What Constitutes a "Right?"

[goldcatt]

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.

The office of President is a federal office, as is Congress. That is why I said what I did. I agree with you on your latter point.

Here we go again with this agreeing stuff.

Dammit!
But I disagree as to your first point, although it's only semantics. The Federal offices are also elected by the States. Where they serve does not affect who they represent or how they are selected. In State level elections.
Abolish the Electoral College, and then you have a Federal presidential election.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Um, The Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America is implicit as it incorporates those states by its laws. Hello?

Hello to you as well. The states are mentioned. That much is true. However, the fact remains that the Article 1, Section II, Clause I does not and never has in the history of this Republic, given the citizens of the United States the right to vote.

The founding fathers disagree with you Maggie. I challenge you to back up your claim via the Constitution itself, the supporting founding documents, as well as the pertinent SCOTUS decision. It can't rightfully be done in proper context.

I'll dig out some arguments, starting with the book I always turn to "The Words We Live By" which I mentioned a few days ago.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

After trying peacefully to get the Union out of their land and being given no other choice by Lincoln.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

The office of President is a federal office, as is Congress. That is why I said what I did. I agree with you on your latter point.

Here we go again with this agreeing stuff.

The Constitution is always good for solid debate. I think the framers wrote it in such an ambiguous way as to promote that debate.

I will agree with you on your first point.

 

[MaggieMae]

Our nation was founded on the belief of natural rights so if what you say is true we should have stayed a part of Great Britain. As for healthcare being a right and giving us more freedom, I'd say you're quite mistaken. Freedom doesn't entail the government taking from one person to give to another.

So now you're trying to argue the Sixteenth Amendment? You make no sense, none.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The 16th amendment gives the federal government the power to institute an income tax. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Taking from one person to give to another by way of taxes. Not to distort the OP even further, examples would be those who opposed the Iraq war but their taxes went to fund it anyway, but I realize the more current example is taxing everyone for the purpose of health care for all. A direct tax, an income tax, goes directly to my point.

 

[rubberhead]

Maggie, You are falling into JBeukema's Pit Fall. Nobody is suggesting anything like that but Him, and now You. Why? Where has anyone Rationally defended doing Harm to Others is a Natural Right? All these arguments are abstract diversions, if you simply study up on Source, you will see that.

Yes! I thought I was the only one noticing that about JBeukema's 'argument'. Freedom for all means freedom within the limits of the same freedom for others. There are gray areas, but if you take someone else's freedom then you forfeit your own. I don't know why JBeukema doesn't get this. I suspect that he/she does, but just wants to be contrary.

 

[MaggieMae]

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."

Maggie, You are falling into JBeukema's Pit Fall. Nobody is suggesting anything like that but Him, and now You. Why? Where has anyone Rationally defended doing Harm to Others is a Natural Right? All these arguments are abstract diversions, if you simply study up on Source, you will see that.

It was solely in response to Liability's analogy, nothing more.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Um, The Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America is implicit as it incorporates those states by its laws. Hello?

Hello to you as well. The states are mentioned. That much is true. However, the fact remains that the Article 1, Section II, Clause I does not and never has in the history of this Republic, given the citizens of the United States the right to vote.

The founding fathers disagree with you Maggie. I challenge you to back up your claim via the Constitution itself, the supporting founding documents, as well as the pertinent SCOTUS decision. It can't rightfully be done in proper context.

I'll dig out some arguments, starting with the book I always turn to "The Words We Live By" which I mentioned a few days ago.

"The Words We Live By" is not part of the supporting founding documents. Your retort is limited to the three categories I mentioned.

Build your case and pm me if you don't see me around. I will be glad to respond to your argument.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong, Kev. Hitler's actions were 'crimes against humanity' because they were defined as such under international law.

He who declares war on the world must expect the world to declare, as one party, war upon him. His actions triggered the creation of a new compact between manyparties, who shared the objective of destroying him.

What about Stalin and Mao then? The world didn't "declare war" on them so their crimes must have been justified?

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, You are falling into JBeukema's Pit Fall. Nobody is suggesting anything like that but Him, and now You. Why? Where has anyone Rationally defended doing Harm to Others is a Natural Right? All these arguments are abstract diversions, if you simply study up on Source, you will see that.

Yes! I thought I was the only one noticing that about JBeukema's 'argument'. Freedom for all means freedom within the limits of the same freedom for others. There are gray areas, but if you take someone else's freedom then you forfeit your own. I don't know why JBeukema doesn't get this. I suspect that he/she does, but just wants to be contrary.

I confess I sailed through much of JB's stuff, as he tends to lace it with insults which deter from his points. Nope, my thoughts have been my own here. Frankly, I think a new thread needs to be started to get people's thoughts on exactly what they mean and/or expect by "freedom." For myself, I'm just as free as I was the day I was born, 66 years ago.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So now you're trying to argue the Sixteenth Amendment? You make no sense, none.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The 16th amendment gives the federal government the power to institute an income tax. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Taking from one person to give to another by way of taxes. Not to distort the OP even further, examples would be those who opposed the Iraq war but their taxes went to fund it anyway, but I realize the more current example is taxing everyone for the purpose of health care for all. A direct tax, an income tax, goes directly to my point.

The fact that we have an income tax which theoretically would allow the government to fund something, doesn't mean the government has a right to fund it. The Iraq war and universal healthcare are two examples of this, and just because the government did one wrong thing is no justification to do another.

 

[Intense]

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.

Maggie, Cause and Effect, Consequence Effect us all, we learn and develop through experience. Putting it in writing may help some, but it does not change the outcome when ignored. I'm not trying to sell you anything, I'm simply Justifying Me Personal Right to Decide for Myself, where I am concerned, When I break Civil Law I am accountable, as are you. We came together as a Nation, under the Concept of Governing by the Consent of the Governed, because of the Influence of People like Locke, Jefferson, and Madison. Why do You Justify throwing that away? We make Laws and agree to those Laws, and should they stray too far from Truth and Justice, We as a Whole Body, have the Power to Talk about it, Recognize and Weight the Particulars, Consider Them, and Rectify Either through Legislation or Constitutional Amendment.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

The office of President is a federal office, as is Congress. That is why I said what I did. I agree with you on your latter point.

Here we go again with this agreeing stuff.

Dammit!
But I disagree as to your first point, although it's only semantics. The Federal offices are also elected by the States. Where they serve does not affect who they represent or how they are selected. In State level elections.
Abolish the Electoral College, and then you have a Federal presidential election.

We can keep debating over what you call "semantics." I don't think it will get us anywhere.

Agreeing with me is much more fun gold.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hello to you as well. The states are mentioned. That much is true. However, the fact remains that the Article 1, Section II, Clause I does not and never has in the history of this Republic, given the citizens of the United States the right to vote.

The founding fathers disagree with you Maggie. I challenge you to back up your claim via the Constitution itself, the supporting founding documents, as well as the pertinent SCOTUS decision. It can't rightfully be done in proper context.

I'll dig out some arguments, starting with the book I always turn to "The Words We Live By" which I mentioned a few days ago.

"The Words We Live By" is not part of the supporting founding documents. Your retort is limited to the three categories I mentioned.

Build your case and pm me if you don't see me around. I will be glad to respond to your argument.

Trying to interpret the founding father's documents is as difficult as trying to interpret the Constitution. That book provides both, including the text of the entire Constitution, but discussion among scholars and lawyers and justices regarding the laws developed as a result of each clause. It's fascinating, and far easier for the layperson to understand how the Constitution applies to modern day society.

 

[rubberhead]

I confess I sailed through much of JB's stuff, as he tends to lace it with insults which deter from his points. Nope, my thoughts have been my own here. Frankly, I think a new thread needs to be started to get people's thoughts on exactly what they mean and/or expect by "freedom." For myself, I'm just as free as I was the day I was born, 66 years ago.

Yeah, I probably should ignore it too, but he's the only one talking about this on a philosophical level. Everyone else seems to be talking about the Constitution of the US, which is inspired by natural rights, but it does not necessarily define or originate them.

 

[goldcatt]

The office of President is a federal office, as is Congress. That is why I said what I did. I agree with you on your latter point.

Here we go again with this agreeing stuff.

Dammit!
But I disagree as to your first point, although it's only semantics. The Federal offices are also elected by the States. Where they serve does not affect who they represent or how they are selected. In State level elections.
Abolish the Electoral College, and then you have a Federal presidential election.

We can keep debating over what you call "semantics." I don't think it will get us anywhere.

Agreeing with me is much more fun gold.

And when exactly will I see this fun you offer?

 

[Intense]

I'll dig out some arguments, starting with the book I always turn to "The Words We Live By" which I mentioned a few days ago.

"The Words We Live By" is not part of the supporting founding documents. Your retort is limited to the three categories I mentioned.

Build your case and pm me if you don't see me around. I will be glad to respond to your argument.

Trying to interpret the founding father's documents is as difficult as trying to interpret the Constitution. That book provides both, including the text of the entire Constitution, but discussion among scholars and lawyers and justices regarding the laws developed as a result of each clause. It's fascinating, and far easier for the layperson to understand how the Constitution applies to modern day society.

Maggie, Where Locke is Relevant is in Deciphering Original Intent. Principle is Timeless. Don't cop out on that which has the most direct bearing on the discussion, as irrelevant because it is past. It is the Foundation of what You and JB deny.

Recreating History doesn't solve anything, It makes People like Me more Pissed off at the So Called Scholars that Purposefully Bury it. We were Hi-Jacked and we see it. there is no more hiding.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Dammit!
But I disagree as to your first point, although it's only semantics. The Federal offices are also elected by the States. Where they serve does not affect who they represent or how they are selected. In State level elections.
Abolish the Electoral College, and then you have a Federal presidential election.

We can keep debating over what you call "semantics." I don't think it will get us anywhere.

Agreeing with me is much more fun gold.

And when exactly will I see this fun you offer?

I submit to the court, that gold has already been having fun Verbal repartee is right up your alley.

 

[goldcatt]

We can keep debating over what you call "semantics." I don't think it will get us anywhere.

Agreeing with me is much more fun gold.

And when exactly will I see this fun you offer?

I submit to the court, that gold has already been having fun Verbal repartee is right up your alley.

You got me figured out.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

And when exactly will I see this fun you offer?

I submit to the court, that gold has already been having fun Verbal repartee is right up your alley.

You got me figured out.

Being coy is not a strength of yours gold.