• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87
you have posted nothing other than statements of faith from fellow believers - and that is worth less than the utilitarian value of one pound of garden manure.

sorry i have posted law, legal definitions.....you and the others only posted you own personal words.
 
in original constitutional law, the u.s. federal government has no authority over the people....none!

And in the 225 years we have been under the Constitution, what single decision of the US Supreme Court agrees with this opinion about the limits of the Constitution?

I dare you to come up with one single decision which says the absolute inane nonsense you just spewed here..... yet again.

The fact is that your opinion on this is so extreme... so fringe ... so far out there ... so far divorced from reality - that not one Court decision in 225 takes that position.
Not a one.

That tells you just what such delusions are the product of.
 
sorry i have posted law, legal definitions.....you and the others only posted you own personal words.

You should be sorry as you have posted nothing other than statements of faith from fellow believers - and that is worth less than the utilitarian value of one pound of garden manure.
 
sorry i have posted law, legal definitions.....you and the others only posted you own personal words.
Logic should be everyone's vocabulary. Please stop hiding behind the Legalistic Falacy and come out in the sunlight.
 
Interesting that all the discussion of the DOI fails to mention the "creator' that grants the inalienable rights. This is not 'natural' rights, this is a religious statement, and very contrary to the current use of 'natural rights' as somehow existing free of constructs such as religion and society.

UNALIENABLE rights



The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
 
UNALIENABLE rights



The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That's what they got wrong, yes. Life and liberty certanly are alienable.
 
logic should be everyone's vocabulary. Please stop hiding behind the legalistic falacy and come out in the sunlight.

i did not know law, and legal definitions of law were falacy.

Maybe you need to produce something to prove your case, instead of telling me i am wrong, and ...not posting any facts.
 
And in the 225 years we have been under the Constitution, what single decision of the US Supreme Court agrees with this opinion about the limits of the Constitution?

I dare you to come up with one single decision which says the absolute inane nonsense you just spewed here..... yet again.

The fact is that your opinion on this is so extreme... so fringe ... so far out there ... so far divorced from reality - that not one Court decision in 225 takes that position.
Not a one.

That tells you just what such delusions are the product of.

emotional contention is not working for you.:(
 
That's only part of the definition. You're describing Human Rights, not Natural Rights. Human Rights, that is rights inherent of the individual simply for being human, do certainly exist. But Natural Rights, by definition, are inalienable. All Human Rights are alienable so therefore no Human Right is a Natural Right.

Why don't you look up the definition of 'inalienable' for yourself? I have posted it several times now but it must be in invisible ink or something at least for a select few here..
 
Why don't you look up the definition of 'inalienable' for yourself? I have posted it several times now but it must be in invisible ink or something at least for a select few here..
I have, I even linked to it in this thread in support of my argument.
 
Sorry, but yes. If the right to life were inalienable then there would be no murder. If the right to liberty were inalienable then prisons would be empty.


again the word in not INALIENABLE

UNALIENABLE means rights are not granted by man but by a higher power, which is out of the control of man.

government is to secure rights......it does not mean they can stop rights violations, it means government uses positive laws made by man to settle the violation.
 
emotional contention is not working for you.:(

Nothing in that post was emotional content. Your impotence to refute any of it speaks volumes. I ask again regarding your assertion that the federal government has no authority over the people: in the 225 years we have been under the Constitution, what single decision of the US Supreme Court agrees with this opinion about the limits of the Constitution?

I dare you to come up with one single decision which says the absolute inane nonsense you just spewed here..... yet again.

The fact is that your opinion on this is so extreme... so fringe ... so far out there ... so far divorced from reality - that not one Court decision in 225 takes that position.
Not a one.

That tells you just what such delusions are the product of.
 
Nothing in that post was emotional content. Your impotence to refute any of it speaks volumes. I ask again regarding your assertion that the federal government has no authority over the people: in the 225 years we have been under the Constitution, what single decision of the US Supreme Court agrees with this opinion about the limits of the Constitution?

I dare you to come up with one single decision which says the absolute inane nonsense you just spewed here..... yet again.

The fact is that your opinion on this is so extreme... so fringe ... so far out there ... so far divorced from reality - that not one Court decision in 225 takes that position.
Not a one.

That tells you just what such delusions are the product of.

in original constitutional law, the federal government has no authority over the people ...none!

their are no powers delegated to the federal government in the constitution of which the founders created in the lifes liberty and property of the people......none!
 
in original constitutional law, the federal government has no authority over the people ...none!

If 1787 ever comes around again, you let us all know. Until there is such a breach in the space time continuum and that unlikely event happens - deal with reality EB. It makes rational thought so much easier.
 
If 1787 ever comes around again, you let us all know. Until there is such a breach in the space time continuum and that unlikely event happens - deal with reality EB. It makes rational thought so much easier.

this shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

i posted in original constitutional law...you challenged it

then you hand me this.....no wonder you constantly fail!
 
again the word in not INALIENABLE

UNALIENABLE means rights are not granted by man but by a higher power, which is out of the control of man.

government is to secure rights......it does not mean they can stop rights violations, it means government uses positive laws made by man to settle the violation.
Think about what you just said.

Why would you need a government to secure something that cannot be taken away from you?
 
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier in 1839

Revised Sixth Edition, 1856

INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”


UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government.

The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910)


INALIENABLE.“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”


UNALIENABLE..“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Then you are contradicting yourself are you not?
Not in the slightest: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm

"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away."

Your right to life can be taken away from you. This proves your right to life is not inalienable, which means your right to life is not a Natural Right.
 
Back
Top Bottom