What Constitutes a "Right?"

[MaggieMae]

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.


.

And the Ninth Amendment specifically deals with UNENUMERATED rights elsewhere. To this day, it is still undefined (except in specific cases) exactly what the term "unenumerated rights" should include.

 

[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.

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.


.

And the Ninth Amendment specifically deals with UNENUMERATED rights elsewhere. To this day, it is still undefined (except in specific cases) exactly what the term "unenumerated rights" should include.

Hamilton Bypassed Enumerated Powers, He reduced them to the equivalent of a small foot note.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

For once, I agree with you. As I said previously, it is a subject that some of the great historians have pondered for decades and written extensively about.

 

[Contumacious]

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.


.

And the Ninth Amendment specifically deals with UNENUMERATED rights elsewhere. To this day, it is still undefined (except in specific cases) exactly what the term "unenumerated rights" should include.

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.


.

And the Ninth Amendment specifically deals with UNENUMERATED rights elsewhere. To this day, it is still undefined (except in specific cases) exactly what the term "unenumerated rights" should include.

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said, the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

 

[Liability]

And the Ninth Amendment specifically deals with UNENUMERATED rights elsewhere. To this day, it is still undefined (except in specific cases) exactly what the term "unenumerated rights" should include.

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said, the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

It does matter what Hamilton said, of course. And nobody is disputing that the 9th Amendment says what it says.

Finally, we all pretty much know exactly what "rights not enumerated" means. It means that they were wise enough (and modest enough) to realize that no "litany" of rights would necessarily cover all of the rights we have. It is a catch all phrase along the lines of "whatever I didn't mention explicitly is still included."

 

[Contumacious]

And the Ninth Amendment specifically deals with UNENUMERATED rights elsewhere. To this day, it is still undefined (except in specific cases) exactly what the term "unenumerated rights" should include.

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said,

Of course not, we should be more concerned about what Karl Marx said.

the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

So, I take it that you are constipated......since you do not know if having a bowel movement is a retained right.


.

 

[Intense]

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said, the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

It does matter what Hamilton said, of course. And nobody is disputing that the 9th Amendment says what it says.

Finally, we all pretty much know exactly what "rights not enumerated" means. It means that they were wise enough (and modest enough) to realize that no "litany" of rights would necessarily cover all of the rights we have. It is a catch all phrase along the lines of "whatever I didn't mention explicitly is still included."

May I remind you that there would be No Fannie and Freddy, if not for what Hamilton said and did, and that is the least of it. He was the Root of Run Away Federal Authority.

 

[Liability]

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said, the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

It does matter what Hamilton said, of course. And nobody is disputing that the 9th Amendment says what it says.

Finally, we all pretty much know exactly what "rights not enumerated" means. It means that they were wise enough (and modest enough) to realize that no "litany" of rights would necessarily cover all of the rights we have. It is a catch all phrase along the lines of "whatever I didn't mention explicitly is still included."

May I remind you that there would be No Fannie and Freddy, if not for what Hamilton said and did, and that is the least of it. He was the Root of Run Away Federal Authority.

May I remind you that stating that opinion does not "remind" anybody of anything. It is also an erroneous contention. That some folks used what Hamilton said as support for things like Fanny-Mae and Freddy-Mac is NOT the same thing as the claim that they would not exist but-for Hamilton.

Folks have found many creative ways to get around the intent of the Constitution.

Hamilton's views might have been used to buttress their arguments, but there is plenty of blame to go around and the actions would likely have taken place even if Hamilton had never uttered any such words.

 

[Intense]

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

Amuse Yourself.

 

[Contumacious]

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said, the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

It does matter what Hamilton said, of course. And nobody is disputing that the 9th Amendment says what it says.

Finally, we all pretty much know exactly what "rights not enumerated" means. It means that they were wise enough (and modest enough) to realize that no "litany" of rights would necessarily cover all of the rights we have. It is a catch all phrase along the lines of "whatever I didn't mention explicitly is still included."

May I remind you that there would be No Fannie and Freddy, if not for what Hamilton said and did, and that is the least of it. He was the Root of Run Away Federal Authority.

That's bullshit, the motherfuckers were merely looking for a pretext to create a gargantuan central government.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

Amuse Yourself.

If I hire a landscaper to keep the lawn trimmed I have IMPLIED that he may use such tools as a lawn mower and an edger.

But Hamilton did not advocate that the central bank control credit, print paper money, eliminate gold and silver backing , allow fractional reserve banking nor to create an "elastic currency". Nor did he suggest that the bank not be AUDITED. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

It doesn't matter what Hamilton said, the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

It does matter what Hamilton said, of course. And nobody is disputing that the 9th Amendment says what it says.

Finally, we all pretty much know exactly what "rights not enumerated" means. It means that they were wise enough (and modest enough) to realize that no "litany" of rights would necessarily cover all of the rights we have. It is a catch all phrase along the lines of "whatever I didn't mention explicitly is still included."

Right. All I meant about Hamilton is that discussion after the fact is moot. There was much discussion among the signers over many of the clauses in the Contitution, after it was signed, but those statements/writings do not generally affect any Supreme Court desicions other than guidance.

 

[MaggieMae]

Only because is convenient to the scumbags who pretend to be the-powers-that-be.

Here let Founding Father , Alexander Hamilton , explain it to you:

"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."


.

Of course not, we should be more concerned about what Karl Marx said.

the Ninth Amendment stands as it was written. But it's interesting that "ethics" is also something that cannot be defined in clear unquestionable terms.

So, I take it that you are constipated......since you do not know if having a bowel movement is a retained right.


.

Oh grow up. How to ruin a perfectly intelligent discussion. Go play in your toybox.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

Amuse Yourself.

If I hire a landscaper to keep the lawn trimmed I have IMPLIED that he may use such tools as a lawn mower and an edger.

But Hamilton did not advocate that the central bank control credit, print paper money, eliminate gold and silver backing , allow fractional reserve banking nor to create an "elastic currency". Nor did he suggest that the bank not be AUDITED. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And none of them advocated creating a nuclear weapon to be used as "defense" of this country. Someone has already said there have been any creative ways to define, embellish and otherwise circumvent the simple doctrines in the Constitution.

 

[Intense]

You are all ignoring Pandora's Box. Hamilton was not hiring a gardener, He was undermining the Republic.

Study the Link. Study The Alien and Sedition Acts. Then comment on Hamilton.

Study The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Who do you think they were aimed at?

 

[JBeukema]

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

If you don't like it, change it


that's kinda why we have elections

neg rep? Intense disagrees with having elections to change shit?

 

[Liability]

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

Amuse Yourself.

Hamilton's views did come with some problems. But he did not act alone in his day, and after his death, certainly the people responsible included lots more than just his dead corpse.

There is a guy who boradcasts (if that's the right term anymore) over the Sirius Satellite Radio network, on their "Patriot" station. His name is Mike Church. I have found him fairly informative, highly dedicated to the precepts of the original Constitution and, in his way, a scholar on the matter of the history of our Republic (especially the founding up to the framing).

He has created a set of CD's or DVD's (I'm not sure since I didn't order them) but -- in any event -- he refers to them as "movies" (I believe, maybe the latest one is animated). I have heard some snippets. He has actors protraying the various Founders/Framers and the dialog includes one about the creation of a national debt FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

As between the FRAMERS, there WAS a rift concerning how much "power" the central FEDERAL Government should have. The outcome, as we know, was a delicate balance. But we cannot have a balance without something on either end.

My view remains that we need a government of explicitly limited powers which we grant to the Federal Government, but that the limitations are NOT intended to be such as would make the Federal Government powerless. Balance. Not powerless, but not too powerful.

I am not as offended by a central bank, so much, as I am by certain notions of how the Federal Govenrment may use the power.

Are you familiar with this guy Mike Church?

 

[Intense]

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

If you don't like it, change it


that's kinda why we have elections

neg rep? Intense disagrees with having elections to change shit?

Intense disagrees with Predators like You Neg repping Posters when You really should be seeking help.

I have 4 Neg Reps since I started Posting Here. One was a resolved misunderstanding. The Other 3 Are All from You. I will no longer ignore Your attacks, you were warned twice. Now you ignored them. I'm out of cheeks, to turn. You have my full attention. That translates to Zero Tolerance. Puke.

 

[JBeukema]

They're not attacks, dumbass. If you don't want neg rep, stop acting like a retard. I only show a single rep for you in my panel, so stop crying like a little *****.