God Given Vs. Constitutional Rights... - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - God Given Vs. Constitutional Rights... (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/19/2004 8:41:51 PM EDT

[#1]

Steyr, I can refute your argument using only two of the Amendments, the Second and the Ninth.

The Second says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that it says the right shall not be infringed. This implies that the right is pre-existing, is recognized by the Bill of Rights as a critical right that the government may not fuck with.

The Ninth Amendment makes this point specifically:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It says, essentially, that the Bill of Rights has picked out some extremely important rights that the government doesn't grant to its citizens, but instead government is prohibited from abusing - but the list is not all-inclusive.

If that's not clear enough for you, nothing ever will be.

Now, don't get me started on what a right really is.

Posted: 9/19/2004 8:42:29 PM EDT

[#2]

I usually ask people (On the left) wether or not they'd rather live in a society that RECOGNIZES the concept of rights as absolute or, one that see's them as something "Granted" to them by nature of popular opinion?

If rights AREN'T absolute then they're nothing at all. That we live under a government that RECOGNIZES that (At least to some extent) fact is a comfort but hardly a "Fail-Safe" to their (Rights) abridgment. A raped Woman STILL has the right NOT to be raped but her rapist doesn't recognize it.

The constitution "gave" us nothing. It just acknowledged (Rightfully) that these concepts exist among people who choose to live in close proximity with each other and that THAT acknowledgement makes persuing our own happiness easier.

Posted: 9/19/2004 8:43:02 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house.........his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21

Self defense is a God-Given right that cannot be stripped away by mere mortals.

Very good. You have a basis for an additional first amendment protection to be armed.

But that doesn't protect everyone now does it? I don't think it applies to Buddhists for example.

Uh, don't you mean SECOND???

Posted: 9/19/2004 8:44:15 PM EDT

[#4]

The BOR doesn't so much GIVE us rights as it affirms ALREADY EXISTING natural rights...

Posted: 9/19/2004 8:44:54 PM EDT

[#5]

Self preservation is God given right that trumps all rights conjured up by man.

Simplistic as it may seem, it makes everything else superfluous.

Posted: 9/19/2004 8:53:11 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If you believe that your rights were granted by a piece of paper and a stroke of a pen, then you are in interesting company.

Klinton, fineswine, stalan, pol pot, hitler, etc.

Your rights may have been created that way. And maybe they can be changed or altered by a judges ruling or the stroke of a pen or some new law or regulation.

But my rights were not. MY rights were with me when I was born. And they existed when people were still living in caves. My rights don't depend upon some technocrat. They don't live or die within someone elses philosophy.

And,......... anyone who denies them to me, will find themselves looking down the barrel of my rifle.

After all, ........ "It's MY island"

Zen

All fine and well but it is still that piece of paper the defines and defends them.

As stated previously many of your rights NEVER existed before that piece of paper.

And "some" of you are having the same problem as those of your interesting company "Klinton, fineswine, stalan, pol pot, hitler, etc." and that is the fact that YES that "piece of paper is what PREVENTS ANYONE from restricting those rights. These rights cannot be given and simply signed away.

That is what a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right is. That is why so many men are sworn to uphold and defend that piece of paper and that is why so many have willingly fought and died for taht piece of paper and what it does.

Because WITHOUT that piece of paper you in fact have NOTHING.

These God given, universal and natural rights simply don't exist in much of the world (or in most of history) and that is because they DON'T have a piece of paper like our Constitution.

And for the religious, let's keep in mind the Bible is just many pieces of paper. But funny that somehow it is more than that. By the same token so is the Constitution.

Rights don't start with pieces of paper.

They start with brave men who are willing to risk or give their lives for freedom.

They exist because I say they exist and am willing if pushed hard enough to kill to enforce them.

Paper is meaningless.

And the last one hundred years proves that.

Our "constitution" proves that.

A document well written about "freedom" and "rights" at a time when people were held as slaves in this country.

It has been a corupt document from the very beggining. And that may be the reason it really has little power.

All of our current gun laws are illegal, and yet people go to jail for violating them.

I won't even try to list all of the unconstitutional laws on the books right now, or the innocent people in jail for "violating" them. This website does not have the bandwidth.

Paper does not make you safe.

Men willing to die make us free and safe.

Men who know in their soul that they have "the right".

Men who truly believe that some govt or piece of paper makes them free are sheep and will die as such. (I don't include SteyrAUG in the sheep group, (I hope he isn't anyway) I think he is trying to make a point here, even though I don't get it)

Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Posted: 9/19/2004 9:05:05 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
These God given, universal and natural rights simply don't exist in much of the world (or in most of history) and that is because they DON'T have a piece of paper like our Constitution.

If your wallet is stolen, is it no longer rightfully yours? And is the wallet not rightfully yours again only when the final court verdict of "guilty" is rendered against the thief?

You've already acknowledged that you're born with certain "God given rights" which include "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I ask you... "liberty" to do WHAT is your God-given right?

Posted: 9/19/2004 9:34:44 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Paper does not make you safe.

Men willing to die make us safe.

I'm glad to have Zen back. And he's exactly right here. The notion that rights come from paper is absurd. The paper is only a contract. "We submit to gov, and in return gov follows these stipulations. Otherwise we abolish the gov by any means."

Personally the way I see it, is that EVERYTHING "good" comes from God. There is no good thing apart from God. Freedom (aka rights) is good. Therefore freedom came from God. Grossly simplified I know, but that's basically how I see it.

Posted: 9/19/2004 9:39:52 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:

If there were NEVER any Constitution or gov't around, I could still:
* Speak my mind
* Worship my God
* Be secure in my property
* Keep and bear arms...

I can still do those with no Constitution or Gov't so they are my "natural rights" as a human.

Really? Do them in China.

China has a gov't that restricts those rights.

If you take away the gov't there - my "right" is no longer being restricted there and so I'm free to exercise that right.

Therefore, that right exists independantly of the gov't (or any constitution).

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:17:42 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Steyr, I can refute your argument using only two of the Amendments, the Second and the Ninth.

The Second says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that it says the right shall not be infringed. This implies that the right is pre-existing, is recognized by the Bill of Rights as a critical right that the government may not fuck with.

The Ninth Amendment makes this point specifically:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It says, essentially, that the Bill of Rights has picked out some extremely important rights that the government doesn't grant to its citizens, but instead government is prohibited from abusing - but the list is not all-inclusive.

If that's not clear enough for you, nothing ever will be.

Now, don't get me started on what a right really is.

And yet again we did NOT have those rights prior to the Constitution.

Please feel free to direct me to the PRE EXISTING rights defined by the Constitution that existed PRIOR to the Constitution in this country or any other.

We didn't have 1/3 of those freedom under the King of England.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:19:16 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
I usually ask people (On the left) wether or not they'd rather live in a society that RECOGNIZES the concept of rights as absolute or, one that see's them as something "Granted" to them by nature of popular opinion?

If rights AREN'T absolute then they're nothing at all. That we live under a government that RECOGNIZES that (At least to some extent) fact is a comfort but hardly a "Fail-Safe" to their (Rights) abridgment. A raped Woman STILL has the right NOT to be raped but her rapist doesn't recognize it.

The constitution "gave" us nothing. It just acknowledged (Rightfully) that these concepts exist among people who choose to live in close proximity with each other and that THAT acknowledgement makes persuing our own happiness easier.

Constitutional Rights are absolute.

The rights of of the US citizen contained within the Constitution did NOT exist in colonial America under a English King.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:20:19 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house.........his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21

Self defense is a God-Given right that cannot be stripped away by mere mortals.

Very good. You have a basis for an additional first amendment protection to be armed.

But that doesn't protect everyone now does it? I don't think it applies to Buddhists for example.

Uh, don't you mean SECOND???

Nope. The basis is religious in nature and thus part of Freedom of Religion. So he has two amendments that support his ownership of firearms.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:22:44 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
These God given, universal and natural rights simply don't exist in much of the world (or in most of history) and that is because they DON'T have a piece of paper like our Constitution.

If your wallet is stolen, is it no longer rightfully yours? And is the wallet not rightfully yours again only when the final court verdict of "guilty" is rendered against the thief?

You've already acknowledged that you're born with certain "God given rights" which include "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I ask you... "liberty" to do WHAT is your God-given right?

So you are asserting that the BoR are the Liberty mentioned in the DoI?

In that case do foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections? Can they redress this government for greivences?

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:25:08 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I usually ask people (On the left) wether or not they'd rather live in a society that RECOGNIZES the concept of rights as absolute or, one that see's them as something "Granted" to them by nature of popular opinion?

If rights AREN'T absolute then they're nothing at all. That we live under a government that RECOGNIZES that (At least to some extent) fact is a comfort but hardly a "Fail-Safe" to their (Rights) abridgment. A raped Woman STILL has the right NOT to be raped but her rapist doesn't recognize it.

The constitution "gave" us nothing. It just acknowledged (Rightfully) that these concepts exist among people who choose to live in close proximity with each other and that THAT acknowledgement makes persuing our own happiness easier.

Constitutional Rights are absolute.

The rights of of the US citizen contained within the Constitution did NOT exist in colonial America under a English King.

Yes they did.

They just weren't recognized. It doesn't mean they weren't there. THAT is the argument from the left.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:26:11 PM EDT

[#15]

Can anyone of you guys show me where we enjoyed these "pre existing" rights contained within the BoR PRIOR to the Constitution being ordained and established?

Seems to me if they ALREADY existed we wouldn't have needed the Constitution.

Or is it merely your assertion that we were "deserving" of those rights prior to the Constitution even if we did not yet enjoy them?

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:27:43 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I usually ask people (On the left) wether or not they'd rather live in a society that RECOGNIZES the concept of rights as absolute or, one that see's them as something "Granted" to them by nature of popular opinion?

If rights AREN'T absolute then they're nothing at all. That we live under a government that RECOGNIZES that (At least to some extent) fact is a comfort but hardly a "Fail-Safe" to their (Rights) abridgment. A raped Woman STILL has the right NOT to be raped but her rapist doesn't recognize it.

The constitution "gave" us nothing. It just acknowledged (Rightfully) that these concepts exist among people who choose to live in close proximity with each other and that THAT acknowledgement makes persuing our own happiness easier.

Constitutional Rights are absolute.

The rights of of the US citizen contained within the Constitution did NOT exist in colonial America under a English King.

Yes they did.

They just weren't recognized. It doesn't mean they weren't there. THAT is the argument from the left.

If they existed please show me where and when.

You have all night to find them, I'll check this in the morning.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:29:07 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Paper does not make you safe.

Men willing to die make us safe.

I'm glad to have Zen back. And he's exactly right here. The notion that rights come from paper is absurd. The paper is only a contract. "We submit to gov, and in return gov follows these stipulations. Otherwise we abolish the gov by any means."

Personally the way I see it, is that EVERYTHING "good" comes from God. There is no good thing apart from God. Freedom (aka rights) is good. Therefore freedom came from God. Grossly simplified I know, but that's basically how I see it.

You guys are both right and wrong...

1) The rights in the Constitution are contractual rights. They would not exist if they were not granted in the Constitution. And in many places they do not exist.

They can also be taken away by ammendment, however this has never been done, and probably will never be. But it is legally possible.

So no, the rights of the Constitution and BOR are not 'God Given, Absolute Rights' (although the fact that we have them IS a gift from God, many people are not so fortunate), they are contractual rights, and are absolute in the sence that it is a breach of the contract to violate them.

2)( However, a contract is meaningless if no one will enforce it. The rights we have have been secured by US troops abroad & at home for over 2 centuries now, and continue to be secured in that manner today...

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:33:03 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Can anyone of you guys show me where we enjoyed these "pre existing" rights contained within the BoR PRIOR to the Constitution being ordained and established?

Seems to me if they ALREADY existed we wouldn't have needed the Constitution.

Or is it merely your assertion that we were "deserving" of those rights prior to the Constitution even if we did not yet enjoy them?

Nazi Germany fed 5 yr old girls into ovens because no such "Right' NOT to be was articulated by Hitlers thugs. Were THEIR "Rights" violated or not? Depends on wether or not you think rational human beings should have a sense of moral absolutes or not. I DO. That sense doesn't 'protect' me from shit but, living among those that DO is a hell of alot safer than say, living amongst cannibals. The founding fathers of this country felt the same way.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:35:43 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

If there were NEVER any Constitution or gov't around, I could still:
* Speak my mind
* Worship my God
* Be secure in my property
* Keep and bear arms...

I can still do those with no Constitution or Gov't so they are my "natural rights" as a human.

Really? Do them in China.

China has a gov't that restricts those rights.

If you take away the gov't there - my "right" is no longer being restricted there and so I'm free to exercise that right.

Therefore, that right exists independantly of the gov't (or any constitution).

By that logic you have a right to murder that is presently infringed...

The only natural rights are life, liberty, and property (which the founders called 'persuit of happiness').

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:38:10 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Steyr, I can refute your argument using only two of the Amendments, the Second and the Ninth.

The Second says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that it says the right shall not be infringed. This implies that the right is pre-existing, is recognized by the Bill of Rights as a critical right that the government may not fuck with.
No, the 2nd is a declaratory statement, written in 1700s grammar. Written today, it would say "The people have a right to keep and bear arms which government is prohibited from infringing apon". But they did not talk/write like that back then.

The Ninth Amendment makes this point specifically:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It says, essentially, that the Bill of Rights has picked out some extremely important rights that the government doesn't grant to its citizens, but instead government is prohibited from abusing - but the list is not all-inclusive. Which is very dangerous, and fotunately has never been invoked

If that's not clear enough for you, nothing ever will be.

Now, don't get me started on what a right really is.

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:47:16 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These God given, universal and natural rights simply don't exist in much of the world (or in most of history) and that is because they DON'T have a piece of paper like our Constitution.

If your wallet is stolen, is it no longer rightfully yours? And is the wallet not rightfully yours again only when the final court verdict of "guilty" is rendered against the thief?

You've already acknowledged that you're born with certain "God given rights" which include "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I ask you... "liberty" to do WHAT is your God-given right?

So you are asserting that the BoR are the Liberty mentioned in the DoI? Some, like the 1st, 2nd & 4th amendments are part of that "Liberty".

In that case do foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections? Can they redress this government for greivences?

"Natural Rights" apply to every free person in this nation, citizen or not, and very well SHOULD apply to everyone because, in order to exercise these rights, they require absolutely NOTHING from you or me or the Gov't.

It is some "Civil Rights" that non-citizens should NOT be automatically provided because these rights come FROM the gov't of which they do not belong. Some Civil Rights (like suffrage for example) should ONLY apply to citizens because these require the cooperation from the very gov't to whom this person belongs.

But other Civil Rights ARE extended to the non-citizen by the BOR because, as the SCOTUS case I quoted earlier, ..."the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

But I ask you again - since you stated that "liberty" IS a "God-given" right... "liberty" to do WHAT is a God-given right?

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:51:23 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
By that logic you have a right to murder that is presently infringed...

No.

Can you "murder" if you were left alone on an island all by yourself? No? Then that's not a "Natural Right".

As I said before: "Natural Rights" require NO other entity for you to exercise these rights and, by themselves, AFFECT no other entity.

The only natural rights are life, liberty, and property (which the founders called 'persuit of happiness').

"Liberty" to do what???

Posted: 9/19/2004 10:59:01 PM EDT

[#23]

Locke, 2nd Treastie on Government.

It describes the social contract. Also recognizes that some rights are inherently non-contractable, and cannot be negotiated or signed away. For example, the right to self-defense. You can't sign this right away because it would be tantamount to suicide, which is an affront to God.

My own take is that the DoI presents certain axioms: "We hold these rights to be self-evident." It then procedes to reason from these axioms. Where did the axioms come from? They are essentially statements of the polity's commonly-agreed upon ideas. A different polity may have different ideas. Imagine an Arab muslim nation that thinks obidience to God is the highest possible good.

Of course, the hypothetical Arab nation would also wind up being a superstitious, backward hole, since their commonly agreed-upon ideas lead to ignorance and backwardness. So I'll stick to our axioms, thank you very much.

Posted: 9/19/2004 11:07:00 PM EDT

[#24]

The rights described in the constitution are basically the common-law rights of Englishmen of the time. Freedom of speech, search warrants, all those were directly from the English common law. The term "constitution" was pretty radically redefined by Madison et al. Prior to the convention "costitution" was understood to be the unwritten type the English have. The Americans, who were thrown into a new situation, didn't have the luxury of developing organic government the way the English had over the prior few centuries. So they wrote an operator's manual, and the term "constitution" came to mean the actual written document.

There were some modifications, such as the "establishment of religion". The feds couldn't have a state church like the Anglican church in England.

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:43:29 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone of you guys show me where we enjoyed these "pre existing" rights contained within the BoR PRIOR to the Constitution being ordained and established?

Seems to me if they ALREADY existed we wouldn't have needed the Constitution.

Or is it merely your assertion that we were "deserving" of those rights prior to the Constitution even if we did not yet enjoy them?

Nazi Germany fed 5 yr old girls into ovens because no such "Right' NOT to be was articulated by Hitlers thugs. Were THEIR "Rights" violated or not? Depends on wether or not you think rational human beings should have a sense of moral absolutes or not. I DO. That sense doesn't 'protect' me from shit but, living among those that DO is a hell of alot safer than say, living amongst cannibals. The founding fathers of this country felt the same way.

Those would be universal rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness not specific rights of the Constitution such as 5th AMendment Protection.

Also, and not to defend Nazi Germany, they didn't put children in ovens alive. They killed children and cremated the remains.

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:49:37 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These God given, universal and natural rights simply don't exist in much of the world (or in most of history) and that is because they DON'T have a piece of paper like our Constitution.

If your wallet is stolen, is it no longer rightfully yours? And is the wallet not rightfully yours again only when the final court verdict of "guilty" is rendered against the thief?

You've already acknowledged that you're born with certain "God given rights" which include "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I ask you... "liberty" to do WHAT is your God-given right?

So you are asserting that the BoR are the Liberty mentioned in the DoI? Some, like the 1st, 2nd & 4th amendments are part of that "Liberty".

In that case do foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections? Can they redress this government for greivences?

"Natural Rights" apply to every free person in this nation, citizen or not, and very well SHOULD apply to everyone because, in order to exercise these rights, they require absolutely NOTHING from you or me or the Gov't.

It is some "Civil Rights" that non-citizens should NOT be automatically provided because these rights come FROM the gov't of which they do not belong. Some Civil Rights (like suffrage for example) should ONLY apply to citizens because these require the cooperation from the very gov't to whom this person belongs.

But other Civil Rights ARE extended to the non-citizen by the BOR because, as the SCOTUS case I quoted earlier, ..."the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

But I ask you again - since you stated that "liberty" IS a "God-given" right... "liberty" to do WHAT is a God-given right?

I think we would have to defer to the definition of Liberty as was accepted approximately 200 years ago.

But I doubt ANY definition would encompass the catalog of specific freedoms found in the BoR. And more importantly many of those freedoms simply didn't exist at all ever prior to the BoR and THAT is why the BoR is the source of those freedoms.

Posted: 9/20/2004 6:51:50 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
The rights described in the constitution are basically the common-law rights of Englishmen of the time.

Then please privide and example of equivalent freedoms described in the BoR under pre existing "common law." You won't be able to find most of them because they DIDN'T have them. If they DID there would have been no need for a war.

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:02:00 AM EDT

[#28]

The people cannot create rights because the people have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Every right enumerated in the DoI and BoR is shared by everyone in the world.

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:06:43 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
What is this vs thing? God-given and constitutional is the same thing, proprerly understood.

Actually, the Constitution allows for mare freedom than that which God grants to us.

"You shall have no other gods besides Me."

"You shall not make for yourself an idol."

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."

"You shall not covet.."

Any and all of these "Laws" are unConstitutional.

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:12:48 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Uh, don't you mean SECOND???

Nope. The basis is religious in nature and thus part of Freedom of Religion. So he has two amendments that support his ownership of firearms.

Ah...gotcha...so can we start a "Church of the Black Rifle"???

Posted: 9/20/2004 7:13:55 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
But I ask you again - since you stated that "liberty" IS a "God-given" right... "liberty" to do WHAT is a God-given right?
I think we would have to defer to the definition of Liberty as was accepted approximately 200 years ago.

Which was what?

What are YOU talking about when you say: "The rights mentioned in the DoI are what we consider "God Given" or "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""?

Quoted:
But I doubt ANY definition would encompass the catalog of specific freedoms found in the BoR. And more importantly many of those freedoms simply didn't exist at all ever prior to the BoR and THAT is why the BoR is the source of those freedoms.

Some of the BOR are "Civil Rights" some are "Natural Rights".

Natural Rights are those which comprise "liberty" in the sense it was used in the DOI.

To believe that the "right to worship" or "right to think and speak your mind" as you please is created BY the Constitution ignores the very essence of what a "natural right" is, for example...

Federalist Paper 41:
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

This was written BEFORE the BOR - and yet it refers to this "freedom of the press" - how can that be if the "freedom of the press" didn't exist, as you say, UNTIL it was written in the BOR?

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:27:47 AM EDT

[#32]

The American Revolution was fought in large part because the British were denying the Americans some of the traditional "rights of Englishmen". The right to trial by jury is specifically mentioned in the DoI. See also from the DoI:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

After the revolution the US needed a new system of government. The Articles of Confederation didn't work, so a new system was devised, namely the congress, president, and federal courts described in the constitution, working in parallel with state governments. But that was only the bare mechanism. The traditional English common law was carried over from the pre-revolutionary period, unless modified by more current practice. Courts didn't suddenly start working from a blank slate when the constitution was approved.

Most of the rights recognized in the BoR had direct predecessors from the common law. They were in large part an enumeration of things already recognized. They didn't spring fully formed from the head of Madison. Their constituency was already formed by past experience.

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:41:55 AM EDT

[#33]

I'm with Old Painless on this issue.
I'd also like to point out article IX to those who object to the addition of additional rights to the BOR; article IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, the BOR is NOT a comprehensive listing of the rights we enjoy, to the exclusion of all others. We have other rights as well. And these may be enumerated and added at any time as we see fit.

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:57:18 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The people cannot create rights because the people have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Every right enumerated in the DoI and BoR is shared by everyone in the world.

So members of Al Quida enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:03:13 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But I ask you again - since you stated that "liberty" IS a "God-given" right... "liberty" to do WHAT is a God-given right?
I think we would have to defer to the definition of Liberty as was accepted approximately 200 years ago.
Which was what?

What are YOU talking about when you say: "The rights mentioned in the DoI are what we consider "God Given" or "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""?

That would have to be researched.

Quoted:
Quoted:
But I doubt ANY definition would encompass the catalog of specific freedoms found in the BoR. And more importantly many of those freedoms simply didn't exist at all ever prior to the BoR and THAT is why the BoR is the source of those freedoms.

Some of the BOR are "Civil Rights" some are "Natural Rights".

Natural Rights are those which comprise "liberty" in the sense it was used in the DOI.

To believe that the "right to worship" or "right to think and speak your mind" as you please is created BY the Constitution ignores the very essence of what a "natural right" is, for example...
Federalist Paper 41:
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
This was written BEFORE the BOR - and yet it refers to this "freedom of the press" - how can that be if the "freedom of the press" didn't exist, as you say, UNTIL it was written in the BOR?

Yes I think freedoms like religion and expression are rights referred to under the DoI. And some of the rights within the BoR DID exist prior to the War of Independence.

What I'm talking about are the MANY rights that did NOT exist prior to the BoR and these are rights of US citizens that were CREATED by the BoR. And as such they cannot be considered "God given."

For sake of simplicity if a "right" existed prior to the BoR they would probably come under the heading of a "natural right" and if they existed after the BoR they would be considered a "Constitutional" right.

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:10:39 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The people cannot create rights because the people have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Every right enumerated in the DoI and BoR is shared by everyone in the world.

So members of Al Quida enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Not sure about the specifics, as those guys have already admitted their guilt.

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:17:16 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The people cannot create rights because the people have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Every right enumerated in the DoI and BoR is shared by everyone in the world.

So members of Al Quida enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Yes.

Posted: 9/20/2004 9:21:56 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Yes I think freedoms like religion and expression are rights referred to under the DoI. And some of the rights within the BoR DID exist prior to the War of Independence.

I agree.

And the RKBA is one that existed before the BOR also. That's part of the natural right of self-preservation and self-defense of an individual as well as a community (state).

Quoted:
What I'm talking about are the MANY rights that did NOT exist prior to the BoR and these are rights of US citizens that were CREATED by the BoR. And as such they cannot be considered "God given."

I agree again, but not sure if it's really that "many".

I think the most of the rights stated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, some of the 4th and 5th as well as the 9th & 10th are natural rights - those that fall under and are specific examples of the "life, liberty & pursuit of happiness (property)" idea of what natural rights are.

Other rights in the BOR like petition of gov't, trial by jury, assitance by counsel, etc. are related to the natural rights but are also dependant on the gov't granting one the actions and materials needed to exercise them.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - God Given Vs. Constitutional Rights... (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us