Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

It’s stupid to call any right inalienable when a court can take a right away, if a court can sentence someone to death, all rights are alienable.

Someone might kill you, but they cannot make you change your religion or your opinion.
Someone might kill you, but they cannot prevent you from defending yourself and possibly taking them with you.

No matter what happens or how abusive it gets, they cannot take these rights away.
 
There are plenty of things people are allowed to do that are not in contracts. Your example makes no sense. I walk to work some days, but there’s no contract that allows me to do so…

false equivalency. people have rights. governments only have prescribed powers. didn't they teach you that in law school?
 
Someone might kill you, but they cannot make you change your religion or your opinion.
Someone might kill you, but they cannot prevent you from defending yourself and possibly taking them with you.

No matter what happens or how abusive it gets, they cannot take these rights away.

Ok… but when the government kills you, haven’t they taken all those rights? When the government imprisons you have they not taken rights. When a felon can’t vote or own a gun are those rights not alienated?
 
then why did the founders refer to rights as inalienable????
I don’t know, but they are alienable.

The rights are unalienable. The person or group who takes them are immoral if done without just cause. A murderer is the thief of another person's life; most commonly one of the worst crimes in humanity. When a group of lawful people, such as a village, put the murderer on trial they decide prison or death. Yes, in both cases they are taking the murderer's rights, but by taking a life, the murderer opened himself to punishment. How else would we be able to work as a society?

Big difference between putting a person on trial for what they've done and criminalizing what they might do.

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/unalienable-rights-and-why-they-matter/5575563.html
Unalienable rights are considered “inherent in all persons and roughly what we mean today when we say human rights,” said Peter Berkowitz, director of the State Department Policy Planning Staff.
In the Declaration of Independence, America’s founders defined unalienable rights as including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights are considered “inherent in all persons and roughly what we mean today when we say human rights,” said Peter Berkowitz, director of the State Department Policy Planning Staff.

These rights don’t just protect Americans at home but form the basis for a moral foreign policy abroad, said Mr. Berkowitz:

“We took obligations to champion them in 1948 when we led the effort in the United Nations to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There have been presidents from both political parties [who] have championed human rights. And America’s founding commitments involved respect for the dignity that inheres in all human beings.”

A year ago, U.S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo convened the Commission on Unalienable Rights with a specific mandate, said Director Berkowitz:

“Secretary Pompeo asked the members of the Commission to investigate, to reground America’s undoubted commitment to human rights in foreign policy, in America’s founding documents - the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States - in the American Constitutional tradition and also to help us understand America’s undoubted commitment to human rights in light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we signed onto in 1948.”

Unalienable rights directly affect U.S. relations with individual countries, said Director Berkowitz:

“We see it, for example, in Secretary Pompeo’s repeated condemnations of the imprisonment of Muslim Uighurs in Chinese internment camps. We saw it in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan championed the human rights of the dissidents that the Soviet Union had cruelly imprisoned in their gulags. We hear it when the administration takes on the Islamic Republic of Iran, which also represses its own citizens.”

While “human rights are certainly not the totality of American foreign policy,” noted Director Berkowitz, they are “one essential component, one key part of the mix of American foreign policy.”
 
The rights are unalienable. The person or group who takes them are immoral if done without just cause. A murderer is the thief of another person's life; most commonly one of the worst crimes in humanity. When a group of lawful people, such as a village, put the murderer on trial they decide prison or death. Yes, in both cases they are taking the murderer's rights, but by taking a life, the murderer opened himself to punishment. How else would we be able to work as a society?

Big difference between putting a person on trial for what they've done and criminalizing what they might do.

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/unalienable-rights-and-why-they-matter/5575563.html

Either way, justified or not the rights are being alienated.
 
Either way, justified or not the rights are being alienated.

Yes and it's immoral. It's those rights being alienated which is why we have dissension on the US today; both the Democrats and Republicans keep moving towards authoritarianism to alienate human rights because they believe they know what's best for everyone.

Consider the Insurrection; the authoritarian assholes who sought to overthrow our Constitution and impose their own system of government over everyone else. Moral or immoral?
 
Yes and it's immoral. It's those rights being alienated which is why we have dissension on the US today; both the Democrats and Republicans keep moving towards authoritarianism to alienate human rights because they believe they know what's best for everyone.

Consider the Insurrection; the authoritarian assholes who sought to overthrow our Constitution and impose their own system of government over everyone else. Moral or immoral?

So we should not imprison people? Or if we do we should let them carry guns in prison?
 
So we should not imprison people? Or if we do we should let them carry guns in prison?

When one person deprives another person of their rights, then people, as a group, have a right of self-defense to stop the criminal.

Would you prefer execution over prison?

You obviously have a problem with concept of "unalienable" in favor of a philosophy of "Might makes Right", the law of the Jungle. Sure, that works too. Which system do you prefer for yourself and your family?
 
Yes and it's immoral. It's those rights being alienated which is why we have dissension on the US today; both the Democrats and Republicans keep moving towards authoritarianism to alienate human rights because they believe they know what's best for everyone.

Consider the Insurrection; the authoritarian assholes who sought to overthrow our Constitution and impose their own system of government over everyone else. Moral or immoral?

every time you mention the fake insurrection you look like a worm-brained dum dum.

it discredits your whole persona.
 
When one person deprives another person of their rights, then people, as a group, have a right of self-defense to stop the criminal.

Would you prefer execution over prison?

I like the system we have, it needs improvements, I just think its stupid to call these rights inalienable when we alienate people from them every day.
 
every time you mention the fake insurrection you look like a worm-brained dum dum.

it discredits your whole persona.

Every time you regurgitate that shit, I picture you driving an explosive-laden truck to a daycare center where, unbeknownst to you, it will be set off remotely the second you are in position.

tumblr_mg57miuBzv1s2yegdo1_500.gif
 
The rights are unalienable. The person or group who takes them are immoral if done without just cause. A murderer is the thief of another person's life; most commonly one of the worst crimes in humanity. When a group of lawful people, such as a village, put the murderer on trial they decide prison or death. Yes, in both cases they are taking the murderer's rights, but by taking a life, the murderer opened himself to punishment. How else would we be able to work as a society?

Big difference between putting a person on trial for what they've done and criminalizing what they might do.

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/unalienable-rights-and-why-they-matter/5575563.html
what about wrongfully accusing and persecuting vast swaths of the population for political purposes, jan 6 lie-whore?
 
I like the system we have, it needs improvements, I just think its stupid to call these rights inalienable when we alienate people from them every day.

I like it too and agree on improvements. Improvements as being "more freedom, less authoritarianism".

Obviously you think people don't have inherent rights and that we only have the rights the Democrats offer us. That's been your point this entire thread.
 
Back
Top