What Constitutes a "Right?"

[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."

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.

Nonsense.

The Constitution means what it says and if the meaning is not clear , the intent of the Founding Fathers.

For the intent of the Founders SCOTUS uses "The Federalist"


Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (U.S. 06/27/1997)


So grow up. don't ruin a perfectly intelligent discussion. Go play in your toybox.


.

 

[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. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

True.

So long as criminal scumbags are appointed to the SCOTUS we are going to have decisions which circumvent the Constitution.

.

 

[Liability]

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.

Nonsense.

The Constitution means what it says and if the meaning is not clear , the intent of the Founding Fathers.

For the intent of the Founders SCOTUS uses "The Federalist"


Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (U.S. 06/27/1997)


So grow up. don't ruin a perfectly intelligent discussion. Go play in your toybox.


.

I note this: I generally AGREE with the quoted post! I am gonna award rep for it, in fact (in a moment or so).

but, by way of limitation, I also note this. The INTENT of the Framers is not always crystal clear BECAUSE they did sometimes disagree with each other and, accordingly, they DID work out some COMPROMISES.

ONE of the compromises was concerned with how to do BOTH of the following things: (1) Create a cental federal government with sufficient powers to accomplish the legitimate purposes of a central government while (2) also limiting the power granted to that central federal government so that it could not assume or exercise powers beyond the intended limitations.

As I suggested before, they crafted a delicate balance. It does leave room for ambiguity. It does leave room for valid debate in many instances. It is part of the process. A give and take and an ebb and flow. If too much power ended up being assumed, the Constitutional mechanisms of checks and balances were designed to CORRECT that improper assumption of power by taking back some of the power.

Keeping a check on the power of the Federal Government, though, was NEVER intended to create a mere neuter.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

I agree with Jefferson and Madison that NOTHING in the Constitution authorized the federal government to detain and deport aliens nor to adopt the Sedition Act.


.

 

[Intense]

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 *****.

Hey Puke, They are attacks like I said. You declared open season by Neg Repping me 3 Times. The fact that You can't ******* Remember is Your ******* Problem. You are My problem, and I'm not crying, but looking forward to You making my day. You seem pretty off on memory. You honestly have no recollection of who you attempt to **** over? That must be real convenient for You, Dick Head. Irresponsible, unaccountable, horses ass.

 

[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?

I agree with Jefferson and Madison that NOTHING in the Constitution authorized the federal government to detain and deport aliens nor to adopt the Sedition Act.


.

Madison's brand of Federalism would have played out so differently. I suppose it hard to envision, but Government would have been more participatory. We can Still change for the better with the Amendment Process, it takes commitment and focus.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Is sexual activity a requirement for marriage? Is marriage a requirement for sexual activity?

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

------------------------------------
Not my assignment but you may want to read this little tidbit before you start saying something isn't true........

Proxy wedding means Marine's widow, baby unwelcome
Published - Sep 17 2009 05:38AM EDT

By KRISTIN M. HALL - Associated Press Writer

Email Thank You

The email should be sent shortly.

* Required
Your Name Your Email Address *
Recipient Name Recipient Email Address *
Submit» Cancel Share » Facebook » MySpace » delicious » digg » reddit » StumbleUpon » twitter
» Close Print AAA Single Page View
(AP Photo/Wade Payne)

Robin Ferschke, right, mother of Sgt. Michael Ferschke, and her daughter-in-law Hotaru Ferschke, stand outside their home in Maryville, Tenn. on March 6, 2009. Hotaru is holding her son, Mikey. A 1950s legal standard means U.S. immigration authorities do not recognize Hotaru's marriage, even though the military does.
Hotaru Ferschke just wants to raise her 8-month-old son in his grandparents' Tennessee home, surrounded by photos and memories of the father he'll never meet: a Marine who died in combat a month after marrying her from thousands of miles away.

Sgt. Michael Ferschke was killed in Iraq in 2008, leaving his widow and infant son, both Japanese citizens, in immigration limbo: A 1950s legal standard meant to curb marriage fraud means U.S. authorities do not recognize the marriage, even though the military does.

Ferschke and his bride had been together in Japan for more than a year, and she was pregnant when he deployed. They married by signing their names on separate continents and did not have a chance to meet again in person after the wedding, which a 57-year-old immigration law requires for the union to be considered consummated.

"She is being denied because they are saying her marriage is not valid because it was not consummated _ despite the fact that they have a child together," said Brent Renison, an immigration lawyer in Oregon who has advised the family.

 

[Intense]

Yeah ... it is... as marriage is the JOINING of two people... where two become ONE... (see the metaphor coming into play here?) Thus the consummation thing... to complete marriage: to make a marriage legally complete and fully valid by having sexual intercourse ...

Are you actually saying that there are laws that state that a married couple must have sexual intercourse before the marriage is legally complete and fully valid?

Where are you from...the Middle Ages???

Show me a current law from any state in this country that clearly states that a marriage is not valid until the couple has sexual intercourse.

That is your assignment.

------------------------------------
Not my assignment but you may want to read this little tidbit before you start saying something isn't true........

Proxy wedding means Marine's widow, baby unwelcome
Published - Sep 17 2009 05:38AM EDT

By KRISTIN M. HALL - Associated Press Writer

Email Thank You

The email should be sent shortly.

* Required
Your Name Your Email Address *
Recipient Name Recipient Email Address *
Submit» Cancel Share » Facebook » MySpace » delicious » digg » reddit » StumbleUpon » twitter
» Close Print AAA Single Page View
(AP Photo/Wade Payne)

Robin Ferschke, right, mother of Sgt. Michael Ferschke, and her daughter-in-law Hotaru Ferschke, stand outside their home in Maryville, Tenn. on March 6, 2009. Hotaru is holding her son, Mikey. A 1950s legal standard means U.S. immigration authorities do not recognize Hotaru's marriage, even though the military does.
Hotaru Ferschke just wants to raise her 8-month-old son in his grandparents' Tennessee home, surrounded by photos and memories of the father he'll never meet: a Marine who died in combat a month after marrying her from thousands of miles away.

Sgt. Michael Ferschke was killed in Iraq in 2008, leaving his widow and infant son, both Japanese citizens, in immigration limbo: A 1950s legal standard meant to curb marriage fraud means U.S. authorities do not recognize the marriage, even though the military does.

Ferschke and his bride had been together in Japan for more than a year, and she was pregnant when he deployed. They married by signing their names on separate continents and did not have a chance to meet again in person after the wedding, which a 57-year-old immigration law requires for the union to be considered consummated.

"She is being denied because they are saying her marriage is not valid because it was not consummated _ despite the fact that they have a child together," said Brent Renison, an immigration lawyer in Oregon who has advised the family.

If this is true, I Pray they get the support they need to stay.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Intense....I was watching this on the news earlier. There are many people coming out in her support. The military is all over it from what one guy was saying. To even think to put this lady through this after her husband gave his all for this country is beyond belief. Hopefully they'll be able to rectify this situation and it will work out in her favor. Here is the link for the entire article...............http://www.rr.com/news/topic/articl..._wedding_means_Marines_widow_baby_unwelcome/3

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Firstly my apologies for reproducing the OP and commenting before reading the rest of the thread. In my defence I have been away for a week and I'm catching up.

A right is what society says it is. There are no "natural" rights.

I'll read on and if needs be will defend my position but very interesting OP Kevin.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

spoken like a true totalitarian

Well you can post a character reference but can you oppose the point?

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Naturally there are no rights to anything other than your thoughts and ideas, and that does not include the expression of those two or the life that gives you the ability to have them. Every "right" we have in society, including your right to life, is created through common social standards within our society, and have to be protected by law, force or whatever mechanism is in place wherever you are. What's called your "god-given right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can theoretically be taken away by a simple change of government if it was to fall to a ruthless dictator. In this very nation, African slaves had no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So I would say yes, you need some kind of social order to establish any kind of right beyond the right to possess your thoughts during your life.

Your other questions are moot. You're not arguing rights, you're clearly arguing legalities between the government-given right to property and taxation.

We succeeded in something never done before in recorded history. We recognized that there was an authority on earth that no human government could compare to. Why do you throw that away so freely?

There is consequence when injustice is done because we recognize it is wrong, just as nature does. If you don't see it, it is your loss, and changes nothing.

Never in recorded history? God of some sort has always been used as a backup to those who are in power. The Divine Right of Kings is a starter.

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

Naturally there are no rights to anything other than your thoughts and ideas, and that does not include the expression of those two or the life that gives you the ability to have them. Every "right" we have in society, including your right to life, is created through common social standards within our society, and have to be protected by law, force or whatever mechanism is in place wherever you are. What's called your "god-given right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can theoretically be taken away by a simple change of government if it was to fall to a ruthless dictator. In this very nation, African slaves had no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So I would say yes, you need some kind of social order to establish any kind of right beyond the right to possess your thoughts during your life.

Your other questions are moot. You're not arguing rights, you're clearly arguing legalities between the government-given right to property and taxation.

We succeeded in something never done before in recorded history. We recognized that there was an authority on earth that no human government could compare to. Why do you throw that away so freely?

There is consequence when injustice is done because we recognize it is wrong, just as nature does. If you don't see it, it is your loss, and changes nothing.

Never in recorded history? God of some sort has always been used as a backup to those who are in power. The Divine Right of Kings is a starter.

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One Nation Under God With Liberty and Justice For All.

Government By the People for The People.

The Recognition of Inalienable Right, there are issues between God and the Individual that are No One Else's Business. Obligation through Conscience to Our Maker Precedes Our Obligation to Society or Government. We are Not Property.

 

[Intense]

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.

spoken like a true totalitarian

Well you can post a character reference but can you oppose the point?

You commit the Crime You risk Prosecution, Conviction, and Internment. You may be Sued for damages.

We as a Society recognize wrong behavior. We Recognize Rights, Private Property, Justice, on Most Continents, in any language, most of Us get it.

 

[JBeukema]

We succeeded in something never done before in recorded history. We recognized that there was an authority on earth that no human government could compare to. Why do you throw that away so freely?

There is consequence when injustice is done because we recognize it is wrong, just as nature does. If you don't see it, it is your loss, and changes nothing.

Never in recorded history? God of some sort has always been used as a backup to those who are in power. The Divine Right of Kings is a starter.

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One Nation Under God With Liberty and Justice For All.

Government By the People for The People.

The Recognition of Inalienable Right, there are issues between God and the Individual that are No One Else's Business. Obligation through Conscience to Our Maker Precedes Our Obligation to Society or Government. We are Not Property.

fail

 

[Diuretic]

spoken like a true totalitarian

Well you can post a character reference but can you oppose the point?

You commit the Crime You risk Prosecution, Conviction, and Internment. You may be Sued for damages.

We as a Society recognize wrong behavior. We Recognize Rights, Private Property, Justice, on Most Continents, in any language, most of Us get it.

"most of Us get it"

Societies recognise rights, no surprises there, I mean the idea of the social contract isn't exactly new. Most societies worthy of the concept protect socially defined rights.

 

[Intense]

Never in recorded history? God of some sort has always been used as a backup to those who are in power. The Divine Right of Kings is a starter.

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One Nation Under God With Liberty and Justice For All.

Government By the People for The People.

The Recognition of Inalienable Right, there are issues between God and the Individual that are No One Else's Business. Obligation through Conscience to Our Maker Precedes Our Obligation to Society or Government. We are Not Property.

fail

Intense Pass.

There is an Authority Higher than Government.

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -Thomas Jefferson

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves. - James Madison




JBeukema. Exempt From Grade.

 

[JBeukema]

First you reference a reactionary modification of the pledge put into effect during the Red Scare and now you cluing to your debunked religion to prove your point?

Epic fail

 

[JBeukema]

Read the words of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and others- many unkind words for religion in general and xtianity in particular

They called themselves deists because they did not know the word 'atheist'

 

[Diuretic]

Quoting without comment. Resubmit

Reference post #277