The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on February 01, 2014, 12:57:19 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024424823
Oh my.
cherokeeprogressive (17,140 posts) Sat Feb 1, 2014, 01:35 AM
Does the Bill of Rights CONFER rights to American Citizens?
Or does it PROHIBIT the Federal Government from violating rights believed to already exist?
First Amendment: "shall make no law, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech.
Second Amendment: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (my interpretation of this is "state of being"), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment: "No Soldier shall"
Fourth Amendment: "shall not be violated"
Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment: "shall enjoy the right"... This was later adjudicated to mean the right already existed.
Seventh Amendment: "...no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States..."
Eighth Amendment: "shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." HATE this one... this one empowers the state governments over the FEDERAL government.
linuxman (31 posts) Sat Feb 1, 2014, 01:52 AM
1. Rights are natural and preexisting...
The FFs didn't create these rights. They simply put them to paper and highlighted the fact that those rights were not to be stepped on by governments.
The BORs specifies rights which exist for the people. The idea that the government created or granted those rights is false.* I actually find it quite interesting that so many of our amendments which were written into law after the constitution's initial phase DON'T deal with individual, personal rights.
*tell that to your fellow primitives, though, who think that the government is the source of our freedoms and liberties.
Yeah, they do. The primitives actually believe that.
-
It is as clear as can be that the Founders saw government as an infringer of rights and did all they could to limit its ability to do that yet also maintain an organized and civil society.
They would recoil in revulsion to see DUmbasses twist their concepts into making wishes and desires "rights" and then demanding the government provide them while extracting the means of that by force from another person.
-
I had to slog over to the island as primitives discussing the Constitution is usually as amusing as them discussing economics.
They seem to be avoiding the topic though given the Constitutions own words were used and hard to argue with but one gives it the college try.
Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)
Sat Feb 1, 2014, 02:20 AM
MFrohike (806 posts)
8. Confers
It's pointless quibbling to talk about rights in a vacuum. They don't exist, as a practical matter, without the means, and political will, to enforce them.
As for the word shall, it's a bit silly to read that much into it. Shall and shall not were likely borrowed from the Ten Commandments and would not have been thought to signal some pre-existing status of rights. They were used because shall and shall not are strong words of action in English. They're still used in legal drafting to signal imperative duties and limits in statutes, regulations, etc
:mental:
-
MFrohike (806 posts)
8. Confers
It's pointless quibbling to talk about rights in a vacuum. They don't exist, as a practical matter, without the means, and political will, to enforce them.
As for the word shall, it's a bit silly to read that much into it. Shall and shall not were likely borrowed from the Ten Commandments and would not have been thought to signal some pre-existing status of rights. They were used because shall and shall not are strong words of action in English. They're still used in legal drafting to signal imperative duties and limits in statutes, regulations, etc No, .....really?
yeeeesh........... :whatever: The (D)Ullard is twisting hisself for some reason, but I can't tell what it is.
"......would not have been thought to signal some pre-existing status of rights...."
Yeah, I give.
-
Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #3)Sat Feb 1, 2014, 02:07 AM
linuxman (32 posts)
6. That's kind of my point.
No rights were created. Rights were enumerated in a "Government cannot" list, not a "Citizens can" list.
Some of these DUmmies are starting to stumble into the truth and that spells trouble for the democrat party. "Constitutional scholar" Barry needs to "explain" the BOR to them and get them back on the plantation, pronto.
-
Primitives discussing the constitution, the Bible, or economics are all areas that are way over their heads.
They hate scripture, they hate the constitution, and only discuss either if they can somehow twist the meaning and try to appear clever when arguing against repukes. They have knowledge of both, but no understanding of either.
-
Primitives discussing the constitution, the Bible, or economics are all areas that are way over their heads.
It's like dogs discussing astronomy...totally beyond their comprehension, aside from a certain shared impulse to bay at the moon.
CherokeeProgressive has an awful lot of lucid moments to be a genuine primitive, I have to say.
-
yeeeesh........... :whatever: The (D)Ullard is twisting hisself for some reason, but I can't tell what it is.
"......would not have been thought to signal some pre-existing status of rights...."
Yeah, I give.
So if rights are conferred by the government then this surely means they can be revoked by the same. Sure that's a path you want to go down, DUmmy?
-
Just for the DUmmies.
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.
-
It's like dogs discussing astronomy...totally beyond their comprehension, aside from a certain shared impulse to bay at the moon.
CherokeeProgressive has an awful lot of lucid moments to be a genuine primitive, I have to say.
So, what you're saying is . . . CP told 'em that "the Moon is a long way away," rhetorically . . . ? :tongue:
-
I like discussing writings I've never read with people that have never read them either. :-)
-
I'm surprised PhDD hasn't chimed in, to school her fellow proglodytes on the lessons in liberty she learned here at CC.
OK, I'm not really surprised.
-
The primitives are just 'warming up' for after the 2014 elections. Up until The One was christened king of America, the primitives were all about 'rights' , especially rights that allowed them to speak out against Chimpy McCokespoon, 'lil boots, Bushitler, and all the other names they called GWB on a fairly regular basis.
After The One ascended to his throne, they were all ready to toss out The Constitution.
-
The primitives are just 'warming up' for after the 2014 elections. Up until The One was christened king of America, the primitives were all about 'rights' , especially rights that allowed them to speak out against Chimpy McCokespoon, 'lil boots, Bushitler, and all the other names they called GWB on a fairly regular basis.
After The One ascended to his throne, they were all ready to toss out The Constitution.
Ain't that the truth.