• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

Duh-but what you don't understand is that I am not arguing as to their existence but as to the FACT that those who wrote the constitution PRESUMED THEY DID EXIST

It matters not what they believed in be it GOD or natural rights or the Easter Bunny. If what they believed in is false or at best cannot be proven, it is irrelevant because something cannot come from nothing. In the end, if rights DO NOT come from GOD or natural law or the easter bunny we still have those rights as coming from the Constitution as expressed through the will of the people.

The belief in a fiction - even a popular one - is irrelevant in offering any proof that someone who does not believe in it was wrong.
 
uh yet the rich spend as much time promoting far left nonsense as they do right wing hackery

but your point has no relevance to the point you quoted

as to your other post (619) remind me of your education in constitutional law. that post of yours clearly demonstrates you really have no understanding of the concept of natural law and natural rights and those concepts importance in the foundation supporting the US Constitution
Show me God and the Commons and we'll be fine. Until then "natural rights" as you're using them are a fantasy. If the foundations of the philosophy have disappeared then so does the philosophy founded upon them.
 
Last edited:
Show me God and the Commons and we'll be fine. Until then "natural rights" as you're using them are a fantasy. If the foundations of the philosophy have disappeared then so does the philosophy founded upon them.

the issue is what the bill of rights was created for

its obvious you do not know

it was not to Create rights but to recognize rights the founders believed they had

try again
 
you got pwned, that was an error of epic proportions.
So... in TurtleDude's history book, a British invasion of the U.S. precipitated the War of 1812. Well, in Texas, they may just buy it... right next to the chapter that explains how the Earth is only 6,000 years old :2rofll:
 
So... in TurtleDude's history book, a British invasion of the U.S. precipitated the War of 1812. Well, in Texas, they may just buy it... right next to the chapter that explains how the Earth is only 6,000 years old :2rofll:

you'd be better off just finding another thread rather than accentuating your fail

why are you bringing this up again
 
the issue is what the bill of rights was created for

its obvious you do not know

it was not to Create rights but to recognize rights the founders believed they had

try again
Your declaration that our rights are "natural rights" is bogus. By your own admission our rights are nothing more than a recognition of a fiction the Founders had, which was based on their belief in a Celestial Friend and required the existence of a Commons which we no longer have.

You fail.




If the Bill of Rights were critical to the country then they wouldn't be Amendments to the Constitution, they would be in the body of the Constitution itself.
 
Last edited:
Your declaration that our rights are "natural rights" is bogus. By your own admission our rights are nothing more than a recognition of a fiction the Founders had, which was based on their belief in a Celestial Friend and required the existence of a Commons which we no longer have.

You fail.




If the Bill of Rights were critical to the country then they wouldn't be Amendments to the Constitution, they would be in the body of the Constitution itself.

LOL the failure is those who think the intent of the B of R was to GIVE us rights

and your last comment is so stupid I will let you think about it overnight and come back and admit your idiocy in posting that
 
LOL the failure is those who think the intent of the B of R was to GIVE us rights
I've already said the B of R simply recognized a fiction based on Celestial Friends and a non-existent Commons. That doesn't make them "natural rights" as you claimed.
 
you'd be better off just finding another thread rather than accentuating your fail

why are you bringing this up again
Because you did. Are you unable to follow the thread? (altho I will admit you have your hands full with the 'natural rights' crowd)

So, any nibbles from the Texas State Board of Education yet? If it hasn't gone to the printers yet, you can add a chapter how the American Indians invaded the North American continent after the U.S. was already established (after all, they were in cahoots with the British during that country's 1812 invasion of America) :2razz:
 
Last edited:
I've already said the B of R simply recognized a fiction based on Celestial Friends and a non-existent Commons. That doesn't make them "natural rights" as you claimed.

At the start of this discussion last night I asked one very clear and direct question: Where do your Constitutional rights come from? It is a simple question. Turtle stated that they came from natural law and natural rights.

Another simple question: how can something that is real be created and empowered by something which is not real?

Another question: people all over the world in 200 different nations have rights. Did their rights come from the same natural law that some of our Founders believed in?

A person - even a Founder - can BELIEVE in anything they want to believe in. Faith works like that. They can then take those beliefs and integrate them into their own thinking process and help them formulate ideas about all kinds of things. What the shape of government should be can be one of those things. The rights people should have could be one of those things.

The faith or belief does not produce any rights no matter how many people believe in them. What produces the right is that enough people come to an agreement on the need for a certain behavior to be elevated to a right. Those same people then exert power or force compelling the government of the nation to officially place that behavior as a right into the legal system of that same nation. In our case it becomes part of our Constitution.
 
Last edited:
At the start of this discussion last night I asked one very clear and direct question: Where do your Constitutional rights come from? It is a simple question. Turtle stated that they came from natural law and natural rights.

Another simple question: how can something that is real be created and empowered by something which is not real?

Another question: people all over the world in 200 different nations have rights. Did their rights come from the same natural law that some of our Founders believed in?

A person - even a Founder - can BELIEVE in anything they want to believe in. Faith works like that. They can then take those beliefs and integrate them into their own thinking process and help them formulate ideas about all kinds of things. What the shape of government should be can be one of those things. The rights people should have could be one of those things.

The faith or belief does not produce any rights no matter how many people believe in them. What produces the right is that enough people come to an agreement on the need for a certain behavior to be elevated to a right. Those same people then exert power or force compelling the government of the nation to officially place that behavior as a right into the legal system of that same nation. In our case it becomes part of our Constitution.
I am not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this because it is not really all that complicated. So I will give it one final shot: Your question "Where do your Constitutional rights come from?" is answered by saying that the Founders believed rights were 'self evident' and endowed upon man by his Creator. To secure these rights, they established the Constitution. Like it or not, the laws of this nation are based upon that premise. They established a political framework to secure a moral principle; namely, rights.

Now, if you believe there are no inherent rights, you are free to do so, but that does not change the fact that the laws of this land are based upon their existence.
 
A small correction

Fletch wrote
Now, if you believe there are no inherent rights, you are free to do so, but that does not change the fact that the laws of this land are based upon their existence.


There is no "fact" here, some of the Founders held such a belief but beliefs do not make 'facts'. There is also the problem of understanding our ancestors' thinking on such philosophical matters. For the most part, those men who laid the foundations for the USA of today were the 1% of their time and much of their public work was seen by them as a means of providing a more benevolent control over lesser beings. They were far more class conscious than are most of us today; however, part of their class consciousness as a result of Enlightenment thinking was what some might call noblesse oblige - the obligation of the top class to take care of the remainder of the population. The big change that they helped create was to increase the possibility for one of the lower classes rising to the top, which was relatively radical thought when compared to the structure of the previous eras.
 
A small correction




There is no "fact" here, some of the Founders held such a belief but beliefs do not make 'facts'. There is also the problem of understanding our ancestors' thinking on such philosophical matters. For the most part, those men who laid the foundations for the USA of today were the 1% of their time and much of their public work was seen by them as a means of providing a more benevolent control over lesser beings. They were far more class conscious than are most of us today; however, part of their class consciousness as a result of Enlightenment thinking was what some might call noblesse oblige - the obligation of the top class to take care of the remainder of the population. The big change that they helped create was to increase the possibility for one of the lower classes rising to the top, which was relatively radical thought when compared to the structure of the previous eras.
The word "fact" was used in regard to the fact that our founding documents are based upon the existence of natural rights--which is a fact, not that natural rights are a 'fact.'
 
The word "fact" was used in regard to the fact that our founding documents are based upon the existence of natural rights--which is a fact, not that natural rights are a 'fact.'


That is certainly not what your earlier statement claimed.

inherent rights, ... the fact that the laws of this land are based upon their existence.

AND, how can the "existence" of something be a fact, yet the actual object may not be a fact?
 
That is certainly not what your earlier statement claimed.



AND, how can the "existence" of something be a fact, yet the actual object may not be a fact?
The laws of the land are based upon their existence--that is a fact. You can argue that natural rights do or do not exist, but that the Founders believed that they did and erected a Constitution based upon their existence is a fact.
 
The laws of the land are based upon their existence--that is a fact. You can argue that natural rights do or do not exist, but that the Founders believed that they did and erected a Constitution based upon their existence is a fact.


I partially agree, but THAT is not what you originally posted. It is extremely difficult today for us to determine the exact beliefs of those we call the Founders as so much of their public writing was intended to establish the foundation and to propagate those thoughts in a population with little education in Enlightenment philosophy. The Founders may or may not have thought of certain things in the same way we do today, we simply don't know.
 
The word "fact" was used in regard to the fact that our founding documents are based upon the existence of natural rights--which is a fact, not that natural rights are a 'fact.'

The fact that I note is WHAT the constitution was based on. Whether natural rights exist is not at issue nor does a debate on natural rights serve to undermine the additional fact that I am right and Haymarket and others are wrong. My assertion-the Bill of Rights does not GIVE rights is correct based both on the views of those who penned that document and the courts that interpreted it. The assertion that the Amendments created or gave or bestowed rights is an incorrect assertion.

nothing more nothing less
 
The fact that I note is WHAT the constitution was based on. Whether natural rights exist is not at issue nor does a debate on natural rights serve to undermine the additional fact that I am right and Haymarket and others are wrong.
Really???
Nothing quite compares to that other than someone claiming that the SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE us the right to KBA (DUH the amendments merely RECOGNIZE rights)
So who was it that gave you those rights?
natural law, natural rights-look it up
You are plainly saying your rights come from natural law and natural rights - not that the Constitution is based on natural law/natural rights.
 
Last edited:
Really??? You are plainly saying your rights come from natural law and natural rights - not that the Constitution is based on natural law/natural rights.

that is what the founders thought when they penned the constitution and its what the courts noted when they said those rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence
 
I am not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this because it is not really all that complicated. So I will give it one final shot: Your question "Where do your Constitutional rights come from?" is answered by saying that the Founders believed rights were 'self evident' and endowed upon man by his Creator. To secure these rights, they established the Constitution. Like it or not, the laws of this nation are based upon that premise. They established a political framework to secure a moral principle; namely, rights.

Now, if you believe there are no inherent rights, you are free to do so, but that does not change the fact that the laws of this land are based upon their existence.

All you have done is offer an explanation as some of the motivations of the Founders. Motivations - by themselves - do not create anything. They simply help impel one to do things. Faith or a belief creates nothing if it is based on something which does not exist or can be proven to exist.

Today is Sunday morning. All over America and the world people are gathered in religious buildings and profess their faith and belief in a God. If they all concentrated really really really hard at the same coordinated minute and they all poured their faith and belief into enegry to turn it into reality - nothing would happen. A three hundred foot God would to suddenly materialize like the Stay-Puff marshmallow man in GHOSTBUSTERS.

A belief that you have rights - even if in real life you do not have them - does not create any rights or endow you with any. You ain't got what you ain't got pure and simple.

The founders may have believed any damn thing they wanted to believe. But those beliefs did not magically transform into reality through the act of faith or belief. What provided actual real honest to goodness rights for the American people was an agreement among people that they should have certain behaviors as rights and then a forcing of the government to place those desired behavior into law and then they become rights. But until that is done - they are not rights. They are merely hopes and dreams.
 
that is what the founders thought when they penned the constitution and its what the courts noted when they said those rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence

The case you cited simply offers the same expression of faith or belief. It means nothing as evidence for anything we are talking about.

One cannot help but think of the attorney played by John Payne in MIRACLE ON 34th STREET where he gets the court to declare that Santa Claus is a real person.

A court ruling based on faith and belief does not make it so in reality.
 
The case you cited simply offers the same expression of faith or belief. It means nothing as evidence for anything we are talking about.

One cannot help but think of the attorney played by John Payne in MIRACLE ON 34th STREET where he gets the court to declare that Santa Claus is a real person.

A court ruling based on faith and belief does not make it so in reality.

I will try explain this simply to you so you can stop so much diversions

The constitution is based on the premise that people have certain inalienable rights. The constitution merely recognizes those rights: it was not drafted to CREATE THOSE RIGHTS but merely to acknowledge them and then to delegate certain powers that were held by the people and the several states to the newly created federal government

no more no less
 
I will try explain this simply to you so you can stop so much diversions

The constitution is based on the premise that people have certain inalienable rights. The constitution merely recognizes those rights: it was not drafted to CREATE THOSE RIGHTS but merely to acknowledge them and then to delegate certain powers that were held by the people and the several states to the newly created federal government

no more no less

It was a false premise and thus has no relevance here.

If a child believes that Santa Claus brought the shiny new bicycle under the tree and then later discovers that there is no Santa and the parents purchased the bike and placed it under the tree, the bicycle is till there even though what they believed in and thought provided for it is proven to be a lie.

All the Founders lined up around the globe can believe anything they want to believe. And those beliefs translate into nothing by themselves. Those beliefs conferred no rights to any behaviors that they believed were important. It was only through the action of the people in forcing the government to recognize those behaviors and granting them in official recognition as rights that they became rights we had.

YOu cannot have a right to exercise if the government says you don't have it. Pure and simple and all the dilettantes lined up end to end writing fancy essays on parchment cannot change that reality. All the beliefs of all the philosophers and dilettantes cannot change that reality.
 
I will try explain this simply to you so you can stop so much diversions

The constitution is based on the premise that people have certain inalienable rights. The constitution merely recognizes those rights: it was not drafted to CREATE THOSE RIGHTS but merely to acknowledge them and then to delegate certain powers that were held by the people and the several states to the newly created federal government

no more no less
That's a far cry from the philosophical mumbo-jumbo about natural laws/natural rights you were invoking earlier.
 
That's a far cry from the philosophical mumbo-jumbo about natural laws/natural rights you were invoking earlier.

Its called trying to move the goal posts after you missed all your previous attempts at field goals. ;):roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom