Libertarianism

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:45 pm

Original Intent, though, is not necessarily what ended up in the document.

John Smith may have intended X
John Q. Senator may have intended Z.
John Smith may have written and spoken a lot about intent X, and John Q may have just kept quiet most of the time, not saying too much about it.

After lots of debate and discussion and legislative committee meetings, hashing things out, compromising and recompromising, the final version is set down. The final version of the constitutional provision, F, is not exactly X, or Z.

Later, a law enacted is said to violate F. The person bringing suit builds his case, and cites the writings of John Smith for the proposition that the original intent of F was X. He doesn't cite John Q's writings, because there wasn't much written about his intent Z. The final version was a compromise, which did not fully accord with either intent X or intent Z.

If we go by original intent, what was actually written in the constitution might be ignored in favor of a one side of a political battle that was fought and lost. That is why, as Scalia has said repeatedly, that the "intent" of the drafters is NOT the test. The test is what the words say and what they mean.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by MrJonno » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:30 pm

No document is the ultimate authority the person whether it is a judge, jury or politician who is in charge of interpreting it is. Its blatantly obvious if you want to change the US constitution you just change the judges who 'interpret it'. If that wasn't true you would have such a political fight over their appointments?. Why do politicians appoint judges anyway shouldn't other judges be doing that?.
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:40 pm

MrJonno wrote:No document is the ultimate authority the person whether it is a judge, jury or politician who is in charge of interpreting it is. Its blatantly obvious if you want to change the US constitution you just change the judges who 'interpret it'. If that wasn't true you would have such a political fight over their appointments?. Why do politicians appoint judges anyway shouldn't other judges be doing that?.
Is anyone arguing against the idea that judges interpret the law and that different interpretations can result from different judges? What are you on about?

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by MrJonno » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:52 pm

I'm saying judges (or constitutions) should never be above elected politicans
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:58 pm

MrJonno wrote:I'm saying judges (or constitutions) should never be above elected politicans
Above? I agree. However, in the US we have three main branches of government which are technically equal, although handling different areas.

Legislature: write the laws, tax, and spend, within designated powers.
Executive Branch (President): Enforce and administer the laws.
Judicial: Interpret and apply the Constitution and the laws as laid down by the Legislature; resolve cases and controversies.

No one of them is above the other.

You blokes combine your law making and executive branches into one -- the Parliament and its ministries. We don't do that. You have courts, though, which interpret and apply the law.

So, what are you on about?

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by MrJonno » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:02 pm

US judges (who are basically unelected politicians) can permanently block any law based on their personal ideology (sorry interpreting the constitution) so how are they not superior to elected politicians. The US constitution is highly unlikely to ever change, its one thing to get the level of support required when you are a country of 100% white christian protestant farmers (ie the 18th century) its hardly going to happen again is it.

Constitutions = conservatism: Conservatism by definition stops change and hence society progressing. Making both constitutions and conservatism very bad things
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by rasetsu » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:15 pm

MrJonno wrote:US judges (who are basically unelected politicians) can permanently block any law based on their personal ideology (sorry interpreting the constitution) so how are they not superior to elected politicians. The US constitution is highly unlikely to ever change, its one thing to get the level of support required when you are a country of 100% white christian protestant farmers (ie the 18th century) its hardly going to happen again is it.
This is unlikely to have ever been the case. The only figure I have is that church membership around the time of our nation's founding was ~20% (James B. Twitchell, Shopping For God). On top of that, very early on, differences based on denomination emerged. In the south, Methodism was unofficially enforced, to include laws outlawing preachers of other denominations preaching, in the north, the allegiances were different. In the middle of the 19th century, a Catholic bishop was nearly lynched by an angry mob for opposing the then largely Protestant based school curricula (on behalf of Irish Catholics).


Last edited by rasetsu on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:16 pm

MrJonno wrote:US judges (who are basically unelected politicians)
Well, that depends. Federal judges are appointed, but State judges are by-and-large, elected.
MrJonno wrote: can permanently block any law based on their personal ideology (sorry interpreting the constitution) so how are they not superior to elected politicians.
Well, not really "permanently." They have a job to do. A function. They interpret and apply the law and engage in judicial review of laws to ensure that they comply with the Constitution. That provides a "check" on the Legislative branch, so that, for example, a whipped up frenzy and short-term political advantages may be less likely to result in government going beyond its powers or infringing civil liberties.

The idea of having an unelected federal judiciary is so that decisions can be made based on the law, and hopefully the judge's would be less likely to tailor their opinions to fit public opinion, which is often -- probably most of the time -- woefully ignorant of what the law is, and the facts of a particular case.

If they make a ridiculous decision, there is a procedure for impeachment. The government can also appeal the decision from a district judge to a Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court, so there is no shortage of checks and balances on the district judge (who doesn't want to have his or her decisions reversed).

As further checks on judicial power, the Legislature can rewrite the law, amend the Constitution, or even in some cases limit the jurisdiction of courts to review matters.

The Executive Branch is a check against the power of the other branches, in that the Executive Branch determines how laws are to be enforced.
MrJonno wrote: The US constitution is highly unlikely to ever change,
It's changed many times, substantially.
MrJonno wrote: its one thing to get the level of support required when you are a country of 100% white christian protestant farmers (ie the 18th century) its hardly going to happen again is it.

Constitutions = conservatism: Conservatism by definition stops change and hence society progressing. Making both constitutions and conservatism very bad things
This is utter bollocks. One, the US has progressed and continues to progress. Two, in many ways the US is far more "liberal" than Great Britain.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:41 pm

rasetsu wrote:
Wandering Through wrote: As I understand it, the Constitution was written largely by the same people operating under the same beliefs, as the Declaration, i.e. that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights (as you point out, the source of those rights (natural/supernatural) may have been a matter of contention). It was written explicitly to spell out the rights (powers) being granted to, not to list the rights (powers) to be granted by the new federal government. As they eventually did spell out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Just because we listed a bunch of rights specifically, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of all the rights retained by the people (get it, retained - you can't retain what you don't already possess); and, if a power isn't expressly granted to the United States, or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (because, once again, the people are where the power comes from, therefore they aren't granted the power, it is reserved to them).
The problem is that Seth was arguing a textualism based on texts that didn't have the claimed support (he wrote, "they (and the mass of people who ratified the Constitution) ultimately agreed on a form of government that acknowledges the fundamental, natural, inherent and unalienable character of rights"). Now if you want to get into channeling what the founders intentions were, get out the Ouije board and some popcorn, as that way madness lies. This is similar to last year's case of Obama's eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot in which Seth argued that the proponents had a strong case, in which part of the argument was making inferences as to what "natural born" meant from British common law. To argue textualism out one side of your mouth, and founder's intent out the other, is to me, a profoundly inconsistent position, if that is indeed what Seth was doing. (I'll let him answer the charge, but I don't think he was doing so intentionally.)
"Textualism" as you call it is only part of the necessary investigation of original intent that is required in order to understand what the Founders (authors and ratifiers) meant by the words in the Constitution. Much more is required to come to the fullest possible understanding of what they meant, including reference to history, including their history, customs, laws and social behavior.

But when it comes to the fundamental assumptions of the Constitution it is absolutely clear from the form of the document and the plain meaning of the words in it that it is a charter of restrictions on government, not a charter of rights for the people. As has been said, the obvious construction of the Tenth Amendment presupposes preexisting and supreme rights in the People as individuals, and that those rights flow from something other than government. Every statement in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a RESTRICTION on what the government may do. It's a short list of things that the government MAY do, which in the legal understanding of the time (and going back clear to the Roman Empire) excludes from those powers anything and everything NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED in the list. The legal principle, known by the Founders, is thousands of years old, and it's known as the "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius Which is to say that the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. In the law, where a list of things is set forth, it is legal error to add to the list set forth unless through necessary inference. Thus, if the list says "A, B, and C are subject to the law" that legislative intent cannot be extended to D unless D is somehow a necessary part of A, B, or C.

Thus, the list of powers in Article 1, Section 8 is exclusively limited to those powers specified, and no others:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
And lest someone toss out the old "provide for the general welfare" canard, here's Alexander Hamilton's response to that fallacy:
In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. 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.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by rasetsu » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:02 am




Wow. Them there's a whole lotta words that say absolutely nuttin.



Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:39 pm

rasetsu wrote:Wow. Them there's a whole lotta words that say absolutely nuttin.
Only to those with nuttin in their noggin.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by rasetsu » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:19 pm

Seth wrote:
rasetsu wrote:Wow. Them there's a whole lotta words that say absolutely nuttin.
Only to those with nuttin in their noggin.

Aha! That is so twelve years old.

The fact is you claimed the states ratified a constitution ensuring inalienable rights and now you're using original intent to back it up, and making irrelevant noises about exclusionary principles.


They didn't ratify a document assuring inalienable rights because the document doesn't contain that language. And the states weren't ratifying their "original intent". They ratified the document.



This is so you, Seth. You get backed into a corner and you start throwing off red herrings, trying to bury things in verbosity and quoting obscure documents and terms to try and bluff your way through.

How does any of the above make your following statement true?

"they (and the mass of people who ratified the Constitution) ultimately agreed on a form of government that acknowledges the fundamental, natural, inherent and unalienable character of rights"



Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:57 pm

rasetsu wrote:
Seth wrote:
rasetsu wrote:Wow. Them there's a whole lotta words that say absolutely nuttin.
Only to those with nuttin in their noggin.

Aha! That is so twelve years old.
When you present twelve year old arguments, you get twelve year old rebuttals.
The fact is you claimed the states ratified a constitution ensuring inalienable rights and now you're using original intent to back it up, and making irrelevant noises about exclusionary principles.
No I'm not, I'm stating principles of law well know to the Founders that refute your argument.
They didn't ratify a document assuring inalienable rights because the document doesn't contain that language. And the states weren't ratifying their "original intent". They ratified the document.
Yup, and they ratified it based on a body of common legal, religious and philosophical knowledge in use at the time that they ratified it, not an intellectual vacuum that allows you to make up whatever purpose and intent you think they had out of thin air. They, meaning both the authors and many of those who wrote about the document during the ratification process, were very clear about the fact that what they were ratifying was NOT a document authorizing a government that granted rights, but rather a document that restricted what the government could do by way of restricting and regulating the pre-existing rights of the people.

That you wish to deny this is nothing more than Progressive disinformation and propaganda and an attempt to tell a Big Lie enough times that it will become perceived truth.

Sorry, not buying any.

This is so you, Seth. You get backed into a corner and you start throwing off red herrings, trying to bury things in verbosity and quoting obscure documents and terms to try and bluff your way through.
No, this is you, trying to construct strawmen that you can easily knock down. Sorry, but history proves you to be wrong, it's just that simple.
How does any of the above make your following statement true?

"they (and the mass of people who ratified the Constitution) ultimately agreed on a form of government that acknowledges the fundamental, natural, inherent and unalienable character of rights"
Because the nature of fundamental, natural and unalienable rights as they understood them is inherent and obvious in the language they used to construct the document (not to mention the contemporary writings of those who debated the ratification) when viewed in concert with the legal reasoning, principles and maxims of statutory construction that were in use at the time the document was written, which is the sole basis upon which their understandings and intentions can be judged.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by rasetsu » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:47 am

Seth wrote:
rasetsu wrote:They didn't ratify a document assuring inalienable rights because the document doesn't contain that language. And the states weren't ratifying their "original intent". They ratified the document.
Yup, and they ratified it based on a body of common legal, religious and philosophical knowledge in use at the time that they ratified it, not an intellectual vacuum that allows you to make up whatever purpose and intent you think they had out of thin air. They, meaning both the authors and many of those who wrote about the document during the ratification process, were very clear about the fact that what they were ratifying was NOT a document authorizing a government that granted rights, but rather a document that restricted what the government could do by way of restricting and regulating the pre-existing rights of the people.

That you wish to deny this is nothing more than Progressive disinformation and propaganda and an attempt to tell a Big Lie enough times that it will become perceived truth.

Sorry, not buying any.
No, you're not buying any because you're selling it, selling right-wing revisionist crap. I just searched the Federalist papers for inalienable, unalienable and creator and got zero hits. God is mentioned three times, but not in relation to rights. If you've got documents that support your vision, from publications of the founders, speeches, or deliberations of ratifying bodies, or any text in the Constitution itself, then produce it. If you can't provide textual, historical evidence that at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution that was the common legal understanding of the meaning of that document, then you're the one making stuff up out of thin air.

Show me the relevant documents or shove it.

Seth wrote:
rasetsu wrote:How does any of the above make your following statement true?

"they (and the mass of people who ratified the Constitution) ultimately agreed on a form of government that acknowledges the fundamental, natural, inherent and unalienable character of rights"
Because the nature of fundamental, natural and unalienable rights as they understood them is inherent and obvious in the language they used to construct the document (not to mention the contemporary writings of those who debated the ratification) when viewed in concert with the legal reasoning, principles and maxims of statutory construction that were in use at the time the document was written, which is the sole basis upon which their understandings and intentions can be judged.
And you want to know how I really know that you're pulling things out of thin air? I just went through the entire Constitution section by section, and there is basically nothing about individual rights in the entire document. My summary is between the hide tags below, if you want to check my work, though the Wikipedia entry on the Constitution does a better job of summarizing the document. So the people who ratified the United States Constitution couldn't have agreed on the "unalienable character of [individual] rights" because there's no such rights in the Constitution. Produce one of these unalienable rights from the U.S. Constitution or go away.

(The only section which even comes close is Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees citizens equal rights when traveling among the states, which doesn't help you any.)
Article. I.

Section. 1. - legislative powers and composition of congress.

Section. 2. - only rights are of the governments apportioning of taxation.

Section. 3. - only rights enumerated with respect to impeachment by the Senate

Section. 4. - right of state legislators to determine time and place of elections

Section. 5. - rights and obligations of congress to meet and adjourn

Section. 6. - limits on the rights of Senators and Representatives during term of office.

Section. 7. - stuff about congress, the president, and passing laws.

Section. 8. - the various powers of congress and the federal government.

Section. 9. - reserve regulation of immigration to the states, writ of habeas corpus, more limits on congress and the federal government, no foreign titles or grants of nobility.

Section. 10. - treaties, limits on states.

Article. II.

Section. 1. - Presidential election matters.

Section. 2. - More presidential matters.

Section. 3. - More executive branch stuff.

Section. 4. - Removal of president, VP, and officers for.

Article III.

Section. 1. - the Supreme court.

Section. 2. - more about the judiciary.

Section. 3. - treason and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Article. IV.

Section. 1. - each state recognizes the acts of the other.

Section. 2. - citizens of any state shall enjoy the protections of other states while in them, as well as retaining obligations; extradition rights and duties.

Section. 3. - statehood and administration of territories.

Section. 4. - duties to states, protection and guarantee of Republican form of government to each.

Article. V.

- constitutional amendments

Article. VI.

- continuity of government from preceding government under the Articles of Confederation; constitution and other laws of the federal government shall be the supreme law of the land. Oath of office and duties of congress and state legislatures to the Constitution.

Article. VII.

-ratification of the constitution


Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:33 pm

rasetsu wrote:
No, you're not buying any because you're selling it, selling right-wing revisionist crap. I just searched the Federalist papers for inalienable, unalienable and creator and got zero hits. God is mentioned three times, but not in relation to rights. If you've got documents that support your vision, from publications of the founders, speeches, or deliberations of ratifying bodies, or any text in the Constitution itself, then produce it. If you can't provide textual, historical evidence that at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution that was the common legal understanding of the meaning of that document, then you're the one making stuff up out of thin air.

Show me the relevant documents or shove it.
Meh. Do your own homework. There's thousands of books out there that go through the history of the Constitution and the concepts upon which it was founded. I'm not going to bother to educate someone who has such a deficient education and understanding of concepts that have been perfectly clear for more than 200 years.
rasetsu wrote:
And you want to know how I really know that you're pulling things out of thin air? I just went through the entire Constitution section by section, and there is basically nothing about individual rights in the entire document. My summary is between the hide tags below, if you want to check my work, though the Wikipedia entry on the Constitution does a better job of summarizing the document. So the people who ratified the United States Constitution couldn't have agreed on the "unalienable character of [individual] rights" because there's no such rights in the Constitution. Produce one of these unalienable rights from the U.S. Constitution or go away.
Er, no, and, exactly. If you look carefully at the construction of the document, and of the Bill of Rights, neither one "grants" any rights to any citizen. In every case it either protects preexisting rights (as in the Bill of Rights) or it authorizes the government to do very specific and limited things. Unlike the UN Charter of Human Rights, which states a laundry list of "rights" that people have, and thereby denies every right NOT included in that list, the US Constitution operates on the presumption that the People have all rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and that they have all power, and that they grant certain, carefully limited authority to government in the interests of securing their individual, preexisting, natural and fundamental rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were very carefully and explicitly designed that way precisely to prevent exactly what you are trying to do, which is to give government the power to issue, and therefore revoke individual rights. But that's not what the Founders did, and they were quite careful not to do so. That's why the Bill of Rights expressly says, in the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Powers flow from rights, of necessity, and all power flows from the consent of the governed.

That's why the Second Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms is granted to the people."

Every other case where rights of the people are mentioned is the same. The construction of the language assumes that the rights exist independent of the government and that the government is restricted in how it may regulate or infringe upon those preexisting individual rights.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 28 guests