View Single Post
Old 08-30-2019, 09:06 AM
Abatis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
This statement is absurd. And the Founding Fathers (who passed Alien and Sedition Acts) would tell you so.
Except that what I wrote there is set-out clearly in the writings of the founders / framers . . . So there's that.

Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
You seem to be of the mindset that the Declaration of Independence has the force of law.
The DoI is referred to and cited as the foundational principles of the nation and the concept of unalienable rights is the guiding principle as to the recognition of rights and their nature.

Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Well, good luck with asserting in American jurisprudence that you retain some sort of right to take up arms and abolish the government. You will lose every single time.
I would never expect such a ruling. As I said, none of these rights (including the right to rescind our consent to be governed) emanate from the compact by which the people grant government its powers. Since that is true, it is absurd to want or expect a structure created by the Constitution (the federal courts) and deriving its limited powers from the Constitution, to find and delineate a right that does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

To be even more emphatic, I don't need any agent of the government to tell me what my rights are. My unalienable rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it.

By the Constitution's structure, no governmental agency has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws. This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS. As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists, or its scope, or whether it is socially or culturally popular, or whether the perceived social impact outweighs holding the government to the constraints inherent in enumerated powers. The Court's only duty is to decide whether a challenged law was enacted beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature.

And while I'm ranting, I find especially repugnant any government servant pontificating on the extent of my rights; their purview is only the creation and execution of law at the citizen's behest and for our benefit, not the citizen's rights. Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative, executive or judicial powers granted to them by the Constitution . . . if the bastards could only stick to that our rights would be safe without regard of their listing (or not) in the Bill of Rights.


Last edited by Abatis; 08-30-2019 at 09:11 AM.