The Left Vs. God-Given Rights

[GBFan]

There are no God-given rights, no natural, inherent or unalienable rights, no imprescriptible rights. There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That’s the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.

You have it reversed ... laws are created by the application of rights, not vice versa. Laws which violate our inherent rights are an overreach by the government, and must be opposed at every turn.

 

[Richard Savage]

The problem with the concept 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. 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 need 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. Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law. As Bentham put it: "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).

 

[cashmcall]

I think it all boils down to, Just how far men are willing to go to protect what they CONSIDER to be their inherent/unalienable rights..

 

[cashmcall]

There are no God-given rights, no natural, inherent or unalienable rights, no imprescriptible rights. There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That’s the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.

You get used to it.. things are changing.. you have to see that..

 

[Richard Savage]

No, it's you who needs to get used to change.

Yes, times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups (people like you) to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

 

[cashmcall]

No, it's you who needs to get used to change.

Yes, times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups (people like you) to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

Oh yea, they would be utterly astonished, just not in the way you think.. You can see what's coming, people are fed- up. With the right judges look out.. So you truly believe we are the ones trying to rewrite history?

 

[GBFan]

No, it's you who needs to get used to change.

Yes, times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups (people like you) to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

Again, you scratch at the surface, and ignore the depth. Do you seriously question that the Constitution was built on the ideals as espoused in the Declaration of Independence? Do you NOT believe that the Constitution was constructed to recognize, honor, and protect those inalienable rights?

You spoke of the 'problem' with inalienable/natural rights to be that they are 'egocentric'. And, you're right ... and that's exactly what they are supposed to be. It is the individual that is of primary importance - not the collectively constructed government. Had you done a little more research, you would have recognized that the 'nation of laws' you so highly tout is, in fact, answerable to the individuals. If the law is not acceptable to the citizens, it must be changed.

It is this very loss of individualism, that you so clearly ridicule, that has allowed the violation of our fundamental principles. It is this very loss of individualism that has created a government who honestly believes they are in charge of the people, rather than the other way around. It is this very loss of individualism that has created a political class who believe they know better than everyone else, and should be allowed to benignly rule the 'ignorant peasants'.

I will adamantly disagree that democracy has changed - what has changed is the application of democracy. The laws established by the framers of the Constitution have been so bastardized they are virtually unrecognizable. The constant chipping away at our fundamental freedoms by those who seek personal gain has gone virtually unchecked for the last 75 years. Our current government blatantly ignores those fundamental rights, instead choosing a model of equivocal rights that is both convenient and malleable.

I don't think there's much question that the American people are awakening to what has happened. I also don't think there's much question that those in power today will not relinquish that power voluntarily. The combination, I fear, will lead to rebellion. It will be a long and ugly struggle, not fought on battlefields, but a rebellion of ideas, of philosophies, and a struggle to see who shall rule who. Everyday, one army gains troops - everyday, one army loses them. You need to choose up sides.

 

[cashmcall]

Again, you scratch at the surface, and ignore the depth. Do you seriously question that the Constitution was built on the ideals as espoused in the Declaration of Independence? Do you NOT believe that the Constitution was constructed to recognize, honor, and protect those inalienable rights?

You spoke of the 'problem' with inalienable/natural rights to be that they are 'egocentric'. And, you're right ... and that's exactly what they are supposed to be. It is the individual that is of primary importance - not the collectively constructed government. Had you done a little more research, you would have recognized that the 'nation of laws' you so highly tout is, in fact, answerable to the individuals. If the law is not acceptable to the citizens, it must be changed.

It is this very loss of individualism, that you so clearly ridicule, that has allowed the violation of our fundamental principles. It is this very loss of individualism that has created a government who honestly believes they are in charge of the people, rather than the other way around. It is this very loss of individualism that has created a political class who believe they know better than everyone else, and should be allowed to benignly rule the 'ignorant peasants'.

I will adamantly disagree that democracy has changed - what has changed is the application of democracy. The laws established by the framers of the Constitution have been so bastardized they are virtually unrecognizable. The constant chipping away at our fundamental freedoms by those who seek personal gain has gone virtually unchecked for the last 75 years. Our current government blatantly ignores those fundamental rights, instead choosing a model of equivocal rights that is both convenient and malleable.

I don't think there's much question that the American people are awakening to what has happened. I also don't think there's much question that those in power today will not relinquish that power voluntarily. The combination, I fear, will lead to rebellion. It will be a long and ugly struggle, not fought on battlefields, but a rebellion of ideas, of philosophies, and a struggle to see who shall rule who. Everyday, one army gains troops - everyday, one army loses them. You need to choose up sides.

Very well said sir, but I refuse to go thru that much trouble..

 

[Richard Savage]

The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. The Cato Institute, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Preface, p. 2 (2002). This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record. The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural viz., "unalienable" rights. (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.) Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans that think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution; and yet people persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer. Then they claim their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed. Indeed, such persons are the first to complain that "there ought’a be a law!" Well, the truth is that there is. Then they realize that 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. Then they shall see the supremacy of the law; and that in its sway rests the security of their individual rights and liberty.

 

[dogtowner]

The left has been gloming on the Declaration as well most recently for samesex.marriage.
And I agree that it has no standing in law but was just what it claimed to be, notice to England that we were checking out of the empire.

 

[Richard Savage]

There is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage.

Marriage is a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942) ("Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders").

 

[Iolo2]

The American Constitution was written in the interests of a slave-owning aristocracy who didn't want to pay for their defence against the French and their Native-American allies once they felt safe. What has it to do with imagined gods or peoples? It now serves the very rich in much the same way. How daft can you weirdoes get?

 

[GBFan]

The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. The Cato Institute, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Preface, p. 2 (2002). This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record. The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural viz., "unalienable" rights. (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.) Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans that think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution; and yet people persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer. Then they claim their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed. Indeed, such persons are the first to complain that "there ought’a be a law!" Well, the truth is that there is. Then they realize that 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. Then they shall see the supremacy of the law; and that in its sway rests the security of their individual rights and liberty.

Where I come from, they have a term for this ... it's called 'weaseling'.

Clearly, you are getting your information from a single perspective - one that is convenient to what you wish to say.

But, I will take a single instance to prove you wrong ..

"... the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law."

You have missed the whole concept. The purpose of laws is not to dictate your rights, but to define the manner in which those rights may be exercised. There is not a single right denied by the Constitution. However, there are several laws that define the way in which you seek 'life, liberty, ....".

Let me be, apparently, the first to educate you. You are allowed to do anything - absolutely anything - in this world that you desire ... providing, of course, that when you do it, you do not interfere with the rights of others. The popular colloquialism "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" exactly captures the intent, and content, of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Think of it this way .... you live in a box ... inside that box, you can do whatever you damn well please ... as long as what you do doesn't affect my box.

The government was intended to manage the interfaces between those boxes ... where collisions would inevitably occur, the government was supposed to determine a fair and equitable solution ... not a winner, but a compromise.

That is the INTENT ... it has been subverted by people who believe they know better, and people who believe that they somehow have license to impose their perception of right on others ... people like you, frankly. We have a whole political class who believe they know better, and that "the citizenry should just shut up and do what they're told, because after all, we know best, and we have their best interests in mind."

You are seeing the people wake up and realize just how far into their box you've gotten, and they are starting to push back. The Tea Party is an example of that ... just as the Posse Commitatus movement is a more extremist view; not in intent, but in methodology. There are those of us standing up and yelling ... "Stay the hell out of my box."

It will be a long and drawn-out battle ... but, in the end, the people will win.

 

[GBFan]

The American Constitution was written in the interests of a slave-owning aristocracy who didn't want to pay for their defence against the French and their Native-American allies once they felt safe. What has it to do with imagined gods or peoples? It now serves the very rich in much the same way. How daft can you weirdoes get?

When lacking any other cogent argument, let's draw this one out ... "obviously, the whole concept of American democracy is flawed since it was written by a bunch of rich, white, slave-owners."

Simple answers for simple minds, I guess ...

 

[Iolo2]

When lacking any other cogent argument, let's draw this one out ... "obviously, the whole concept of American democracy is flawed since it was written by a bunch of rich, white, slave-owners."

Simple answers for simple minds, I guess ...

Slavish answers for slavish yanks, I guess.