• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.

The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.

the majority could indeed use the Amendment process to change anything in the Constitution and that includes a right that is now enjoyed.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

the majority could indeed use the Amendment process to change anything in the Constitution and that includes a right that is now enjoyed.

then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?

for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.

rights are recognized by the constitution, they are not created by the constitution, so changing the constitution, ..............does not remove the recognized right.


James Madison--We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
Last edited:
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.

The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.

What rights exactly are you suggesting those who wrote the constitution "Created"?
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?

for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.

Well, I do believe Haymarket wasn't suggesting the creation of a right, but rather the removal of one.

Now, where Haymarket and I differ is in terms of the types of rights there are. But for the sake of this conversation I'll note my view that there are NATURAL rights and there are SOCIETAL rights.

Natural Rights are broad, exist but are not protected sans a social contract, and can never be fully taken away short of death. Societal Rights are simply agreed upon limitations or constructs within the social construct, often built upon or around a natural right, and can never be made permanent.

So you can't take away (or give) a "natural" right, they're just there. So we'll talk of societal rights.

A perfect example of the constitution taking away a societal right would be the 18th amendment, which placed limitations on the rights people had in terms of what they wished to embibe or produce.

A perfect example of the constitution establishing a societal right would be the 14th amendment, establishing that people had the right under the social contract to equal protection under the law.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Well, I do believe Haymarket wasn't suggesting the creation of a right, but rather the removal of one.

Now, where Haymarket and I differ is in terms of the types of rights there are. But for the sake of this conversation I'll note my view that there are NATURAL rights and there are SOCIETAL rights.

Natural Rights are broad, exist but are not protected sans a social contract, and can never be fully taken away short of death. Societal Rights are simply agreed upon limitations or constructs within the social construct, often built upon or around a natural right, and can never be made permanent.

So you can't take away (or give) a "natural" right, they're just there. So we'll talk of societal rights.

A perfect example of the constitution taking away a societal right would be the 18th amendment, which placed limitations on the rights people had in terms of what they wished to embibe or produce.

A perfect example of the constitution establishing a societal right would be the 14th amendment, establishing that people had the right under the social contract to equal protection under the law.

you cannot remove a right....because the bill of rights does not give any right......the bill of rights are a restriction placed on the federal government [ this from the bill of rights preamble]

the 14th speaks to government, it does not give any rights.

it Incorporated the bill of rights, to apply to the states......which it did not before the civil war
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?

for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.

rights are recognized by the constitution, they are not created by the constitution, so changing the constitution, ..............does not remove the recognized right.


James Madison--We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

All that is wrong since Article V clearly places no such limit on what can be in any Constitutional Amendment.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

All that is wrong since Article V clearly places no such limit on what can be in any Constitutional Amendment.

as stated, the constitution does not grant any right........so how can you take from something which does not give in the first place?
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

What rights exactly are you suggesting those who wrote the constitution "Created"?

He didn't say they created a right. The reality is that persons in a position to weld power dictate what others can and cannot do. Laws do that. So that sense, the right came from those who wrote the Constitution.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

She didn't say they created a right. The reality is that persons in a position to weld power dictate what others can and cannot do. Laws do that. So that sense, the right came from those who wrote the Constitution.

incorrect......the constitution grants no rights......it only recognizes rights......

congress cannot create and vote on giving the people rights.........it would violate federal law.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

as stated, the constitution does not grant any right........so how can you take from something which does not give in the first place?

Please go back and read my post and read the one from Zyphlin. What I stated was that any part of the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process as outlined in Article V and that includes anything in the Constitution including previous Amendments.

Let us look at a very clear and easy to understand example. The Fifth Amendment states that no person can be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. If the American people became fed up with a series of high profile defendants beating what they felt were justifiable murder charges in trials where they refused to testify, they could go through the amendment process and remove that language from the Fifth thereby changing the rules and procedures where a defendant could indeed be compelled to take the stand in their own case.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Please go back and read my post and read the one from Zyphlin. What I stated was that any part of the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process as outlined in Article V and that includes anything in the Constitution including previous Amendments.

Let us look at a very clear and easy to understand example. The Fifth Amendment states that no person can be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. If the American people became fed up with a series of high profile defendants beating what they felt were justifiable murder charges in trials where they refused to testify, they could go through the amendment process and remove that language from the Fifth thereby changing the rules and procedures where a defendant could indeed be compelled to take the stand in their own case.


sorry wrong, the 5th is not a right........its a restriction........

what the amendment process would be doing would be to remove a restriction placed on the federal government.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

incorrect......the constitution grants no rights......it only recognizes rights......

congress cannot create and vote on giving the people rights.........it would violate federal law.

And I disagree with you. Practically speaking a person doesn't have a right that they are restricted from exercising. And persons with power determine what can and cannot be done. One way this is done is through laws. The Constitution of the United States is one such law.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

No, liberals don't actually support liberty. I have never seen a liberal support any sort of hint at liberty without government involvement.

Wtf. Sometimes our liberties need defending, you can try it by yourself, but you may at times just need the resources of the government.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

And I disagree with you. Practically speaking a person doesn't have a right that they are restricted from exercising. And persons with power determine what can and cannot be done. One way this is done is through laws. The Constitution of the United States is one such law.

the Constitution is supreme law, and no law is higher.....no federal law can override constitutional law.

federal laws cannot make rights.

federal laws can create privileges, but not rights.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Democrats kiss their butts because they want their vote and would say or do anything to get that....

Your statement reminds me of Romney when he ran in 2012.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Because democrats are only interested in government power.

You do realize that one of the biggest periods of growth in government power was during 43's presidency.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

you cannot remove a right....because the bill of rights does not give any right......the bill of rights are a restriction placed on the federal government [ this from the bill of rights preamble]

You cannot remove (or create) a natural right.

You can RESTRICT a natural right or define a method in which to more narrowly utilize a natural right, which essentially removes or creates a societal right.

There is no natural right to "Vote". Rather, voting is a societal right created by restricting the natural right of choice into a narrow and orderly construct.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

You cannot remove (or create) a natural right.

You can RESTRICT a natural right or define a method in which to more narrowly utilize a natural right, which essentially removes or creates a societal right.

There is no natural right to "Vote". Rather, voting is a societal right created by restricting the natural right of choice into a narrow and orderly construct.

rights can be curtailed, if you violate law.

the right to vote, was recognized by the court.......not congress.....the founders did not state a right to vote existed......to the founders voting was a privilege.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

As far as the republican party "dying out", I can't imagine a scenario that would account for vested interests abandoning the vehicle through which they maintain economic power. Some of the details of the message may shift in order to continue to have enough influence to maintain economic policy, but money is power, and people with loads of the stuff will find ways to ensure they can contunue making policies that ensure they can make more.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

the Constitution is supreme law, and no law is higher.....no federal law can override constitutional law.

federal laws cannot make rights.

federal laws can create privileges, but not rights.

Well there's the problem...

The reality is that right and privlege can be synonyms depending on how they are used. A privledge is simply a right granted to a certain group or person.

By definition, a legal entitlement can be declared a "right". "Right" is used as such in common vernacular. Whlie people can stamp their feet and go "no no no, that's not correct", being obstinent to reality doesn't really change reality.

All you're basically doing is arguing a symantics game.

Even more so as it relates to me, whose even establishing a distinctive and testable difference between what is a "Natural" right and what is a "Societal" right. A societal right could absolutely be thought of as a privledge as well. However I would personally not call them a privledge becuase of the implication in the two words.

For my own views, a societal right is one that, based on the laws of the society, is assumed to be gauranteed to you simply for being a part of said society (so long as that society still is in working order). While the law can futher restrict it, you GAIN that right simply for being a part of the society.

A privledge, meanwhile, would be something that is given to people within a society if they meet certain criteria and come with known and laid out strings attached. You don't get a privledge simply for being a part of society, but based through those additional actions.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

The thing that get's me about most conservatives is that they make a big deal about fiscal responsibility, but then they are willing to spend to high heaven making war around the world. Some of them seem to have never seen a war they don't like.

BTW, Ronald Reagan ran up very large deficits. He was famously criticized by then presidential candidate George H. W. Bush for his policy of increasing military spending while at the same time reducing taxes. Bush, the Father, called it "voodoo economics".

Maggie! Reagan tripled the ND and Bush 43 doubled it. Both parties are guilty of this and so many other problems, singling out one is very partisan.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

The Republican party has been dying out for the last decade. I suspect, however, that they will evolve, probably drop their activist right-wing social agenda and will probably become viable again. Unless they do this, kick the right-wing nuts out the door and focus on becoming more like the Goldwater fiscally conservative party, they are history.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

the Constitution is supreme law, and no law is higher.....no federal law can override constitutional law.

federal laws cannot make rights.

federal laws can create privileges, but not rights.

What was said is that the right came from the persons who wrote the Constitution and I think that is a correct statement. Because persons in a position to write laws that are enforced through the threat or application of various forms of coercion and are in general followed by a group of persons, the persons writing the laws can restrict rights. When a right is restricted, the persons who are restricted, practically speaking, don't have the right. Therefore the right, in a practical sense, comes from the persons writing the laws, in this case the Constitution.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Lazy, gay, Kardashian-obsessed, entitled pot smokers.

Yep, that pretty much sums up America's youth and the Democratic party.

It's also why outsourcing labor is so damn necessary.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Well there's the problem...

The reality is that right and privlege can be synonyms depending on how they are used. A privledge is simply a right granted to a certain group or person.

By definition, a legal entitlement can be declared a "right". "Right" is used as such in common vernacular. Whlie people can stamp their feet and go "no no no, that's not correct", being obstinent to reality doesn't really change reality.

All you're basically doing is arguing a symantics game.

Even more so as it relates to me, whose even establishing a distinctive and testable difference between what is a "Natural" right and what is a "Societal" right. A societal right could absolutely be thought of as a privledge as well. However I would personally not call them a privledge becuase of the implication in the two words.

For my own views, a societal right is one that, based on the laws of the society, is assumed to be gauranteed to you simply for being a part of said society (so long as that society still is in working order). While the law can futher restrict it, you GAIN that right simply for being a part of the society.

A privledge, meanwhile, would be something that is given to people within a society if they meet certain criteria and come with known and laid out strings attached. You don't get a privledge simply for being a part of society, but based through those additional actions.


i agree with many of things you stated..

a privilege requires a higher power to act.

a right does not require a higher power to act.

a privilege can be taken away by the power who granted that privilege.

rights are not granted, and no human has the power to take it.....[meaning inside the law]

the constitution recognizes rights, and privileges and immunities.

civil rights...fall under privileges and immunities.

the 14th amendment.[which was written for the slave population only...1873 ussc case][changed to include every citizen in the 20th century]which ever one calls the civil rights amendment...states to governments that they recognizes rights, and that they provide privileges and immunities to everyone.

as you stated some privileges have strings attached to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom