The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.

[Bullitt]

@andros

Thank for sharing. Bye.
.

That was uncalled for.

[Hamlet]

@Bullitt

That was uncalled for.

When the poster says: “the wholly unjustified and despicable war on the erstwhile Confederate states that in 1861 wanted no more than to go their own way peaceably (but when confronted with Federal violence and invasion, were willing themselves to fight!)” and "especially after the misnamed “Civil War” (A term, though much less concise, might be, “War of Federal Aggression to Subjugate the Confederacy”), and talks of armed revolt against the government, it’s more than fair to completely write them off as a complete waste of time and space.

[Bullitt]

@Hamlet

When the poster says: “the wholly unjustified and despicable war on the erstwhile Confederate states that in 1861 wanted no more than to go their own way peaceably (but when confronted with Federal violence and invasion, were willing themselves to fight!)” and "especially after the misnamed “Civil War” (A term, though much less concise, might be, “War of Federal Aggression to Subjugate the Confederacy”), and talks of armed revolt against the government, it’s more than fair to completely write them off as a complete waste of time and space.

I guess s/he gave the post its due consideration. As did you. Edit: I thought it was a little mean and dismissive.

I agree with the OP.

[Clothahump]

@SenorBeef

Even if one finds fault in the idea of natural rights, it’d be hard to deny that those who wrote the Constitution had anything but that in mind. The Constitution is still written to protect rights that were assumed to be innate - whether you find the idea flawed or not doesn’t change how the Constitution works.

And this concept is detailed repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. Nobody wants to read them any more, but if you want insight into the thought process behind the Constitution, it’s laid out right there for all to see.

[andros]

@Bullitt

I guess s/he gave the post its due consideration. As did you. Edit: I thought it was a little mean and dismissive.

I agree with the OP.

I was dismissive precisely * because* I gave that post the consideration it deserved. It’s a shit post, consisting of shit words conveying shit thoughts by a shitty person who will not return after shitting it on the floor.
.

[septimus]

This train of thought is just right-wing silliness.

Being subject to authority is the natural state of primates, from the common ancestor of Old- and New-World Monkeys, all the way to the present. If God gave man certain inalienable rights, he forgot to tell 99% of the humans who ever lived.

Even in America, for many decades Blacks did not have the right of speech, right of assembly, right of gun ownership, etc. — they didn’t even have 3/5’ths of such a right.
Et cetera et cetera.

There is no useful wisdom in OP’s “insight.” Anyone who buys into this utter bullshit is in the same ilk as Freemen on the Land.

[silenus]

@Hamlet

When the poster says: “the wholly unjustified and despicable war on the erstwhile Confederate states that in 1861 wanted no more than to go their own way peaceably (but when confronted with Federal violence and invasion, were willing themselves to fight!)” and "especially after the misnamed “Civil War” (A term, though much less concise, might be, “War of Federal Aggression to Subjugate the Confederacy”), and talks of armed revolt against the government, it’s more than fair to completely write them off as a complete waste of time and space.

This and the fact that the OP was 16 years ago make this a totally worthless resurrection.

[gnoitall]

@Malleus_Incus_Stapes

But what does the Constitution say about the right to zombify threads?

I’d say that the 4th Amendment’s implied protections for personal privacy, as extended to support medical choices, might be extended to necromancy. The wrinkle is that you can’t use any consideration of the privacy of the deceased, since they no longer have rights in law.

[octopus]

@septimus

This train of thought is just right-wing silliness.

Being subject to authority is the natural state of primates, from the common ancestor of Old- and New-World Monkeys, all the way to the present. If God gave man certain inalienable rights, he forgot to tell 99% of the humans who ever lived.

Even in America, for many decades Blacks did not have the right of speech, right of assembly, right of gun ownership, etc. — they didn’t even have 3/5’ths of such a right.
Et cetera et cetera.

There is no useful wisdom in OP’s “insight.” Anyone who buys into this utter bullshit is in the same ilk as Freemen on the Land.

You need to take some history classes. The OP is absolutely right. Just because in the real world might makes right it doesn’t mean that the US Constitution is not based on the concept of natural rights.

[octopus]

@selfdo59

In light of the observation that the US Constitution and its first Ten Amendments, aka “Bill of Rights”, don’t CONFER any rights, but rather, as the initial draft of the Constitution,accepted by the Convention in 1787 and approved in turn by the several states, outlined and delineated what were the powers granted TO the Federal Government by the States and the PEOPLE, so the “rights” listed in the first eight of the ten amendment are those which the Federal Gov’t is restrained from interfering with, or as the SECOND Amendment states, “infringing”. Interesting why the Founders would use THAT word as they were prescient as to how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would, in fact, be gradually “infringed” by the Feds and some, if not all of the several states in varying degrees.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are of particular interest in light of (1) the wholly unjustified and despicable war on the erstwhile Confederate states that in 1861 wanted no more than to go their own way peaceably (but when confronted with Federal violence and invasion, were willing themselves to fight!) and (2) the ever-increasing encroachment of Federal powers and authority, especially on the states, to the point where it has become the MASTER and they the subservient entities. The Ninth, in stating that the list of the previous amendments is not all-inclusive; that the listing of them doesn’t exclude or “disparage” any other rights that exist. The Founders likely didn’t feel a need to mention a right to “privacy” since the idea that the Government would intrude on the private affairs of its several citizens was likely to them preposterous, and the public wouldn’t stand for it! That “privacy” isn’t listed doesn’t mean that the right doesn’t exist; indeed, the very nature that Government has specific and limited powers, else, the citizens are imbued with the God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which can only occur in an environment where a strong, compelling reason must be made to override one’s privacy. The Tenth makes it clear as to those that believe that the “necessary and proper” clause means that the Government can simply IGNORE Constitutional limits and do whatever the Congress will pass a bill and vote appropriations for: NO! It states that all powers “not delegated by the Constitution, nor PROHIBITED to the states, are RESERVED for the states, or the PEOPLE”. Over the years, especially after the misnamed “Civil War” (A term, though much less concise, might be, “War of Federal Aggression to Subjugate the Confederacy”), the SCOTUS has rarely used the Tenth Amendment as a basis for overruling either lower courts or Federal or State laws. In particular, the Congress and the SCOTUS have usually upheld the ever-increasing Federal laws and programs under the Commerce clause; i.e., in effect horn-swoggled the authority to regulate interstate Commerce (so that each state wouldn’t in effect have its own customs, which was proving a serious detriment to trade between the states in the day) to in effect render the Ninth and Tenth Amendments null and void.

Things may get to the point where the citizens may soon have to, as Jefferson once wrote, “Refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and TYRANTS.” I’d prefer that there be a more peaceful resolution, but our fore fathers were willing, so to speak, to “take it to the mat”. If there will be blood spilled no matter what, then at least some of the ‘tyrants’ may be taken down…

Well the 1860s will provide a useful precedent for dealing with California if it gets to that point. And nice use of “horn-swoggled.”

[Morgenstern]

Looks like you found a moron you can communicate with. Good job Putz.

[septimus]

@octopus

You need to take some history classes. The OP is absolutely right. Just because in the real world might makes right it doesn’t mean that the US Constitution is not based on the concept of natural rights.

We already knew you are a doltish right-winger. The fact that you think “history books” will shed light on my correct comments or OP’s confusion just shows the extent of your own confusion.

So, how do you feel about “Freemen on the Land,” octopus?

ETA: Oh, BTW: Would I be correct that in your humble opinion, abortion, not mentioned in the Constitution, is not a fundamental right?

[octopus]

@septimus

We already knew you are a doltish right-winger. The fact that you think “history books” will shed light on my correct comments or OP’s confusion just shows the extent of your own confusion.

So, how do you feel about “Freemen on the Land,” octopus?

ETA: Oh, BTW: Would I be correct that in your humble opinion, abortion, not mentioned in the Constitution, is not a fundamental right?

Freemen on the land are nuts. There is a social contract and all that. And we have a functioning and imho, legitimate government.

Abortion? Fundamental right? That’s debatable. Is a fetus a human? Should the protection of fundamental rights extend to the unborn?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@octopus

Should the protection of fundamental rights extend to the unborn?

Not at the expense of denying fundamental rights to the indisputable human being involved.

Anyway, the thread-bumper made me chuckle, ignoring as he did the attack on Fort Sumter. Had the confederacy won (or at least survived), I don’t doubt that attack would be celebrated as the glorious first battle.

Since they lost, it’s instead “Fort Sumter? What’s a Fort Sumter? Never heard of it.”

[cochrane]

@andros

Thank for sharing. Bye.
.

@Bullitt

That was uncalled for.

Thanks for sharing. Bye.

[septimus]

@octopus

… Abortion? Fundamental right? That’s debatable. Is a fetus a human? Should the protection of fundamental rights extend to the unborn?

How about the right to a gun? The right to trial by jury? The right for the rich to subvert democracy?

I’m trying to understand how people like you think. Note that 230-year old opinions are of little relevance here: I just wonder whether the concept of “natural rights” has some real basis in logic, science, general history or religion … or is just mindless right-wing prattle.

[dropzone]

sigh I miss some of those people. Not Libertarian/Liberal/whatever he calls himself now (Fungy-Phipps?), but a lot of them.

[silenus]

@septimus

I’m trying to understand how people like you think. Note that 230-year old opinions are of little relevance here: I just wonder whether the concept of “natural rights” has some real basis in logic, science, general history or religion … or is just mindless right-wing prattle.

Right there is your problem. They don’t.

[opinionator]

I agree with the concept that rights are not granted by the Constitution, that they are instead inalienable, natural rights. But with this being the case, wouldn’t that also mean that they apply to those who are not citizens? I would think so. Just something for the torture advocates to consider.

[Northern_Piper]

I have a question for those who say that rights are not granted by the Constitution, but merely recognised.

How do you handle amendments?

The right to own slaves was recognised and protected by the Constitution. Does that mean that the right to own slaves is a natural law right? If not, then doesn’t that mean that up until the 13th amendment, the Constitution granted a right that wasn’t an example of natural law? Or, does that mean that the 13th Amendment is contrary to natural law?

And what about suffrage rights? Black people, women, and those under 21 could not vote under the Constitution as originally enacted; in fact, Dred Scott held that states could not give rights to black people, because they were inherently not equal to white people. So does that mean that it is a principle of natural law that only white men, aged 21 and over, have a right to vote? Or was the Constitution flawed and subsequent amendments now recognise the right of black people, women, and people between 18 and 21 to vote, so that is a natural law right? Or, are those amendments contrary to natural law?