rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
Yes.
What Constitutes a "Right?"
- Thread starter Kevin_Kennedy
- Start date
Diuretic
Permanently confused
I ask because I remember discussing this with a former academic in the philosophy department of one of our universities. He was explaining Rawls to me and that idea came up. I thought it was an excellent way of making the point. The academic told me that Rawls hadn't completely won over his fellow philosophers, not that that means anything - it's still a really useful concept to me anyway.
In Relation to The Supreme being, It reminds me of Someone on a Diet, scirting around their Hot Fudge Sunday, thinking that eating it slower, or with a smaller spoon will even the Odds.
Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Setarcos
Rookie
- Sep 30, 2009
- 854
- 39
- 0
- Banned
- #1,384
Then you think there are several competing statesof nature that manifest as reality?
I
Who forces them?
Define:justice
If you mean "natural rights", nothing.
If you mean positive rights, whatever each person says they are. Different persons might choose to recognize different entitlements.
omg... its... THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
demonstrate that such desires necessarily stem from rationality
That's a fallacy
hume's guillotine - Google Search
Okay. So desire = right? The3n i have the right to rape attractive women and steal your car. You've the right to stop me and I've the right to kill you first. All people have all rights (if they desire it), which leads to infinite regress, making the claim that "all persons have all rights" fallacious and ultimately equivalent to saying noone has any rights at all or that no rights are meaningful at all.
A: We desire
B:we have a right to
C: we shouldn't
A=>B=>C
?!
Are you not able to see the glaring fallacy?
We are all in equal in the non-existence of you delusion (natural rights)
Setarcos
Rookie
- Sep 30, 2009
- 854
- 39
- 0
- Banned
- #1,389
There is no argument for the "rightness" of therules they come up with. It only demonstrates that social contract is the reality and that the parties involved are all interested purely in that which benefits themselves. It is evidence not of any"rights" or the "rightness" off any system, but of self-interest only.
Hume noted this, if I recall.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
So I'l take my beliefs in women's suffrage and racial equality where such crazy ideas are appreciated
Are right-wingers retarded or do retards become right-wingers?
ROFLMNAO...
Do what? Did this idiot just espouse women's suffrage and racial equality as 'leftist'?
Sweet MOTHER THAT'S HYSTERICAL!
Two notions which owe their existance to Judea-Christian unalienable rights... which this jack-ass REJECTS!
Someone get MSNBC on the horn and see what it would take to crank their forum back up; this is the message-board equivilent of Castro emptying his asylums...
Liberals secured the right of women to vote and racial equality for people of color in this country.
Setarcos
Rookie
- Sep 30, 2009
- 854
- 39
- 0
- Banned
- #1,391
but... but... but.... those liberals ruined my plantation!
Then they made it so I couldn't hire them kids to sweep my chimneys, sop I had to hire someone who knew the risks and demanded fair pay...
I miss the old caste system,m back when women and ******* as spics knew their place and being of a noble meant something....
That's why I'm a conservative- to fight for the old order, the way things ought to be!
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
Yes, there were several disputes about Rawls's philosophy. The veil of ignorance is problematic for a couple of reasons (that I can think of): 1) it reduces those in the original position to something less than human, 2) it homogenizes the population so they are effectively identical - i.e. you could just pick one representative instead. I think that #2 is actually important. It whittles the people down to what they all have in common. Namely the desire to be free and to keep what they work for. One cannot rightfully deprive another of that which one desires himself. Since-I argue-that every human desires these things, then there is no human that could rightfully deny them without violating a desire which they themselves have. Think about that, it's basically the Golden Rule. However, there are no exceptions for masochists. You can't say, "well I like to be viciously beaten, so..." It doesn't work. I can't prove that you like to be viciously beaten, but I can prove (assuming that you are a rational agent) that you want freedom to keep what you create. Same goes for me. Knowing that, we could not rightfully take these things away from each other. That is, it would be unjust/wrong/bad to do so.
The difference principle is also problematic, which is why I use my own version of it, which basically equates to property rights. For Rawls, it was some kind of welfare principle. I forget the exact wording. It's something like "Gains for the most advantaged must benefit the least advantaged." I understand that people shouldn't get infinitely rich at the expense of others, but any principle that gives people something for nothing is unsupportable I think.
Last edited:
PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #1,394
Nature has long since established Morality. You rejecting such doesn't change it.
google:capital punishment
google:self-defense[/QUOTE]
So as predicted, the idiot antithiest isn't bright enough to recognize the gulf of distinctio between the Right to Life and the life...
ROFL... Fools
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,396
Setarcos, define instinct.
Setarcos
Rookie
- Sep 30, 2009
- 854
- 39
- 0
- Banned
- #1,397
WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
Word to search for: Noun
- S: (n) instinct, inherent aptitude (inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli) "the spawning instinct in salmon"; "altruistic instincts in social animals"
Instinct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What Constitutes a Right?
“But if the legislature may infringe this Constitution, it is no longer fixed; it is not this year what it was the last; and the liberties of the people are wholly at the mercy of the legislature” Spencer Roane
The United States Constitution is a legally binding contract between the people and their agents, or representatives. In the historic Virginia case of Kamper v. Hawkins (1793), some of the nations top legal minds examined in detail and clarity, the principles of the founding fathers regarding the proper role of each of the branches of government. The basis of power is with the people themselves. Judge Spencer Roan, who later became the chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote in 1793, “I consider the people of this country as the only sovereign power. I consider the legislature as not sovereign but subordinate; they are subordinate to the great constitutional charter, which the people have established as a fundamental law, and which alone has given existence and authority to the legislature....” Kamper v. Hawkins 1793
In the same case, articulating the limitations of the judiciary, Justice Henry said, “The judiciary, from the nature of the office, and the mode of their appointment, could never be designed to determine upon the equity, necessity, or usefulness of a law; that would amount to an express interfering with the legislative branch, in the clause where it is expressly forbidden for any one branch to interfere with the duties of the other. The reason is obvious, not being chosen immediately by the people, nor being accountable to them, in the first instance, they do not, and ought not, to represent the people in framing or repealing any law.”
. When a contract is negotiated and concluded, there are specific terms of the agreement which obligate the parties to act in a certain way. The terms and conditions are defined in language which is intended to avoid confusion and which is understood to have the same meaning to both parties. These terms and conditions are then settled and are binding upon the parties when signed by them. When the parties begin to act in accordance with the contract, the contract is said to be enforceable. Usually, there are penalty provisions for material breach, or failure of one party to execute the terms or meet the conditions specified in the contract. Once it becomes enforceable, the contract may not then be changed without the expressed knowledge and consent of both parties.
Why a “Written Constitution”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” James Madison: Federalist Papers # 62
When our founders established the terms of government for this new nation in the form of a written constitution, and those terms were ratified by the people, the contract was “enforceable” in the legal sense. A new national identity was established and a course charted for the future which was both empowered and constrained by the new constitution. Provisions were adopted which gave the control over the government to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representatives, in turn, appointed certain other officers to manage those aspects of national government which needed the guiding hand of a professional. The fixed principles however, are immutable and expressed in written form so as to preclude any contrary law from coming into existence.
The judicial branch is not the most powerful branch of the federal government- it is an equal branch. Judicial officers may not make the law. Justice Iredell, in another 1793 case, Chisolm v. Georgia, stated , “I have no hesitation to say, that any act to that effect [exceeding legislative authority] would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a fundamental law paramount to all others which we are note only bound to consult, but sworn to observe; and therefore, where there is an interference, being superior in obligation to the other, we must unquestionably obey that in preference...There is no part of the Constitution that I know of, that authorizes this Court to take up any business where they [the legislature] left it and, in order that the powers given in the Constitution may be in full activity, supply their omission by making new laws for new cases; or, which I take to be the same thing, applying old principles to new cases materially different from those to which they were applied before.”
Justice Samuel Chase spoke very clearly on the matter of “original intent” which he believed should be the only legitimate basis for interpreting the law. In a nutshell, he argued in Calder v. Bull (1798) that, “The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it......This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit.”
In other words, the natural limits of the law are found in the reasons for which people contract together in society. Chase goes on to say in Calder V. Bull, “There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded.”
Justice Chase assumes that these principles are both knowable and “normal” and that they are historically verifiable. For the next 150 years or so, the Supreme Court held tightly to these principles and the national body of law was kept to a workable minimum.
A corollary principle found early in the judicial history of our nation is that of civic duty. When a contract is finalized, the principal parties are bound by the terms of that agreement. When the people elect representatives and those representatives appoint others to oversee the affairs of state, all parties swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. In the act of swearing the oath, and the subsequent acts of assuming the duties , such elected and appointed agents of the people bind themselves to the terms of the agreement. Since they are under oath to the Constitution, they are presumed to be knowledgeable of its contents and meaning. If, at any point, these agents of the people disregard the Constitution and substitute their own meanings, they are in material breach and subject to the penalties thereof.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall said with regard to the Constitution that, “...It is apparent that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character....Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
What is interesting here is that not only is the principle affirmed that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, but that justices have a “special” conduct required in that regard. “Good Behavior” was understood to mean that the professional acts (behavior) of a justice were to be subject to the constraints of his public oath. Founder George Mason was another early proponent that "maladministration" be included as a ground for impeachment.
page16.htm(Judicial Activism: A Case for Impeachment)
“But if the legislature may infringe this Constitution, it is no longer fixed; it is not this year what it was the last; and the liberties of the people are wholly at the mercy of the legislature” Spencer Roane
The United States Constitution is a legally binding contract between the people and their agents, or representatives. In the historic Virginia case of Kamper v. Hawkins (1793), some of the nations top legal minds examined in detail and clarity, the principles of the founding fathers regarding the proper role of each of the branches of government. The basis of power is with the people themselves. Judge Spencer Roan, who later became the chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote in 1793, “I consider the people of this country as the only sovereign power. I consider the legislature as not sovereign but subordinate; they are subordinate to the great constitutional charter, which the people have established as a fundamental law, and which alone has given existence and authority to the legislature....” Kamper v. Hawkins 1793
In the same case, articulating the limitations of the judiciary, Justice Henry said, “The judiciary, from the nature of the office, and the mode of their appointment, could never be designed to determine upon the equity, necessity, or usefulness of a law; that would amount to an express interfering with the legislative branch, in the clause where it is expressly forbidden for any one branch to interfere with the duties of the other. The reason is obvious, not being chosen immediately by the people, nor being accountable to them, in the first instance, they do not, and ought not, to represent the people in framing or repealing any law.”
. When a contract is negotiated and concluded, there are specific terms of the agreement which obligate the parties to act in a certain way. The terms and conditions are defined in language which is intended to avoid confusion and which is understood to have the same meaning to both parties. These terms and conditions are then settled and are binding upon the parties when signed by them. When the parties begin to act in accordance with the contract, the contract is said to be enforceable. Usually, there are penalty provisions for material breach, or failure of one party to execute the terms or meet the conditions specified in the contract. Once it becomes enforceable, the contract may not then be changed without the expressed knowledge and consent of both parties.
Why a “Written Constitution”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” James Madison: Federalist Papers # 62
When our founders established the terms of government for this new nation in the form of a written constitution, and those terms were ratified by the people, the contract was “enforceable” in the legal sense. A new national identity was established and a course charted for the future which was both empowered and constrained by the new constitution. Provisions were adopted which gave the control over the government to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representatives, in turn, appointed certain other officers to manage those aspects of national government which needed the guiding hand of a professional. The fixed principles however, are immutable and expressed in written form so as to preclude any contrary law from coming into existence.
The judicial branch is not the most powerful branch of the federal government- it is an equal branch. Judicial officers may not make the law. Justice Iredell, in another 1793 case, Chisolm v. Georgia, stated , “I have no hesitation to say, that any act to that effect [exceeding legislative authority] would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a fundamental law paramount to all others which we are note only bound to consult, but sworn to observe; and therefore, where there is an interference, being superior in obligation to the other, we must unquestionably obey that in preference...There is no part of the Constitution that I know of, that authorizes this Court to take up any business where they [the legislature] left it and, in order that the powers given in the Constitution may be in full activity, supply their omission by making new laws for new cases; or, which I take to be the same thing, applying old principles to new cases materially different from those to which they were applied before.”
Justice Samuel Chase spoke very clearly on the matter of “original intent” which he believed should be the only legitimate basis for interpreting the law. In a nutshell, he argued in Calder v. Bull (1798) that, “The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it......This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit.”
In other words, the natural limits of the law are found in the reasons for which people contract together in society. Chase goes on to say in Calder V. Bull, “There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded.”
Justice Chase assumes that these principles are both knowable and “normal” and that they are historically verifiable. For the next 150 years or so, the Supreme Court held tightly to these principles and the national body of law was kept to a workable minimum.
A corollary principle found early in the judicial history of our nation is that of civic duty. When a contract is finalized, the principal parties are bound by the terms of that agreement. When the people elect representatives and those representatives appoint others to oversee the affairs of state, all parties swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. In the act of swearing the oath, and the subsequent acts of assuming the duties , such elected and appointed agents of the people bind themselves to the terms of the agreement. Since they are under oath to the Constitution, they are presumed to be knowledgeable of its contents and meaning. If, at any point, these agents of the people disregard the Constitution and substitute their own meanings, they are in material breach and subject to the penalties thereof.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall said with regard to the Constitution that, “...It is apparent that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character....Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
What is interesting here is that not only is the principle affirmed that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, but that justices have a “special” conduct required in that regard. “Good Behavior” was understood to mean that the professional acts (behavior) of a justice were to be subject to the constraints of his public oath. Founder George Mason was another early proponent that "maladministration" be included as a ground for impeachment.
page16.htm(Judicial Activism: A Case for Impeachment)
Last edited:
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
What Constitutes an Oath?
A solemn promise upon which some authority is conditional. I'm just guessing and my definition here has been influenced by your previous post.
Example:
A judge takes an oath to support the constitution. If the judge deviates from the constitution in his decisions, then he forfeits his authority.
I don't know if this really holds up, but that's what I came up with off of the top of my head.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
James Carville Promises Political Prosecution of Trump Family- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
What is the world supposed to do with the Iranian regime, or what were they supposed to do with them?- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
-
-
Plandemic side effect, over-use of anti bacterials
- Started by EMH
- Replies: 3
-
