of service.
  www.healthlink.com/provider/sh_defs/Definitions%206.19.06.htm

Dumbass.

Mutually exclusive means that there does NOT have to be a connection between the two at all times....One does not automatically lead to the other.

But, you can call names all by yourself. I will not stoop to that level.

No, you illiterate ******* reatrd, It means they cannot both occur. I just linked you to the ******* dictionaries.

You're too stupid to engage in meaningful discussion. Stay put the the voting booth and off the forums until you cease to be a ******* retard

 

[MaggieMae]

Then I gave my definition of a right, which is that no right can interfere with the rights of others or it is not truly a right. The 9th amendment doesn't negate this definition.

But it doesn't affirm it either. The USSC has been hearing cases for decades regarding the RIGHTS of a plaintiff/defendent in specific cases. I don't even pretend to have an answer. I defer to the justices who are far smarter than any of us. The question, imo, is therefore moot.

Maggie, Honestly, We were taught that, but let me ask you this. Why are these Great Minds so Often split 5/4, on The Most Important Issues? Why are they not closer to Unanimous? When You read the Opinions, there is Wisdom, there are also holes. Preferred Truth and Arbitrary Justification, sometimes Ignoring Relevance, Weight, Priority, The Greater Truth, suffers for a Tangent. This Power when misused is Tyrannical. It is the Government of the Few at Best, a Government of One for the Deciding Vote. Oligarchy.
The One, The Few The Many, in Great Britain meant, King, House Of Lords, and House of Commons. Here that Should have Meant, President, Senate, and House of Representatives in Relation to Governing and Construction of Law. The Court was Supposed to Serve Justice, The Rule Of Law, and Protect Integrity, Defending against Tyranny and Contradiction. The Court Clarifies Intent when needed, and Point out the Error where there is Fault.

The Court Should not be Dictating Policy, but instead point out the Foul, and should never hold against a 75% Majority.

I can only answer by quoting from what I use as my "bible" when I have my own questions regarding the Constitution ("The Words We live By"), which, in discussion therein of the powers embodied in the Supreme Court by the Constitution, says:

"Some scholars believe that the process of constitutional interpretation is more dynamic than merely following Supreme Court decisions. As law professor Cass Sunstein wrote in his book The Partial Constitution:

The Constitution does not mean only what the judges say,
it means...Its meaning to Congress, the President, state
government, and citizens in general has been more important
than its meaning within the narrow confines of the Supreme
Court building.

"Of course, the people have the final say about the meaning of the Constitution through their power to amend it. But that is a very difficult process. Until such amendment, the American system of judicial review gives judges a unique degree of power. In the words of historian Gordon Wood: I do not know of any country in the world where judges wield as much power in shaping the contours of life as they do in the United States."

Sooooo....I guess the answer to your specific grievances would have to be that's just the way it is. I hate those answers too.

 

[Liability]

The concept of having a "right" requires recognition of the qualification "just" or "justly."

Thus, the notion of right requires that we recognize the concept of "justice."

I have a just entitlement to vote, for example. I have a just entitlement to breathe. I have a just entitlement to earn a living. In fact, I believe there are quite a few things to which I have (and anyone else has) a "just entitlement"

What are the sources of those just entitlements, those "rights?"

If that is the philosophical question which Kevin is posing in his OP, the answer will take a LOT of writing and a LOT of reading.

 

[MaggieMae]

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

Treaty Power can really effect Us and Hurt us. Texas recently went through an issue with The World Court. Bush sided with The World Court, Texas Ignored Bush. Go Texas.

Exactly... My position on TWC is that it is a court of absolutely NO Legal Authority and has no bearing on my rights, at any level, in any way... GW was dead assed wrong; and while I voted for GW four times... twice as governor and twice as President; his failure to tell TWC to go pound sand was a low point, similar in depth to his signing the education and Social Entitlement expansion.

The World Court exists to prosecute or defend us from from lawsuits brought by foreign countries. It offers the same arena to every country which is a member of the United Nations. Of course the US withdrew membership in the ICC once under Reagan over fear of prosecution because of the illegal arms sales, and again by Bush 43 over fear of prosecution because of our treatment of prisoners taken during the early months of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. But what if Iraq had invaded the US and treated our own citizens or soldiers by torture? Wouldn't we want to bring that before the World Court and hope for a favorable decision?

 

[MaggieMae]

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

Gee, Pubi--thanks for speaking for me. Incorrectly, I might add. Do you have puppets at home?

It's too early to say for sure... but it seems that we may have hit dead-center.

Mags if you would answer the query, you could set aside all the angst.

Some people never quite *get it* that others have things to do in addition to a lengthy debate on a message board. I believe I logged off long before you pushed for a response from me. That said, I rarely get into any discussion with you anyway. It's fruitless. I could argue that the earth revolved around the sun and you'd argue with me and post a full page of scientific evidence for my "review." And that's assuming you even stayed on topic.