The Constitution means exactly what it says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Feel free to point out any biblical references. I have most certainly not said it was any certain God, or even a God as we recognize the word. In fact, I believe I said evolution even applied.



So only by believing in a nondescript, vague, invisible life-force can humans have any rights?
 
Feel free to point out any biblical references. I have most certainly not said it was any certain God, or even a God as we recognize the word. In fact, I believe I said evolution even applied.

Interesting. The Founders based the DOI and Constitution on the theory of evolution?
 
smilies-2043.png
 
I never said it was based biblical writings.

Theses are rights granted to every living person.
I have to disagree with this. They are not "granted" at all. Being "granted" implies an authority which does the granting. This is where mindless liberal twits get the idea that our rights are granted us by our government. No, these rights are INHERENT to us as human beings. They are an integral part of being human. No one "granted" them to us, which is exactly why they can be defined as inalienable: because no human authority has the just power to remove those rights from the citizenry.
 
I have to disagree with this. They are not "granted" at all. Being "granted" implies an authority which does the granting. This is where mindless liberal twits get the idea that our rights are granted us by our government. No, these rights are INHERENT to us as human beings. They are an integral part of being human. No one "granted" them to us, which is exactly why they can be defined as inalienable: because no human authority has the just power to remove those rights from the citizenry.



At last. I agree.
 
I have to disagree with this. They are not "granted" at all. Being "granted" implies an authority which does the granting. This is where mindless liberal twits get the idea that our rights are granted us by our government. No, these rights are INHERENT to us as human beings. They are an integral part of being human. No one "granted" them to us, which is exactly why they can be defined as inalienable: because no human authority has the just power to remove those rights from the citizenry.

great post
 
What other "rights" did the invisible being bestow upon you?



Just wondering.

Well, since you are "just wondering" and have a real desire to learn I will explain to to you. What follows is a quick primer on the fundamental rights concept which form the principles of the establishment of the USA. After this there can be no excuse for you to demonstrate mystery or puzzlement about these principles. At the very least this information demands that you elevate the quality of your discourse; smarmy one liners should no longer be the extent of your involvement in these threads.

Ready?

The Declaration of Independence saying our rights are "endowed by our Creator" is only an oppositional argument to what was then the ONLY theory of political governance in force. . . That was the unquestionable "divine right" of the King of England to rule however he desired.

That doctrine said that the king was subject to no earthly authority; his right to rule flowed directly from the hand of God. The king was not subject to the will of any mortal human including the Pope. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king this doctrine implies that any questioning or attempt to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and constitutes a sacrilegious act.

This absolute, arbitrary power of the king was seen as illegitimate by our founders because it violated the inherent human right of self-determination. They believed a "legitimate society" is based on mutual consent. This philosophy stated that we have unrestrained natural rights but humans, being social creatures also naturally come together into groups and assign roles to members of that society, the most important of which is mutual protection. A group working in concert can better defend against invaders and other threats (general militia concept).

So, the people come together and surrender a certain amount of their natural rights to the governing body in exchange for the governing body protecting the rights the people retain.

The founders / framers embraced the "social compact" theories promoted by John Locke and Algernon Sidney and others and used them, first as the justification to declare independence from the crown and then, as a framework of the political structure of the Constitution.

This doctrine has as its foundation a principle in direct opposition to the absolute power of the king, it holds that no man was above another unless a man allows one to govern him and then, only to the point that it benefits him.

This established the principle that government cannot legitimately 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 confers 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 no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life or property of another.

Under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed; the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent and inalienable because our rights emanate from a plane above the legislative acts of man or the benevolence of a ruler and that some rights are of such intrinsic value that a person, even willingly, cannot surrender them.

Inalienable rights is a concept focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care of his life, liberty or fruits of his labor. Inalienable rights also denotes legitimacy of action for government because no legitimate government would accept such a surrender by a citizen if it were offered.

Inalienable has nothing to do with a particular right's violation or a direct action of government after government's establishment; it is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact when the fundamental, unalterable principles of that system are established. Inalienable rights are not universal; they only have meaning and significance when a governing framework is being established and then, only a framework founded on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.

"Inalienable rights" are meaningless if a governing body is NOT being created to NOT surrender rights to . . .

One can of course judge the legitimacy of a government established to protect the inalienable rights of the citizen by how it treats the inalienable rights of the citizen.

The violation of inalienable rights is an action that de-legitimizes government -- from then on it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is a foreign entity disconnected from the Constitution and incapable of claiming its protections (the preemptive powers it enjoys over the states and people and the protections of the compact like prosecuting treason).

Such an illegitimate government is then subject to the original right of the people to rescind their consent to be governed (see 2nd Amendment, however many commas you prefer).
 
...The violation of inalienable rights is an action that de-legitimizes government -- from then on it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is a foreign entity disconnected from the Constitution and incapable of claiming its protections (the preemptive powers it enjoys over the states and people and the protections of the compact like prosecuting treason). Such an illegitimate government is then subject to the original right of the people to rescind their consent to be governed (see 2nd Amendment, however many commas you prefer).



So we're back to overthrowing the government?
 
Post 278. Or were you "just joking" again?

Post #278 was you posting select bits of my quotes. There is a thing called context. I have said, numerous times, that it is not a religious thing, but the rights are for all people.

You simply decided to pick select bits of text to try and get somewhere.
 
Post #278 was you posting select bits of my quotes. There is a thing called context. I have said, numerous times, that it is not a religious thing, but the rights are for all people. You simply decided to pick select bits of text to try and get somewhere.

So, when you claimed the rights of man were granted by a "Creator", what did you mean?
 
Looking back over what I said and what you actually quoted, it is easy to see your bullshit tactic.


What I said was:

"Our individual rights, according to our Declaration of Independence, were given to us by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the government usurping that right."

And what you quoted me saying was: “...our Creator”

Not even close to what I said.


What I said was:


"Were you created by an invisible being? This is not a theological discussion. If you do not believe in any supreme being, then the statement in the Declaration of Independence would still apply, as whatever force that created human beings endowed us with these rights. In other words, the rights come with being human."

What you quoted me as saying was: "whatever force that created human beings ..."

Again, not even close to what I said.



What I said was:

"It depends on the reader's beliefs. The rights remain the same regardless of whether or not you believe in a supreme being.
Very often people neglect the opening of the original DoI.
'When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'"


What you quoted me saying was: "God entitled them..."
Again, not even close. And you had to actually add a letter for it to make any sense as you wanted to use it. If you are going to pretend it was a quote, you can't add letters to change the quote.




If you want to have an actual discussion, I am more than willing. If you want to play games, go practice somewhere else and come back when you have developed a bit more skill.
 
And who's the "Creator' that hands 'em out, WinterDancer?


cheekydance.gif



Still trying to play this game? You gain these rights by being born a human being. Those who believe they were created by a supreme being see that birth as happening as a gift of God. Those who do not believe in a supreme being, see it as part of nature. Neither is wrong, by what we can prove here or for the purposes of this conversation. The rights come to you by being born.
 
Still trying to play this game? You gain these rights by being born a human being. Those who believe they were created by a supreme being see that birth as happening as a gift of God. Those who do not believe in a supreme being, see it as part of nature. Neither is wrong, by what we can prove here or for the purposes of this conversation. The rights come to you by being born.



I agree with Good Luck - which I never thought I'd say.




I have to disagree with this. They are not "granted" at all. Being "granted" implies an authority which does the granting. This is where mindless liberal twits get the idea that our rights are granted us by our government. No, these rights are INHERENT to us as human beings. They are an integral part of being human. No one "granted" them to us, which is exactly why they can be defined as inalienable: because no human authority has the just power to remove those rights from the citizenry.




Now, keep crawfishing, WinterDancing.




ummdanceundef[1].gif
 
I agree with Good Luck - which I never thought I'd say.









Now, keep crawfishing, WinterDancing.




ummdanceundef[1].gif

I am not crawfishing at all. I believe in a Creator, so I see the rights as being granted by God because he created us. But I also see the other side of the issue, so I have repeatedly added the caveat that the rights are from birth (from nature or God). You simply want to try and pick out the bits that give you more to say on the topic.
 
because WB quotes the troll...i see his posts...i don't like to say this, but....WB is getting his ass kicked by the troll. he is pushing all your buttons WB. you keep trying to roll in the mud by responding to his non-answer posts and you only look worse than the pig.

why did you complain about this troll a few weeks ago, when you constantly feed him?
 
because WB quotes the troll...i see his posts...i don't like to say this, but....WB is getting his ass kicked by the troll. he is pushing all your buttons WB. you keep trying to roll in the mud by responding to his non-answer posts and you only look worse than the pig.

why did you complain about this troll a few weeks ago, when you constantly feed him?

And what possible difference does it make if I do respond to the troll? If everyone ignores him, do you actually believe he will go away? Did his anti-gun cut/paste threads stop?
Are you worried that Damo will run out of bandwidth because of it?

I am online and bored. He, at least, presents a bit of fun.


And Yurt, scroll thru your own posts and tell me what you see? For every on topic, serious post you make, there are 5 or 10 just taking cheap shots and tossing insults. You somehow think that is better than feeding a troll?
 
Back
Top