"Inalienable rights" is almost a catch-prase nowadays. But is there really any natural reason that these are our rights, and are they really inalienable? Or are they instead subjective rights which we gain through our social contract with the government?

Now, of course, in the literal sense, our rights are niether. Nature enforces its laws universally, but rights differ from country to country. You cannot "break" the Law of Gravity or the Law of Realtivity, but tyrants and dictators have been breaking natural law for years. Nor are they inalienable, for the same reason, because it's perfectly easy to revoke then. There's no point in debating that, because from a literal point of view rights are obviosuly neither natural nor inalienable.


So, for rights to even possibly be inalienable and natural, one would have to take a much more loose interpretation of the meaning of those words. One could say "well, rights may not technically be inalienable, but it's always bad for society when we take these rights away." But that's just too simplistic. We have taken away many rights, such as the right to own slaves or the right to beat your wife and children, and obviously these were the right decisions.

So the only possibility remains that there is a certain set of rights that nature dictates is best for society. However, this, too is too simplistic. As societies change over time, certain rights become necessary and certain rights become unnecessary (or even damaging.) For example, in China, the right to have an unlimited number of children had become a serious problem, due to that country's growing population. Eventually, we'll probably have the smae problem of America. It is not "nature" that dictates what our rights should be, but rather the current circumstances.


Rights do not come from nature, they are not God-given, and they are not self-evident. Rights are something we gain in out social contract with the government. The government grants us rights and sets boundries. There is nothing "natural" about property rights, gun rights or even human rights for that matter. We may be lucky enough to live in a country that has these rights, but they're not natural in any sense.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the idea of rights and liberties. A "natural" right should be that which each living individual is entitled to upon being born. I don't think I shall venture into the strict definition of birth and or abortion because that's an entirely different topic. Those things that we call liberties are those actions that we may perform freely or are secured against and are protected by law while within the boundary of some sovereignty. "Natural" rights should be exactly the same for everyone and a subset of liberties, but unfortunately this isn't the case in all countries.

The hard part remains in deciding what those natural rights should be. A few lists have been drafted by the international community, yet very few case to secure these rights for the entire international community. It's distressing to see a fellow human suffering at the hands of an idiot.

For me that's the fine distinction... the natural rights should be universally secured by the international community, while liberties are defined by each sovereign governing body according to constitution.

I suppose I didn't make my question clear enough. I'll change it.

It troubles me when this argument is made in a way that seems to try and justify not giving one group of people the same rights shared by another. Such as gay rights. Or of freedom of speech of which I will give this recent article as an example. I wonder if they would have given the KKK as much grief over participating. I'm not sure that the point is to justify keeping rights from others for sure and I apologize if I'm making the wrong assumption.

IMO, by self-evident they are indicating rights that each of us expect for ourselves, in particular those agreed upon in our Constitution and that they should be recognized by and for all men. There was still slavery of course. But even that can't be said to have been completely left out because Jefferson did add wording that condemned slavery, even though he was a slave owner, but this was cut by Congress. So, the argument was still there and later an Ammendment made this correction. It doesn't say equality for women...just men. But my point is that the wording set's the groundwork for future legal argument and the ability to correct perceived in-equality and the courts have the right to accept or deny those arguments.

But that doesn't really affect that validity of the argument. I certainly believe that everyone in America should have the same, broad rights, but I can't make myself believe that there's some sort of natural law that entitles me to all these rights. The only reason we have rights at all is because of the government, and it's pretty ironic that the government is also the biggest threat to our rights right now.

I personally think courts don't have any place deciding who has what rights and who doesn't, because I think that it's our democratically elected Congress that should do that. But I also don't think that there is no natural reason that we're entitled to "life, liberty and property," as Locke put it, but rather we should only choose to allow these rights when it's benefical to ourselves, which it usually (but not always) is.

Good points. But I'm a little torn on the idea of giving Congress the last word on things. I do believe it's fair that the Supreme Court hears and decides problematic cases that occur because of the laws passed by Congress. And what about the states? Do you think Congress should decide on those appeals? Or should there just be no appeal process and the law of Congress is the last word?

If so I don't agree. There will be times that unexpected consequences occur because of one law or another that no one could have anticipated. There has to be a way to review and correct those situations.

I think the concepts of natural rights and natural law are fictions in that these are not iron clad rights and laws of nature. But they are very useful fictions. The underlying premise behind these ideas is that there are certain inalienable rights and privileges due by government to individuals. When a government abridges these rights than it is the people's responsibility to reassert those rights by the best means possible.

We need to check the powers of government and our judicial system has done an excellent job with that responsibility. I say keep the "fiction" of natural law and let the Supreme Court keep the power of Judicial Review on the don't fix it if it ain't broke premise.

But the thing is, these rights aren't something that's always going to be good for us. Like I said before, they have to curtail the right to have as many children as possible in China, or else the counry would suffer. We have to curtail fre speech here in case of slander, libel and threats of bodily harm. We have to curtail property rights to make the government function. The rights we have are not absolute, they're not natural, and they're not inalienable.

The Supreme Court is not an institution of the people. The people have nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is appointed by whatever party is in power, and they can prevent all reforms for decades to come if they get the right people in (which they usuallu do.) I don't understand how that could possibly be considered democratic.

Rattlesnake said:



You are correct. There is no way to prove the exact "character" of our rights.

The good thing is, there's no need to trouble ourselves with such quandaries.

The Constitution is built upon principles that acknowledge the existence of natural and inalienable rights and the government established by the Constitution has promised to honor and protect those natural and inalienable rights. It is the citizen's duty to understand the implications of that and to be vigilant to the violation of our rights.

All your troubled machinations aside, our rights are natural and inalienable, because the founding principles say they are. The government is bound by contract to treat them that way -- and the day it does not -- is the day the citizen's original, natural and inalienable right to rescind their consent to be governed becomes actionable.



Under our form of limited, strictly defined governmental power, the proscription against enacting a law violating a founding principle (i.e. inalienable rights) is as strong as a law of physics. What would happen if Congress, in the hopes of reducing injuries from falls, banned gravity? The effect of enacting a law violating a founding principle would have the same outcome. It would be impotent and moot.



First things first, it seems you do not know what the classical definition of "inalienable right" is.

That term means that each person's rights are of such an intrinsic quality that a person, even willingly, can not relinquish them. That an illegitimate government does not honor them does not mean that the person doesn't have them.



Only if one had the viewpoint that our rights only extend to that which the present authority wish us to exercise; as if the scope of our rights waxed and waned with the whims of the King or the magistrate. I thought that condition has already been addressed in the Declaration of Independence and remedied by the Revolutionary War.



I would love to know where you have formed this warped idea of what rights are.
Have you ever read John Locke or Algernon Sidney????? Here's a short primer on Lockean principles . . .

John Locke wrote that every man has a property right in his own person and that property could be defined as “Life, Liberty, and Estate.” But, because man was God’s creature, he had no right to destroy his own life. Rather, he was bound to preserve himself. (the first natural right, self defense) Since he did not have absolute power over his own life he could not concede an absolute power over himself to anyone else. (inalienable right) From that premise flows the principle that nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other person, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another. This premise flows into legitimate government; government can not be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because, government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly. The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because, . . . the principle returns -- no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself because again, nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another.



I've rarely read a single paragraph regarding rights that embodies so many ideals that are so diametrically opposed to the American condition. From what document in our history have you garnered the above from? From what court decision? Explain the thought process whereby your statements apply in any fashion to the United States of America.

The amazing thing about our nation is that even if a majority of American's believed what you wrote above, it would not matter. The only important thing is what concepts the founders believed and understood the principles backing the Constitution to be.

The best example of what they believed is the Declaration of Independence. It is well known that the founder’s believed that our rights were "endowed" (legally, a gift in perpetuity), by our Creator (aka, God), that they were universal (exist regardless of status before government) and perhaps most importantly, they were deemed "inalienable" that is, again, not subject to surrender.

Here are a few SCOTUS quotes that might add some perspective.
Keep an eye on the dates.

The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, and surely not the exclusive source. "I had thought it self evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights." Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 230 (1976) (Stevens, J., dissenting)." DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

There is 202 years of the government recognizing the citizen's natural, inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator.

I say that is enough evidence to state with confidence that natural, inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator in every citizen, do in fact exist.

Here is a link with a variety of definitions and snippets from different cases pertaining to inalienable rights, which is actually "unalienable," but ok...

http://www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm

The right to fre speech does not absolve individuals from the responsibility for the criminality of our speech. If our words create damage to others, we are responsible. We get punished not for the speech, but the damage of the speech.

I think it is obvious that no rights are natural or unalienable. They are all subjective and they are all contingent on a social contract with any given government. As a species, the only "right" which we have is the right to do our damnedest to survive - which any other member of that species can attempt to alienate at will.

Our Founders identified certain rights which they believed were natural and unalienable and, on the whole, I would agree with their beliefs - I think most of us would. Some of us, myself included, might believe that they could have gone even further - that they could have proscribed the passing of any law which limits any natural rights unless they would infringe on the natural rights of others (as I suggested in the Constitutional Amendments thread). This was clearly their impulse, but sadly, an impulse which was not codified.

For example, as a consequence of legislation subsequent to the Constitution, one does not have the right to ingest any naturally occurring substance which one desires (cannabis, for example); one does not have the right to exchange sexual favors for money (except through marriage); in many states, one does not have the right to make love to one's partner as one so desires; in most states, one does not have the right to gamble one's earnings (unless the state is "the house"); one does not have the right to end one's own life. These should all be unalienable rights - and they have all been alienated.

Even when rights are agreed through a social contract, there is nothing which absolutely compels members of that society to recognize them. The equality of all men may be self-evident and the rights to life, liberty, and property may be deemed unalienable, but there is nothing to prevent any given citizen from killing, enslaving, imprisoning, or discriminating against any other citizen or from stealing, damaging, destroying, or extorting his property except the threat of penalty, if caught. Nor, as we have recently seen, is there much to prevent an autocratic executive with a docile legislature from removing any of those "rights endowed by the Creator" at will - without penalty.

Our rights will only ever be subjective. We can but hope that our fellow citizens will respect the contract, that our legislature will not further infringe on rights which should be natural, and that our current government will either restore the rights it has stolen or will fall.

@M_R



That's not a contradiction of my argument. Just because Thomas Jefferson said so doesn't make it true. These rights can quite obviously be taken away, both by government and by individuals. I can take away your right to free speech by cutting out your tounge. The government can and has taken away free speech to prevent free speech in time of war (you got arrested for speakign against the war during WWI.) They're not inalienable, not even close. Nor are they natural, because they may not always benefit the people.




But a social contract is something than changes over time, meaning rights will change. How can they be natural and inalienable if they can change over time?




Oh really? Then how do you explain the Sedition Act of 1798 or the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918?If our government can never take away our rights, why have they so obviously been taken away when certain people decieded they could? Of course, they're no more binding to the government than the UN Charter of Human Rights was to Saddam Hussein. It's just a matter of fact.




I, in a sense, agree. I think everyone is entitled to the same rights regardless of if their government illegitimatly denies them. However, if that happens, only a fool would say that they had those rights. Did the people in the Soviet Union have the right of free speech? Of course not, their government oppressed it. You could not speak out. Should they have been able to? Yes. Did they have the right? No.

Furthermore, if someone wants to give up their rights, they're most certainly allowed to. That's what a social contract is. If the peopel decied to give up their rights in return for something, then they're allowed to do it. Someone can give up their right to unreasonable search and seizure and let the police search their home. However, if they find evidence of a crime, they cannot argue "no one can take away my right to unreasonable search and seizure, even myself!" That's just utter foolishness.




Actually, it's Locke that these ideas stem from. Locke talked about the social contract which you described. That's what I'm talking about. When the people decied that they do not want the right to, say, pollute the enviroment, beat their wives and own slaves, the government is perfectly justified in taking that right away. There's nothing natural about rights, they're human inventions.

Locke thought that rights were inablienable and natural because he thought "humans are, by nature, free and pure." Surely you don't think that?


My point is not that the Consitutiton, or even anything in our political system, is invalid. All I'm saying is that we are allowed to give up our rights. If we want to give up our rights, we can go to Congress. If we really want to change something, we go to the Constitution. Rights are not natural, they are not inalienable. They're just as subject to the social contract as the rest of government.


@Eyeore



How does the threat of bodily harm hurt someone?

Rattlesnake said:
[quote]Just because Thomas Jefferson said so doesn't make it true.[/quote]

Why not? Until a new government is formed we are using the principles of Locke and Sidney to establish the guidelines of powers / rights.

[quote]These rights can quite obviously be taken away, both by government and by individuals. I can take away your right to free speech by cutting out your tounge. The government can and has taken away free speech to prevent free speech in time of war (you got arrested for speakign against the war during WWI.) [/quote]

Your position suffers from several deficiencies. First, and most importantly, is your basic understanding of what rights are. Rights are not "taken away." They do not get turned on and off with a pullcord in the palace. They can be injured, suppressed, and violated but they still exist. Of course one can be legally restrained, physically restrained or even horribly mutilated to extinguish one's ability to exercise his rights, but he retains the right none the less.

Thinking such as yours can be used to legitimize brutal tyranny; if you, just because you have a funny hat, big epaulets and a bayonet can say that rights "do not exist," then it will become increasingly easy to cut tongues out to prove it.

Doesn't a human always have the right to chose those who govern him, even if he lives under a brutal dictatorship?

[quote]But a social contract is something than changes over time, meaning rights will change. How can they be natural and inalienable if they can change over time?[/quote]

Rights are the constant. By the level of their protection and security is how governments are judged legitimate and just.

[quote]Of course, they're no more binding to the government than the UN Charter of Human Rights was to Saddam Hussein. It's just a matter of fact.[/quote]

Under our Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is the clincher. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a joke.

[quote]I, in a sense, agree. I think everyone is entitled to the same rights regardless of if their government illegitimatly denies them. However, if that happens, only a fool would say that they had those rights. [/quote]

Well then, I'll wear that label proudly. It is all about mindset. You describe yourself as very liberal and your statements on this subject bear that out. In order for your preferred political philosophy to prevail, the present one mush perish and be dismantled.

[quote]Furthermore, if someone wants to give up their rights, they're most certainly allowed to. That's what a social contract is. If the peopel decied to give up their rights in return for something, then they're allowed to do it. [/quote]

First off, let's establish that we are discussing legitimate actions between citizens and their government. . . not what happens in a dungeon in Soho.

When entering society the power to exercise certain rights is transferred to the legislative assembly. The rights we are discussing, inalienable rights, can not be transferred. One can not legitimately sell himself into slavery, one can not transfer his life to someone else's care.

[quote]Someone can give up their right to unreasonable search and seizure and let the police search their home.[/quote]

But it is a choice, just like if one were to either remain silent or "be a witness against himself." The choice is the citizen's whether he wants to exercise the right. Under interrogation one can reclaim the right to remain silent at anytime. The prohibited action by government is to "compel" you to be a witness against yourself.

[quote]However, if they find evidence of a crime, they cannot argue "no one can take away my right to unreasonable search and seizure, even myself!" That's just utter foolishness.[/quote]

Uhhh, not every right is inalienable.

[quote]Actually, it's Locke that these ideas stem from. Locke talked about the social contract which you described. That's what I'm talking about. When the people decied that they do not want the right to, say, pollute the enviroment, beat their wives and own slaves, the government is perfectly justified in taking that right away. There's nothing natural about rights, they're human inventions.[/quote]

Please do not discuss Locke and having a "right" to beat your wife or own slaves in the same paragraph.

[quote]Locke thought that rights were inablienable and natural because he thought "humans are, by nature, free and pure." Surely you don't think that?[/quote]

No, in a state of nature humans are filthy slave owning wife beaters. Not until government came along did we learn to be polite, caring, protectors of family. <sarcasm off>

[quote]My point is not that the Consitutiton, or even anything in our political system, is invalid. All I'm saying is that we are allowed to give up our rights. If we want to give up our rights, we can go to Congress. If we really want to change something, we go to the Constitution. Rights are not natural, they are not inalienable. They're just as subject to the social contract as the rest of government.[/quote]

Your point is that everything is invalid. I offered 202 years of government recognizing what you say does not exist. You are arguing from a leftist position that our present form of government is flexible enough to embody your political principles. The fact is, the Constitution established a government that specifically dismisses, and attempts to forcibly exclude much of your platform. The Constitution promises to the states a Republican form of government and the principles that make it so are the principles you are saying do not exist.

Not that I'm confident that it will matter, here is another quote from SCOTUS explaining the Bill of Rights and the status of rights before government and the majority.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

So there are a couple more uncomfortable truths that separate a Constitutional Republic from a Democracy. When it comes to the rights of a citizen the will of the majority is of no consequence.

Look, the founders believed a lot of things that we don't believe today. They thought it was ok to beat your wives. Most of them either owned slaves or thought it was all right to own slaves. A majority of them passed the Sedition Act of 1798 which was used to suppress political opponents. They created a government where the people did not elect Senators. They created a government where the people technically did not elect anyone, and electors were technically allowed to freely choose who they elect.

For the most part, I like most of the founders. Some of the more conservative members, like Alexander Hamilton, I absolutely hate, but most I like. However, that doesn't cloud my judgement as to whether they were correct in everything or not. Thomas Jefferson, on whom I base many of my political beliefs, owned slaves. Just because Thomas Jefferson jumped off a moral bridge doesn't mean we should. Issues should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and if they're valid, they should be excepted, and if they're invalid, they should be rejected. The founders are dead, there's no need to invoke their spirits in political debate.

The amendment process exists for a reason: to adapt the Constitution to the changing situation. If the founders thought their system was perfect, they wouldn't have included it.




In a sense, yes, he deserves all those rights. However, if someone expressing their rights would damage the people around him and his country, should he be allowed to express those rights?

I'd say no, unless the situation was such that it would be of greater damage to the country if his rights were restricted. I mean, everyone should be able to try to educate the people around them about, say, their preferred economic systems, regardless of if it could cause a disaster for the US economy, because otherwise it would deal great damage to the country. People should not, however, be able to plan terrorist bombings with other people, because preventing that will not hurt freedom in America. They're both free speech, but only one is something that's acceptable. Wouldn't you agree?




Really? I hope you're not saying that the more loosely we interpret those rights, the better our society is. I mean, we could start selling guns to children and convicted felons, and we'd be very true to the Consitution, but it certainly wouldn't be good policy.




You lost me. How exactly do I need to "dismantle" our current system to change our economic policy? Even if we had to amend to Constitution (which we wouldn't,) we wouldn't have to change any fundamental rights. Personally, I don't think the government would have any part in changing how our economic system works, anyway, it would be something that the people would do. More that likely the government is likely to try to stop a profound economic change because the government is so intertangled with the corporations.




Which rights are those? I'm assuming you mean the Bill of Rights, but I'm really not sure.




Well, I'm not exactly sure where you got this, but the founders certainly did not want "exclude much of my platform." Truth is, you don't even know what my "platform" is, and I assure you that it's perfectly Consitutional. My "platform" doesn't really even have much to do with the government, but rather social change. But feel free to assume you know everything about me because I listed my political leanings as "very liberal." It's somewhat amusing.

Actually, if anything, the founders would be much more authoritarian than I. They didn't exactly corporations, and they relied on the old economic model of Adam Smith instead of the new corporate economic model. So, please tell me, what parts of what you assume my "platform" to be did they want to "exclude?"



This is just pointless quibbling over terminology. A Constitutional Republic is a kind of Democracy, except it includes delegation of authority. A true Constitutional Republic would be one in which people did not vote and Representatives simply had to pass laws that did not violate the Constitution. We're just using a form a Democracy that spreads out power.

Rattlesnake wrote:


I understand that the Constitution can be amended.

But, those changes must conform to and be in agreement with the principles upon which the Constitution rests.



I really don't know what you're getting at. The exercise of one's rights is at the discretion of that individual. That circumstances exist where great risk accompanies such exercise doesn't mean that one exercise the right to retain it
.
Who is the entity that this citizen is beholden to? Who is it that decides, "should he be allowed to express those rights?"



And I hope your position is not, "a government can not have too much power." I am a supporter of liberty. Algernon Sidney gave us the definition of liberty. "[L]iberty . . . is not a licentiousness of doing what is pleasing to every one against the command of God; but an exemption from all human laws, to which they have not given their assent."



We are discussing a complete upheaval of the mutual understanding and agreement between we the people and the government of what rights are, from where they originate and what government's duty is to them.



Our "original" or "natural" or "fundamental" or "absolute" rights are; self defense, (from assaulters two and four legged and most importantly, from a tyrannical government), personal freedom, (thought, speech, conscience, worship, travel), and the freedom to acquire and use property, to benefit from your own labor. Such original rights are considered inalienable, meaning that a person cannot delegate them or give them away, even if he wants to do so.

There have been many expositions on inalienable rights written. For this discussion perhaps the most immediately pertinent are those written by the courts. Their determinations frame the law and their explanations often establish and formally recognize the limits of laws and governmental power. Here are a few quotes that do not reference the Declaration of Independence.

"Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and that may be stated as a legal axiom." In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

And again the principle that our rights, "do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence." Rights which were exercised and enjoyed before the Constitution can not be said to be granted or established by the Constitution.



Yes, I am ascribing a preconceived set of beliefs / principles to you based on your self description of "very liberal."



This is going to be long, I'm continuing in another post.

Your "platform" is evident with statements such as, "quibbling over terminology."

There is "very liberal" quality numero uno. Often, "very liberal" people are sold on the belief that this nation is a Democracy. If that is a belief drawn from just not knowing, then I hope the following can instruct. If it is a belief held in contempt of the truth, then one's motives become suspect.

While a Constitutional Republic has qualities of a Democracy, it is not one and the differences are more important than terminology. Democracy was a disdained form of government to the founders; Benjamin Franklin described it as two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, Jefferson warned of the "tyranny of the majority"

The Founders knew that a democracy's ultimate outcome was the elimination of dissent and persecution of minorities. It is not sold that way and it generally starts off fairly. In the beginning everyone has a voice but as things go along, your voice is only heard or considered if it is aligned with the majority. In a Democracy, the minority is always subjected to the majority's will, often not to their benefit.

That's why the founders endeavored to close every possible rathole for "democracy" to establish itself in America.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

"In a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority ...and that oppression of the majority will extend to far great number, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. Under a cruel prince they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation: they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species." -- Edmund Burke

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason. -- Lord Acton

Such outcomes are forever precluded because the powers of the government are strictly limited, the powers of the people are diluted by representatives apportioned by population, the president chosen by electors apportioned to representatives and most of all a Bill of Rights, which to quote the Supreme Court of the United States again,

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

One should be able to see the foolishness of the idea of "voting" a right away because the "majority" doesn't like it. (e.g. the 2nd Amendment)

Incorrect "very liberal" quality number two is that the Constitution is a evolving or growing document. That the powers of government ebb and flow with the tide of modern political "enlightenment" and public opinion.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There was a SCOTUS decision named Marbury v. Madison, in it the rules of Constitutional review were formally established. The decision fully explains how our Constitution works and the impact of laws that are, in the Court's words, "repugnant to the Constitution." The decision also explains how the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and why the powers granted by that document are narrow and limited. Hundreds of law review articles have been written on Marbury, it is the most noteworthy case from a judicial review standpoint ever to be handed down. I am only touching on one part / quote; there is so much to discuss about that ruling, if you would care to maybe a new thread would be in order.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

This is the fundamental principle of our Republican form of government. The powers of the government extend to only that which is included in the Constitution. That restriction of power is meant to be definite and final, not vague and malleable. That principle is why many argued against a Bill of Rights. If the Constitution was silent on a subject then no federal power could be said to exist regarding that matter.

Important also is the fact that the Constitution itself can not be changed by normal legislative processes and neither are those powers subject to public opinion. (as in a democracy)

Another track to take for instruction on what rights are, from where the originate and what is government's duty is to the citizen, are the many state rights provisions. Remember, the federal Constitution promises to the states a Republican form of government.

"Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority." Wyoming Declaration of Rights Art. I, Sec. 7

"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness." Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights Art I, Sec. I

"Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Maine Declaration of Rights Art I, Sec. I

INHERENT RIGHTS. This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State. Alaska Declaration of Rights Art I, Sec. I

You can say that natural, inalienable rights do not exist till you are blue in the face. The government of the United States and the states themselves have entered into legal, enforceable contracts with we the people and promised to recognize and protect the citizen's natural and inalienable rights.

Rattlesnake,

You started this thread asking specific questions. The last two posts from me contained pertinent information regarding your inquiries.

Aren't they worth a reply?

Mike, I do other things besides post on this site. Sometimes I don't notice when someone replies. No reason to act all pissy.


[quote]But, those changes must conform to and be in agreement with the principles upon which the Constitution rests. [/quote]

Well, that's not really true. What you call the "principles" are actually amendments, called the Bill of rights. According to the Constitution, the only rules are "no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."


[quote]And I hope your position is not, "a government can not have too much power." [/quote]

No, I never said that, no one in their right mind would say that. What I was saying was that we shouldn't sacrifice the rule of law and the welfare of the people of America in the name of liberty. We shouldn't allow children to buy guns, we shouldn't let people come across our borders without being checked, and we shouldn't let people steal other people's money. There is a middle ground between tyranny and liberty.

[quote][As regard to why I would need to change the Constitution to implement my economic sysytem:] We are discussing a complete upheaval of the mutual understanding and agreement between we the people and the government of what rights are, from where they originate and what government's duty is to them. [/quote]

How? You're just throwing out words that mean nothing. You don't know anything about what I want to do, you're just assuming I want to have some sort of Stalinist system, which I don't. I don't even want a Leninist system. You shouldn't make accusations when you don't know what someone's position is. I don't think I've ever really discussed my economic vision on this board, you can't just attach one to me because my political leanings tab says "very liberal."


[quote]Our "original" or "natural" or "fundamental" or "absolute" rights are; self defense, (from assaulters two and four legged and most importantly, from a tyrannical government), personal freedom, (thought, speech, conscience, worship, travel), and the freedom to acquire and use property, to benefit from your own labor. Such original rights are considered inalienable, meaning that a person cannot delegate them or give them away, even if he wants to do so.[/quote]

I don't understand where you get this. You may think these are good rights, but I don't see what makes any of them inalienable. You don't have the right to free speech when it's the case of slander, libel or "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." You don't have the right to self-defense from a "tyrannical" government when you're the only one who thinks the government is tyrannical. You don't have the right to acquire property when it could be used to terrible things, such as in the case of an atomic bomb. You don't have the right to use property when it's to commit a crime, such as shooting someone with a gun. You don't have the right to profit from your own labor when you're working for a corporation that takes most of the property of you labor and pays you a salary or wage in return.

They're not natural, because there's nothing naturally good in every case that results from having these rights. They can harm other people, and the Constitution says that you can't use your rights to "deny or disparage" the rights of others. They're not inalienable for the same reason: in some cases, your right to to do certain things, such as to slander another person, must be made illegal for the common good. I assume you don't think slander and libel should be legal?


[quote]Yes, I am ascribing a preconceived set of beliefs / principles to you based on your self description of "very liberal." [/quote]

Well don't. When you *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***|u|me you make an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** out of u and me.


[quote]There is "very liberal" quality numero uno. Often, "very liberal" people are sold on the belief that this nation is a Democracy. If that is a belief drawn from just not knowing, then I hope the following can instruct. If it is a belief held in contempt of the truth, then one's motives become suspect. [/quote]

I'm not very big on the insults. Please try to debate somewhat more civilly. There is such a thing as a difference in opinion. Simply because you believe in it does not make it atomatically right.


[quote]While a Constitutional Republic has qualities of a Democracy, it is not one and the differences are more important than terminology. [/quote]

Not really. Constitutional Republic is just a subdivision of Democracy, it's a Democracy where representatives are elected, and where there are rules that govern what laws can be passed. The people still vote, at least indirectly, on the laws. It's not fundamentally different, it simply has a few more things that a strict "democracy" like in Athens doesn't have. I mean, a turkey sandwich with lettuce and tomatoes is still a turkey sandwich, there's no denying that it is. You can posture and say "it's a fundamentally different sandwich, it's a lettuce and tomato sandwich," but in the end, it's based off turkey. A Constitutional Republic is based off Democracy.

The reason people are so huffy about this is because Newt Gingrich wanted our government to sound more like "Republican" (i.e. Republic) and the Democrats wanted it to sound more like Democrat (i.e. Democracy.) In reality, it's both. It's a Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Democracy.


[quote]Incorrect "very liberal" quality number two is that the Constitution is a evolving or growing document. That the powers of government ebb and flow with the tide of modern political "enlightenment" and public opinion.[/quote]

Now that's just foolish.

The founders realized that their system would not work for everyone. The constitution is most certainly a growing and evolving document. If it were not, the only things in the Constitution would be the first 6 articles, minus the fifth, of course.

there would be no Bill of Rights. Only men with property would be able to vote. Not everyone born in the US would be a citizen. Presidents could be re-elected as many times as the people chose them. Why? Because all these problems were solved by the Amendment Process.

Please, tell me, if the founders did not want their grand creation to change, why did they include the Amendmant Process? All your quote said was that the legislature could not pass laws that were against the Constitution. The founders did not think "hum, our systems is absolutly perfect and will never need any change." They knew that the situation would one day change, and the government would have to adapt to that. There's ample evidence of this in the Constitution. The Commerce Clause is something very elastic and general, it was added to allow the government to adapt to changing methods of commerce in the world.


[quote]Important also is the fact that the Constitution itself can not be changed by normal legislative processes and neither are those powers subject to public opinion. [/quote]

It can be changed by some legislative process, be they normal or not, and that process is most certainly "subject to public opinion." Have you read Article V? Let me post it for you, and I've linked to it twice already:

[quote]The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. [/quote]


How are the legislatures of the states "not influenced by public opinion?" They're most certainly influence by public opinion, because if they don't do what the people want, then they don't get re-elected. The founders felt that when that huge of a majority of the people wanted to add or take away something to the Constitution, they could do it. That's how they added the Bill of Rights.


[quote]You can say that natural, inalienable rights do not exist till you are blue in the face. The government of the United States and the states themselves have entered into legal, enforceable contracts with we the people and promised to recognize and protect the citizen's natural and inalienable rights.[/quote]

This is what I've been saying all along. The social contract is what gives us our rights. Without this contract, and without the state, we wouldn't have these rights. This isn't something that I say because I'm listed as "very liberal," this is coming from John Locke himself. Read up a little more on him. John Locke came up with the idea of a social contract. Not me.

[quote]Mike, I do other things besides post on this site.[/quote]

I can appreciate that and I wouldn't have even posted that message if you were in fact, MIA. Seeing your level of activity in the other topics for that week and a half just left me wondering about your level of commitment to your thread here on rights.

[quote]Sometimes I don't notice when someone replies.[/quote]

I would think that the thread starter would be subscribed to the thread and receive e-mail notification of posts.

[quote]No reason to act all pissy.[/quote]

Isn't that cute.

[quote]Well, that's not really true. What you call the "principles" are actually amendments, called the Bill of rights.[/quote]

No, I'm not discussing amendments; I'm talking about the founding principles, those ideals and tenets which the Constitution was built upon. Essentially, the parents of the Constitution.

[quote]How? You're just throwing out words that mean nothing. You don't know anything about what I want to do, you're just assuming I want to have some sort of Stalinist system, which I don't. I don't even want a Leninist system. You shouldn't make accusations when you don't know what someone's position is. I don't think I've ever really discussed my economic vision on this board, you can't just attach one to me because my political leanings tab says "very liberal."[/quote]

You can say it's not a duck but all I'm hearing is quacking. The dismissal, denigration and destruction of the maxim of natural, absolute and inalienable rights existing in spite of and not because of government is the first step to installing a Leninist system. The corruption of the people's belief and understanding of rights and the overt action of perversion of our first generation rights is a necessity for that undertaking.

You aren't floating anything new here . . . This re-inventing of our language and perversion of our principles has been going on for a while now. According to the left, we have NO right to keep and bear arms, but we do have the right to affordable housing, a living wage, education, health care, and of course, in the left’s convoluted, contradictory thinking, the most fundamental of human rights, an abortion.

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of services, privileges and entitlements. 

Upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our rights upon us.

Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights. "Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us. Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.  

The way the modern left throws around the term rights denigrates their true meaning.

[quote]I don't understand where you get this. You may think these are good rights, but I don't see what makes any of them inalienable. You don't have the right to free speech when it's the case of slander, libel or "yelling fire in a crowded theatre."[/quote]

True, laws against utterances made to cause panic do not infringe on the right to free speech. It is not in fact illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, just to do so trying to cause unrest. It might in fact be beneficial to yell fire . . . like when there is one.

[quote]They're not natural, because there's nothing naturally good in every case that results from having these rights. They can harm other people, and the Constitution says that you can't use your rights to "deny or disparage" the rights of others. They're not inalienable for the same reason: in some cases, your right to to do certain things, such as to slander another person, must be made illegal for the common good. I assume you don't think slander and libel should be legal?[/quote]

Jeez you're mixed up.

[quote]Mike Rafone . . . There is "very liberal" quality numero uno. Often, "very liberal" people are sold on the belief that this nation is a Democracy. If that is a belief drawn from just not knowing, then I hope the following can instruct. If it is a belief held in contempt of the truth, then one's motives become suspect.

[quote]Rattlesnake . . . I'm not very big on the insults. Please try to debate somewhat more civilly. There is such a thing as a difference in opinion. Simply because you believe in it does not make it atomatically right.[/quote][/quote]

What is insulting? My "opinion" is based in the history of this nation. What is demonstratively wrong about what I've said.?

[quote]Now that's just foolish.

The founders realized that their system would not work for everyone. The constitution is most certainly a growing and evolving document. If it were not, the only things in the Constitution would be the first 6 articles, minus the fifth, of course.[/quote]

Wrong. Read Marbury

[quote]The Commerce Clause is something very elastic and general, it was added to allow the government to adapt to changing methods of commerce in the world.[/quote]

The Commerce Clause is the most abused in the Constitution. The expansion of federal power under those few words is freightening.

[quote]This is what I've been saying all along. The social contract is what gives us our rights. Without this contract, and without the state, we wouldn't have these rights. This isn't something that I say because I'm listed as "very liberal," this is coming from John Locke himself. Read up a little more on him. John Locke came up with the idea of a social contract. Not me.[/quote]

That's funny. See, on most web boards I choose the name John Locke. It was taken by someone else here. On Delphiforums, I've had that username since '99 My Delphiforums Profile.

I am a student of John Locke and his treatises are never further than an arms reach away. I can state with confidence that I am very familiar with Lockean Principles. You have those principles so backwards and use his terminology so incorrectly that it is shocking. "The social contract is what gives us our rights. . . . this is coming from John Locke himself. Read up a little more on him. John Locke came up with the idea of a social contract. Not me."

Whew!

Whatever. If you want to look through some of those threads, you'll that I left the forums for a few days starting on July 9th. When I came back, there were a lot of threads to reply to, and since I don't usually search through every forum on the site, so obviously I missed a thread or two. I had to reason to not want to reply to this thread, and i did so when you bumped it so it came up on the most recent list. Don't try to turn it into anything sinister.




I'm not, because I see no reason to spam myself. I don't take this site that seriouisly, it's just something I do for fun.




Well, the founders weren't perferct. Since many of them owned and/or believed in slavery, broke treaties with Native Americans, signed the Sedition Act of 1798. The original Consitution only allowed men over 21 who owned property to vote. Does that makes all these things acceptable? Of course not. I mean, many of the founders were against corporations, including "libertarian" Thomas Jefferson. Does that mean we should ban corporations?

The founders were not so arrogent as to believe everything they put down would work exactly perfect, forever. They added the Bill of Rights, and we've changed the Constitution many times, usually for the better. If the Founders didn't want anything changed, ever, why did they allow the Amendment process?




Ok tough guy, you wanna pick a fight about this, then fine. Have it your way.

I'm not a Leninist, and you're just pulling all this stuff out of your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. I believe that today, corporatiosn control our government and our lives, especially through government protectionism. I advocate grass-roots attempts to gain back what once was ours: the means of production. Once, we profited from out own labor, now rich men pay us piddling amonts to do their dirty work.

My solution doesn't involve the government. Sure, it'd be nice to have a bully pulpit, but I don't think that it's even possible for that to happen. I think the whole system needs to be changed before we can have a government that will be halfway decent. So, my hoier-than-thou friend, how exactly do I have to "degrade and destroy" our "inalienable rights" for a social revolution in which the people sieze control of their economy and government by taking responsibility for themselves and not just letting rich people make decisions? How do I need to change the government to "take away our rights" to have worker-owned corporations? I'm not getting it.

Obviously, you're still going to insist I'm some sort of Stalinist who wants to kill everyone. You're obviously spoiling for a fight over nothing.




So what are you saying? Anyone, including violent felons who shoot people to death and children, should be able to buy guns so that we can be "free from the government?" Anyone should be able to drive without a lisence because it's a "ID card" that we "fill out forms for?" Being too free is just as bad as being to controlled. What's a better world, a world with no government where you need a baseball bat to protect your girfriend from beign raped or a Orewllian government that shoots anyone who thinsk different? Tough question. The idea is to strike a balance. Forms do not exist because of "Leninists," they exist because otherwise it would be detrimental to society.

I mean, we don't have to sign any forms or get any card to exercise rights like free speech or assembly, unless, of course, you want to have a peace protest, in which case you need to get a permit to hold it. I don't understand how this is "liberal," because I don't know of any other liberals that think niot allowing any freedoms is a good thing. You're just mistaken.




Yeah, almost as bad as how the modern right preaches about rights that is so willing to give up the rights of dissidents in a time of war.




Exactly. Aren't you up in arms about free speech being impeded? I mean, it is a fundimental principle on with this country was founded. Should you be allowed to "cry wolf?" Should it be legal to betray your country's secrets to the enemy, because that's free speech? I would hope you didn't think so.




You just don't understand the fact that you're not infallible, do you? I've been putting up an arguement, and you still haven't really refuted my arguements. Whenever I make a good point, instead of posting a rebuttle you just type "You're a Leninist" or "Jezz you're messed up." People onyl resort to personal attacks when they're losing an argument.




All that Marbury v. Madison quote said was that laws couldn't violate the Consitution and the courts could decied if a law was Unconsitutional or not. They did not say "the Consitution can not change, the founders did not want it to change, nor can the Consitution be interprated in a way different from that which the founders thought was the best." If you have another quote that did say that, then post it.

[quote]I had to reason to not want to reply to this thread, and i did so when you bumped it so it came up on the most recent list. Don't try to turn it into anything sinister.[/quote]

Uhh, first I'm pissy, now I'm sinister?

[quote]Well, the founders weren't perferct. Since many of them owned and/or believed in slavery, broke treaties with Native Americans, signed the Sedition Act of 1798. The original Consitution only allowed men over 21 who owned property to vote. Does that makes all these things acceptable? Of course not. I mean, many of the founders were against corporations, including "libertarian" Thomas Jefferson. Does that mean we should ban corporations?[/quote]

And many of those presently unacceptable practices, slavery being the most heinous, were abolished or had been rectified because the founding principles could not be said to support their continuance. "All men are created equal" is not compatible with the practice of slavery. Blacks were not the recipient of a new "right to be free" because the 13th Amendment was ratified. The women's right to vote was not created by the 19th Amendment, the pre-existing right for all, regardless of sex, to vote was finally recognized by government.

Amendment XIX The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Likewise, those citizens who had attained the age of 18 did not have a new right created for them.

Amendment XXVI Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Up to the enactment of these two provisions, a woman's right to vote and an 18 year olds' right to vote was denied, abridged and disabled by law.

[quote]The founders were not so arrogent as to believe everything they put down would work exactly perfect, forever. They added the Bill of Rights, and we've changed the Constitution many times, usually for the better. If the Founders didn't want anything changed, ever, why did they allow the Amendment process?[/quote]

Once again, I do not deny that the constitution can be changed; it is the principles upon which the Constitution rests which are unchangeable by any means. But . . .any change to the Constitution must be in agreement with those founding principles.

[quote][quote]Mike Raffone . . .The dismissal, denigration and destruction of the maxim of natural, absolute and inalienable rights existing in spite of and not because of government is the first step to installing a Leninist system[/quote]

Rattlesnake . . . Ok tough guy, you wanna pick a fight about this, then fine. Have it your way.

I'm not a Leninist, and you're just pulling all this stuff out of your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.[/quote]

Sure is allot of aggression inherent in your system. I'm not calling you a Leninist, I just want you to realize you are building your house using Vladimir's planks.

My point is, the left (including you because you are espousing a core objective of the radical left) wants to supplant the classical (first generation) ideal of rights, on which this nation is founded, with the ideal of second generation rights which found their genesis in 1917 with the Russian Revolution.

First generation rights refer to those principles and rights whereby certain codified restrictions on the state's power exist; these act to limit governmental interference in and control of, the lives of citizens. Citizens have their civil and political rights respected and protected by law, to the detriment of governmental power. As SCOTUS said, our rights are not "ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ."

In contrast, second generation of rights are, fundamentally, claims to social equality established by the state. These economic, social, and cultural rights emerged as a direct rebuttal to the perceived abuses of capitalist development and its underlying conception of individual liberty.

By nature, these two generations of rights assume very different roles for the state.  Those second generation "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us -- or worse -- using the force of the state to coerce others to care for us. As I said, saying that you have the "right to" affordable housing, a living wage, education, health care and prescriptions, internet access, effective public transportation, rest and leisure, etc., means on the obverse, that someone else is either obligated or forced to provide those benefits and services to you.

Again, in this nation, under this Constitution, rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us and they aren't tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.  
The Bill of Rights and the principles behind it are not compatible with the socialist form of government. You have your own self-styled idea of how things should be and perhaps you have some valid points. Just understand that the present Constitution can not be molded or said to be supportive of the adoption of your position.

[quote]My solution doesn't involve the government.[/quote]

I'll say this about you, ya got some magnanimous streaks running through you. My concern would be directed toward those in your movement who would think that the control of the government would be required to expedite a change of economics so broad. Would the Federal Reserve remain in the hands of capitalists? The left is fond of joining forces with others against a common enemy, sometimes those alliances are mind-numbingly absurd. How many "anti-war" protesters would have shown up if they knew the real agenda of International ANSWER? How many patriotic, capitalist Americans unwittingly marched with pro-communist ANSWER members giving that fringe bunch of wackos legitimacy?
[quote]So, my hoier-than-thou friend, how exactly do I have to "degrade and destroy" our "inalienable rights" for a social revolution . . .[/quote]

The theories of communitarianism and individual liberty are mutually exclusive.

[quote]Obviously, you're still going to insist I'm some sort of Stalinist who wants to kill everyone. You're obviously spoiling for a fight over nothing.[/quote]

Often those who speak of being motivated by concern for the good of "all," wind up marching "some" into cattle cars. As we discussed before, the majority is a dangerous entity to the minority except where the majority's power is limited and strictly defined.

[quote][quote]Mike Raffone . . .Upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our rights upon us[/quote]

Rattlesnake . . .So what are you saying? Anyone, including violent felons who shoot people to death and children, should be able to buy guns so that we can be "free from the government?"[/quote]

First, everyone has, using your often cited example, the right to keep and bear arms; kids, felons, schizophrenics, whoever you wish to add. There are however, legitimate disabilities (that is the legal term, I used it earlier with the right to vote) enacted. Felons have always been disabled from the exercise of many rights besides the RKBA, voting, professional status, (the bar, doctorates, etc) holding public office, etc. (see Lewis v. U.S. 445 U.S. 55 (1980)) Children also, not being recognized as full citizens can not exercise all of their rights. Blacks, even after the 13th and 14th Amendments suffered under many illegitimate and unconstitutional laws forcing disabilities upon them.

Second, I think it would be a bad thing if citizens thought that rights flow from government. Asking permission, paying fees, proving necessity are very bad pre-requisites for exercising rights. Having the definition of rights become clouded, vague or worse of all, constantly changing leads to the elimination of rights.

[quote]Anyone should be able to drive without a lisence because it's a "ID card" that we "fill out forms for?" . . .  Forms do not exist because of "Leninists," they exist because otherwise it would be detrimental to society[/quote]

There is plenty of evidence that permissions and restrictions are beneficial regarding privileges and entitlements. Driving an automobile on public roads is of course a privilege, subject to the rules and regulations of many governmental bureaucracies. The liberty to travel between points is not injured by requiring a driver's license.

[quote]I mean, we don't have to sign any forms or get any card to exercise rights like free speech or assembly, unless, of course, you want to have a peace protest, in which case you need to get a permit to hold it.[/quote]

Over the years some have tried to do exactly that. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

[quote]I don't understand how this is "liberal," because I don't know of any other liberals that think niot allowing any freedoms is a good thing. You're just mistaken.[/quote]

Oh please . . . Who said these gems?

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
-----
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
-----
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."

[quote]Aren't you up in arms about free speech being impeded? I mean, it is a fundimental principle on with this country was founded. Should you be allowed to "cry wolf?" Should it be legal to betray your country's secrets to the enemy, because that's free speech? I would hope you didn't think so.[/quote]

I guess I'm remiss in stating earlier that I am only concerned with the legitimate exercise of one's rights. That you keep lumping in illegitimate exercises of speech, RKBA, and now treason and claim restrictions on same are infringing rights, is only demonstrative of how deep the ignorance of the principles I am discussing can run.

[quote]Whenever I make a good point, instead of posting a rebuttle you just type "You're a Leninist" or "Jezz you're messed up." People onyl resort to personal attacks when they're losing an argument.[/quote]

I never wrote "You're a Leninist" I wrote that the position of your first post, that natural, inalienable rights do not exist and we only exercise the rights the government sees fit for us to have . . . is a necessary if not first step to instill a Leninist form of government. The "Jezz" comment I'll leave standing, upon a re-read of the quoted paragraph, the characterization stands. (a: the existence of natural rights has no basis in the right's "goodness" or benefit to greater mankind; b: no right exists to harm another, to slander them etc.) Arguments that utilize such illogical foundations to make a point not only fail but must be dismissed.

[quote]All that Marbury v. Madison quote said was that laws couldn't violate the Consitution and the courts could decied if a law was Unconsitutional or not.[/quote]

Marbury established the entire rulebook for constitutional judicial review. It also established the primacy of the founding principles as guidance on original intent. If you would like to delve further into the incorrectness of your statement start a new thread.

[quote]They did not say "the Consitution can not change, the founders did not want it to change, nor can the Consitution be interprated in a way different from that which the founders thought was the best." If you have another quote that did say that, then post it.[/quote]

Here's a little taste. . . read it carefully; a couple of of your deeply held beliefs are dashed here. If the linguistics are to archaic perhaps we can parse it out and expand upon SCOTUS' thoughts later.

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it."