• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are rights objectively real?

Cephus said:
Then you're starting to get into thought crime territory and that's dangerous. I don't care what anyone believes, no matter how idiotic it might be. What I do care about is whether or not they can defend it rationally and with objective evidence. If they can't, and we know that for a lot of these people they are simply incapable because their positions are devoid of reason, then they deserve every bit of derision that their ridiculous positions earn them. They get what they earn and the whole point of giving them what they earn is to teach them not to be so stupid in the future. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people, and we're not just talking about libertarians here, who just don't get that lesson. They are more emotionally attached to their beliefs than they are to reality. They lack the ability to step back and examine their beliefs from a critical and rational perspective. They care more about how their beliefs make them feel than whether or not their beliefs are actually so. And that brand of irrational thought is toxic, not only to the individual, but to larger society as social and political ideologies based on emotion percolate through the people and convince them to stop thinking intellectually about the things they get into their heads if it makes them feel good. That's why we still have things like religion. People are stupid.
Click to expand...

Of course you are correct and that is path we should NOT venture down as a free society. The logical end place for such tactics is relocation and education camps like in totalitarian nations and nobody wants that.

Having said that- I do feel that right libertarianism is a threat to the health of the body politic as it can encourage and produce thinking that is anti-society and harmful if they ever manage to convince enough people to implement their policies.
 
haymarket said:
Of course you are correct and that is path we should NOT venture down as a free society. The logical end place for such tactics is relocation and education camps like in totalitarian nations and nobody wants that.

Having said that- I do feel that right libertarianism is a threat to the health of the body politic as it can encourage and produce thinking that is anti-society and harmful if they ever manage to convince enough people to implement their policies.
Click to expand...

But nobody in their right mind takes those ideas seriously. You've got a very small percentage of nutballs with a quasi-religious faith in natural rights and a ton more people who only call themselves libertarians because they want to get high or because they're pissed off at the Republicans. That's why they can't even get 1% of the vote in the Presidential elections. Nobody takes them seriously.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You have never heard of suffrage have you? AT first in the US only white male property owners had a right to vote. ANd they only had a right to vote because the States said said so. Women didnt have a right to vote for a very long time until the Nineteenth Amendment. Before 1965 many minorities still could not vote.

History says that you are wrong.
Click to expand...



the constitution of the u.s. did not delegate powers of who votes to the federal government, that power remained in state hands.

state governments created the laws for voting, not the federal government, and even whites who did not meet the Qualifications requisite could not vote.

voting was a privilege per the constitution of the founders, not a right, the USSC recognized it as a right per the 14th amendment to the constitution, however states continued to make laws barring minorities and women from voting and these battles were fought in the court system until they were able to vote.

the courts don't make laws.

the constitution is about powers, it delegates certain limited powers the federal government, and it denies them from creating certain laws.

all other powers remained the powers of the states.

no iam not wrong.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
OK, I am probably as culpable as anyone for bringing god into this so, let's take religion off the table. If we all agree that religion is out of bounds for the discussion and will not be shoehorned in at any point then we can all drop the 'divine' part. Agreed?
Click to expand...

that was a personal note to him, because of past discussions he and i have had.
 
haymarket said:
You re making stuff up out of your own imagination.



FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in five different parts of the US Constitution, the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it is used and the right is given to Americans. This proves you wrong. Government and the Constitution do indeed create rights and this is a perfect example.

There was no right to vote for the people given the right and thus nothing could be recognized that previously existed. The right to vote for these people was invented and created by the Constitution.

This example - five of them in fact - proves your theory and your analysis completely 100% wrong.
Click to expand...


no you need to understand law, and the constitution before you speak!



The 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution prohibit the government from denying the right to vote to any U.S. citizen on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” or sex. Other than those prohibitions, however, the Constitution gives States the power to set qualifications for voting, as long as these qualifications are “not discriminatory”, and do not violate the Constitution or any restrictions that Congress imposes in federal voting laws. (Constitution, Art. I, s.4) The Federal Voting Rights Act specifically gives states permission to enact laws to deny the right to vote to people for two reasons: “by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity.” [42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(3)(B)]


Even though there’s no specific ‘right to vote’ in the Constitution, like the “right to free speech”, or the “right to bear arms”, there are general protections that apply. The right to vote has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a “liberty interest” protected under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. If a state interferes with a fundamental “liberty interest” of a US citizen, it cannot do so without “due process”, or in a way that violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment.

The Right to Vote | Disability Justice
 
Master PO said:
Even though there’s no specific ‘right to vote’ in the Constitution
Click to expand...

STOP
RIGHT
THERE.

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
 
haymarket said:
STOP
RIGHT
THERE.

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
Click to expand...

i guess you didn't read the whole statement so i will post it again for you AGAIN:

Even though there’s no specific ‘right to vote’ in the Constitution, like the “right to free speech”, or the “right to bear arms”, there are general protections that apply. The right to vote has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a “liberty interest” protected under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. If a state interferes with a fundamental “liberty interest” of a US citizen, it cannot do so without “due process”, or in a way that violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment.
 
haymarket said:
STOP
RIGHT
THERE.

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
Click to expand...

how many times will you lie, and post incorrect information?
 
Master PO said:
i guess you didn't read the whole statement so i will post it again for you AGAIN:

Even though there’s no specific ‘right to vote’ in the Constitution, like the “right to free speech”, or the “right to bear arms”, there are general protections that apply. The right to vote has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a “liberty interest” protected under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. If a state interferes with a fundamental “liberty interest” of a US citizen, it cannot do so without “due process”, or in a way that violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

I am quoting the US Constitution to you and you in return quote a mere Supreme Court case?

Amazing. Falling down halt in your tracks stop the presses amazing!!!!!

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
 
Master PO said:
how many times will you lie, and post incorrect information?
Click to expand...

So in your copy of the US Constitution the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it is not in there no less than FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES?

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
 
Master PO said:
the constitution of the u.s. did not delegate powers of who votes to the federal government, that power remained in state hands.

state governments created the laws for voting, not the federal government, and even whites who did not meet the Qualifications requisite could not vote.

voting was a privilege per the constitution of the founders, not a right, the USSC recognized it as a right per the 14th amendment to the constitution, however states continued to make laws barring minorities and women from voting and these battles were fought in the court system until they were able to vote.

the courts don't make laws.

the constitution is about powers, it delegates certain limited powers the federal government, and it denies them from creating certain laws.

all other powers remained the powers of the states.

no iam not wrong.
Click to expand...

Voting is still a privilege that Federal, State, and local government provides.
 
haymarket said:
So in your copy of the US Constitution the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it is not in there no less than FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES?
Click to expand...

this is why you are know as the most dishonest poster on the entire forum, when confronted with facts, you double down on your lies!
 
Master PO said:
this is why you are know as the most dishonest poster on the entire forum, when confronted with facts, you double down on your lies!
Click to expand...

I see the attempt at character assassination.

I see the personal attack.

I see the tactics of desperation.

What I do not see because it is not there is any evidence refuting the statement of fact that the US Constitution has the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation of it no less than five times in the US Constitution.

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Voting is still a privilege that Federal, State, and local government provides.
Click to expand...

well yes and no..... because the court states its a right of liberty, but the court allows the right to be denied based on state laws because of certain conditions.
 
haymarket said:
I see the attempt at character assassination.

I see the personal attack.

I see the tactics of desperation.

What I do not see because it is not there is any evidence refuting the statement of fact that the US Constitution has the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation of it no less than five times in the US Constitution.

The US Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same idea no less than FIVE TIMES in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in FIVE DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES in our history.

The Constitution very clearly and unmistakably states there is a right to vote as they use the phrase each of those times.

So stop with that phony talking point. Its false on its face.

And since the Constitution can create a right to vote - as can government using powers of the Constitution - it disproves your false premise that government and the Constitution cannot create rights.
Click to expand...

you have been found to be wrong over and over, your statement shall go to the lower bowels.
 
Master PO said:
you have been found to be wrong over and over, your statement shall go to the lower bowels of the forum.
Click to expand...

Which is you waving the white flag of surrender in your inglorious defeat.

What specifically is the LIE that you claim I am telling?

All I did was refer to specific language in the US Constitution stating in five different places use of the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it.

What is the LIE?
 
haymarket said:
Which is you waving the white flag of surrender in your inglorious defeat.

What specifically is the LIE that you claim I am telling?

All I did was refer to specific language in the US Constitution stating in five different places use of the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it.

What is the LIE?
Click to expand...

so that everyone will know you lie, you stated the ..right to vote in the constitution is the granting a right....this of course is false., and you will not accept the truth, because it destroys your ideas of government

the first 10 amendments to the constitution are restricting federal power, the 14th 15th 19th are granting the federal government a power, the constitution does not grant rights, it only recognizes them like the USSC recognized the right to vote per the 14th.

your lies keep getting you in more trouble.
 
Master PO said:
so that everyone will know you lie, you stated the ..right to vote in the constitution is the granting a right....this of course is false., and you will not accept the truth, because it destroys your ideas of government

the first 10 amendments to the constitution are restricting federal power, the 14th 15th 19th are granting the federal government a power, the constitution does not grant rights, it only recognizes them like the USSC recognized the right to vote per the 14th.

your lies keep getting you in more trouble.
Click to expand...

the Constitution cannot LIE about what is in it and all I did was cite what was in it - that five times in five different places the Constitution uses the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

You said the Constitution cannot bestow any rights. But clearly these five Amendment did bestow the right to vote on American citizens who had not had that right before the Amendment.

But here - let me indulge your ideological willful delusion for a brief moment... If the Amendment using the phrase THE RIGHT TO VOTE in those five instances did not grant the citizens in those Amendments the right to vote.... then what exactly did grant them the right to vote?
 
haymarket said:
If the right to vote in those five instances did not grant the citizens in those Amendments the right to vote.... then what exactly did grant them the right to vote?
Click to expand...

as you have been told, the court recognized it as a right of liberty..... per the people
 
Master PO said:
:lamo.....when did the court create a right?
Click to expand...

When did the US Supreme Court specifically do what you claimed they did in your own post 544?

I asked you this

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
If the right to vote in those five instances did not grant the citizens in those Amendments the right to vote.... then what exactly did grant them the right to vote?
Click to expand...


you replied with this

as you have been told, the court recognized it as a right of liberty..... per the people
Click to expand...

So when did the Court do this?
 
Master PO said:
when did the court create a right?
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on substituting your own question for one that I asked you?

When did the US Supreme Court specifically do what you claimed they did in your own post 544?

I asked you this

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
If the right to vote in those five instances did not grant the citizens in those Amendments the right to vote.... then what exactly did grant them the right to vote?
Click to expand...

you replied with this

as you have been told, the court recognized it as a right of liberty..... per the people
Click to expand...

I am asking you very specifically to tell me WHEN the Court did as you claim they did in your above statement.
So when did the Court do this?
 
haymarket said:
Why do you insist on substituting your own question for one that I asked you?

When did the US Supreme Court specifically do what you claimed they did in your own post 544?

I asked you this



you replied with this



I am asking you very specifically to tell me WHEN the Court did as you claim they did in your above statement.
So when did the Court do this?
Click to expand...

then i will change my question to you, were is the right to vote granted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom