California gun-control laws cut flow
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
That supports the idea that the law stems from the need to protect rights, and therefore the law is subsequent.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is how you fail. you and every other yellow bellied coward. Your rights can only be ultimately enforced by your strength of will. If the 'state' decides to infringe or deny you your rights, you have two choices. enforce your rights or let them be denied. for far too long you idiots have let yourselves be led in to the mindset that only violent criminals act against the state, when in reality it's been the opposite. That the state reacts violently to you exercising your rights. wake the fuck up.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
They do exist in the first instance, thus, in order to better safeguard them, we institute laws and government institutions. All these stem from the need to PROTECT, not GRANT rights.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there is nothing you can say to convince me of a fact that doesn't exist. a human being has rights. If a government denies you that right, it doesn't mean that the right still doesn't exist, just that it's being denied to you. only YOU can enforce your rights.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Proof is required in order to for something to be a fact. You have no proof.
Our founding fathers believed rights are endowed by the Creator, a belief that I share.
You can believe what you wish; but that's not what happened. Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Madison's role is overplayed as well, considering that the USC looks nothing like his silly Virginia Plan, and a LOT like Adams' Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and essay "Thoughts on Government," as well as ideas communicated in his 1st Volume of A Defense of Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.
That is not correct. James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights ratified by the several states. His concept of a constitutional republic was what was adopted - Jeffersonian democracy was rejected - in favor of the rule of law.
The problem with the idea of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words “inherent” and “unalienable” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.
The problem with the idea of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words “inherent” and “unalienable” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Our Congress is bicameral, and it is only the lower chamber that is proportional. Just one of many ways in which Madison's ideas were rejected. Yes, he basically gets credit for drafting the Bill of Rights, but his activity during the Convention didn't really translate into victories for his ideology. Most historians accept that Madison and Jefferson essentially agreed about how the Constitution should be written, and that the Virginia Plan essentially represents both of their thoughts. Jefferson was every bit as much of a republicn as Madison, so I don't know where you're getting that Jefferson was for direct democracy. In his own words "We are all federalists, we are all republicans." Jefferson was a serial hypocrite and a lousy politician, though.
It’s obvious that all of you do not agree with me; and there is no point in argument. So, in parting, I shall say only this: You will learn for yourselves the true nature of your rights when you need enforce them. You had better have some legal basis for your claim - quoting John Locke will get you nowhere in court. The rights given you by your Creator (as your “birthright”) are only good in heaven; and you will have to wait a long time to have your case heard by that high tribunal. In this world - in the real world - one need have recourse to the law.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
G
