What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Contumacious]

AGG: America never had a revolution

There was the civil war.

Failed revolution?

There was a war of Northern Aggression.


.

 

[RadiomanATL]

AGG: America never had a revolution

There was the civil war.

Failed revolution?

There was a war of Northern Agression.


.

Also known as a civil war, or a failed revolution.

 

[MaggieMae]

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791 - nuff said!

edit: ah hell...here's another Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Initially, before the Constitution was amended, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Now that voting right extends to all legal citizens.

There is no right to vote ( via the Constitution ) in a federal election. The reason you are allowed to vote for President etc., is because your state provides for such via their constitution.

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

 

[Intense]

Kevin, you are full of shit. There are no 'natural' rights. For most of history, right only belonged to those with might. The Constitution of the United States is most unnatural. And, by being that, it created an atmosphere in which real progress could prosper. If we dedide that we can create universal access to Health Care, then that becomes a right for our citizens. And creates more freedom for the American Citizen.

Old Rocks, You are full of shit, as I sit here Reading evidence of what you deny and yet draw from to articulate your post, I worry about you. You exist in or out of society. Are you defenseless in the woods, or any where you are alone? Do you have ability only to act, defend, maintain, service, create, develop only within the bound of Government Instruction? Get Your head out of your ass, if that is the case, and make a stand, man. Even the Animals of the field don't ask for Government sanction to defend what is their own, be it Life, or habitat. Government is Not God.

That's really a stretch. I believe if there is a "God" that s/he directs the hands of the humans He created, such as the physicians and surgeons who save lives. You're talking about primitive man. We've come a long way, baby.

You are not always in a crowded room, Maggie. You are not always around other People. Truth Justice, Motive Intent, are always with you, Internally. You have within Your Own Self the Ability to make Responsible Conscious Choice? Do you simply regress because you can? Are You maybe Guided by Principle? What existed first Maggie? The Principle or The Contract?

 

[Contumacious]

The Founders.

Great, smart men.

Still, one could be forgiven for pondering that ******* a slave woman while penning "all men are created equal" does reveal some form of hypocrisy.

Just maybe?

Or maybe not, he did not pen "all women are created equal".

His pursuit of happiness came at the expense of Sally's.

How bout we found our own ethics away from the founders?

Just a thought.

Exactly. What the founders believed 200+ years ago as an inherent Christian "right" was actually wrong, in many instances. Some have been corrected by amendment, many have not. What "natural right" (God-given?) compelled them to believe that slaves (human beings) were chattel? That only white men could own property? That women could not vote?

That is nonsense.

He made reference to NATURE'S GOD and THEIR CREATOR......not to a god or to a creator and used by the mystics.


.

 

[JBeukema]

There was the civil war.

No, there wasn't

What was the civil war, if it wasn't a civil war?

How can I tell you what a non-existent civil war was if not a civil war?

Did you read my post?

 

[Contumacious]

ANY discussion or rights is incomplete without some reference to DIVINE RIGHTS

Let's use the current mani avatar as an illustration:

One might say that the lady in that image has a divine right, but even though it is partially obscured, she clearly has a pretty divine left, too!

 

[MaggieMae]

No rights come from the Constitution. The founders believed in natural rights and wrote the Constitution to defend the rights that we as human beings naturally have.

You're nuts. Without quoting them directly, the Bill of Rights includes freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the rght to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Of course within that amendment, many laws have been written concerning tangible rights of citizens, but that was the intent.

If a right exists, such as my right to speak my mind, then writing it down as part of a list of things over which the gubmint has no valid say does not create that right. The right pre-existed the writing part.

I have a right to swing my closed fist, too. My right to do so, however, does NOT go so far as the point where I make contact with your nose (or even wheere I get so close to it that I interfere with your right not to be physically threatened by my behavior).

Rights are NOT "all or nothing" constructs.

SOME rights may be absolute or nearly absolute.

Other rights quite a bit less so.

And there is no contradiction in noting as much.

And thus the reason we have laws. You can't use as a defense in a court of law that you had an inalienable "right" to punch someone in the nose because your reading of the Constitution implies that it was an expession of "freedom of speech."

 

[JBeukema]

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

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;


SO the federal government did not give me my rights................nor create the internets.


.

Appeal to a document with no weight, legal or otherwise, is not only a fallacy, but a sign of mental retardation

Misquoting, Accusing, Fabricating, Inventing, adding content as you go, as You trudge on is a sure sign of Your Insanity, and the depths you are willing to go to destroy what you cannot control. Predator.

My Rights are Natural, recognized by Government, Supported by Government, And exist with or without Your Consent or Control. You have attempted to Add to that in many ways from Your Imagination, to what end I can only assume, You are the scum of the earth though, just so You know that I know it.

still crying and whining, I see

stop bitching and enumerate and demonstrate

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Initially, before the Constitution was amended, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Now that voting right extends to all legal citizens.

There is no right to vote ( via the Constitution ) in a federal election. The reason you are allowed to vote for President etc., is because your state provides for such via their constitution.

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

 

[JBeukema]

AGG: America never had a revolution

There was the civil war.

Failed revolution?

There was a war of Northern Aggression.


.

the South attacked first

nice try with the revisionist bullshit

try not getting your history lessons from southern democrats

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, there wasn't

What was the civil war, if it wasn't a civil war?

How can I tell you what a non-existent civil war was if not a civil war?

Did you read my post?

Yes, I read it.

Explain how the civil war wasn't a civil war.

 

[Contumacious]

initially, before the constitution was amended, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Now that voting right extends to all legal citizens.

there is no right to vote ( via the constitution ) in a federal election. The reason you are allowed to vote for president etc., is because your state provides for such via their constitution.

now you're arguing semantics. Article i, section ii, established the house of representatives which gave the states voting rights.

huh?


.

 

[JBeukema]

By freedom I mean a person's dominion over their own agency. I didn't think that such a thing would be confusing. And no, you would not be able to rape me unless your doing so did not infringe upon my freedom. That is, you could not rape me unless I wished to be raped, thus making rape an inappropriate characterization of your actions.

Your refusal to bend over infringes on my right to cum where I wish

Therefore, you have no right to your own body

care to rephrase your argument?


the rights are implied by the rights?


Do you not see what's wrong with that statement?

You've yet to demonstrate any 'rights' at all


If will = rights, then I still have the right to rape you and cut your throat as I cum in your ass

Do you really want to cling to that argument?

I am a realist. Look at human history. If you think all wealth can be generated from 'untapped resources' forever, you're an idiot. It's never been the case and it never will. Someone's not going to fish, hunt, pump their own oil, build their own roads, run their own electric plant....




That's social contract Specifically, the consent of the governed



It fails due to greed, our and simple. Many Americans don't own property and are perfectly content

.
And someone else is free to take it, given the definition of 'freedom' you provided.

Unless you introduce a social contract where thieves are punished, thus instituting a positive right to keep one's own earnings

And before you start splitting hairs, no I don't mean they get to keep the cars that they help build on the assembly line. What I mean is, the creator of the wealth get to keep the value that they create

Actually, they keep less. That's how businesses stay in business. The factory worker takes home less wealth than he generates for the boss.

This is not a refutation in the least. Yes, rights imply rights.

Circular Reasoning

Your argument means you have no rights

you fail at the extrapolation iof logical implications of arguments

 

[MaggieMae]

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

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;


SO the federal government did not give me my rights................nor create the internets.


.

Appeal to a document with no weight, legal or otherwise, is not only a fallacy, but a sign of mental retardation

I see, so in order for me to appear sane I must let you and yours enslave me , disarm me, and dictate to me................bwahahahahahahahah.........not as long as I own my retarded Mossberg 590.


Let's see you be smoking Mexican sinsemilla, right?


.

But see that's the problem with such a blanket argument. In effect, you have been "dictated to" since the Constitution was signed in 1787. And so far, you've still got your guns and you haven't been enslaved.

 

[JBeukema]

There was the civil war.

Failed revolution?

There was a war of Northern Agression.


.

Also known as a civil war, or a failed revolution.

It was neither

It was a failed war for independence

 

[MaggieMae]

Old Rocks, You are full of shit, as I sit here Reading evidence of what you deny and yet draw from to articulate your post, I worry about you. You exist in or out of society. Are you defenseless in the woods, or any where you are alone? Do you have ability only to act, defend, maintain, service, create, develop only within the bound of Government Instruction? Get Your head out of your ass, if that is the case, and make a stand, man. Even the Animals of the field don't ask for Government sanction to defend what is their own, be it Life, or habitat. Government is Not God.

That's really a stretch. I believe if there is a "God" that s/he directs the hands of the humans He created, such as the physicians and surgeons who save lives. You're talking about primitive man. We've come a long way, baby.

You are not always in a crowded room, Maggie. You are not always around other People. Truth Justice, Motive Intent, are always with you, Internally. You have within Your Own Self the Ability to make Responsible Conscious Choice? Do you simply regress because you can? Are You maybe Guided by Principle? What existed first Maggie? The Principle or The Contract?

The problem with your argument is that "principle" isn't always right for everyone, and neither is "the contract." You are trying to confine your own beliefs into a doctrine of fact, when the evidence proves that cannot be done. If we were all clones of mind and body, I could accept your premises, but since humans are wildly diverse, I cannot.

 

[rubberhead]

Appeal to a document with no weight, legal or otherwise, is not only a fallacy, but a sign of mental retardation

Misquoting, Accusing, Fabricating, Inventing, adding content as you go, as You trudge on is a sure sign of Your Insanity, and the depths you are willing to go to destroy what you cannot control. Predator.

My Rights are Natural, recognized by Government, Supported by Government, And exist with or without Your Consent or Control. You have attempted to Add to that in many ways from Your Imagination, to what end I can only assume, You are the scum of the earth though, just so You know that I know it.

still crying and whining, I see

stop bitching and enumerate and demonstrate

I did demonstrate. Weren't you paying attention? I mean you did respond to my demonstration with a bunch of ill-formed semantic arguments that you didn't substantiate and inflammatory comments that had even less substance. Here are the rights again:

1. Freedom
2. Fairness

Go back and read my posts for the demonstrations. Better yet, read "A Theory of Justice" and "A Second Treatise of Government" and then you'll actually have some ground to stand on here. Also, some advice if you actually are serious about investigating this topic:

Spend time digesting what you read before forming an opinion of it. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not doing that here.

 

[RadiomanATL]

There was a war of Northern Agression.


.

Also known as a civil war, or a failed revolution.

It was neither

It was a failed war for independence

Oh, so yer just arguing over a to-may-to, to-mah-to type of thing.

Whatever. It was all three.

 

[goldcatt]

There is no right to vote ( via the Constitution ) in a federal election. The reason you are allowed to vote for President etc., is because your state provides for such via their constitution.

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

You're mostly right. In fact, there is no such thing as a "Federal" election. All Federal offices are elected by the individual States. For the office of President, the States could theoretically remove the right of the people to vote for electors anytime it chooses.