View Single Post
  #343  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:51 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I think I understand the position that at it's core, the constitution is meant to protect "unalienable rights". But what's heard more often than not is that we live in a 'nation of laws' and under 'rule of law'. Whether state or federal, these laws often serve to put restrictions on "unalienable rights". Do either of you find these two concepts in opposition? If not, why not? If so, can they be reconciled, or have we mostly moved well past the founding fathers principles of individualist rights towards those of social justice, i.e. "a more just society"?
Sorry, I missed this until now.

I think by definition so-called natural/unalienable/human rights supersede legal rights. Laws that unjustly infringe natural rights are invalid on that basis alone. The only reconciliation is on the law side. This was the legal philosophy put forward by the Declaration of Independence, endorsed by many of the same founding fathers who wrote the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

As you know I don't believe natural rights actually exist except as people are willing to create and respect them; that is, they are (to me) a legal fiction.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 09-12-2019 at 01:54 PM. Reason: unjustly infringe