• 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.

Proposed: Securing unalienable rights and promoting maximum liberty

Check all statements that apply


  • Total voters
    12
I don't see anyone proposing that we give the government the power to create rights.

The whole idea is just a piece of fiction

it has been stated that, that government will define rights.

if that is to happen, that means man must pick and choose, and if man picks and choose, he will surely define rights which violate the life liberty property of others.
 
its a fact, those who have the power to define.....will also have the power of abuse.
Yet someone must.

Because without defining what is unacceptable harm (that's basically what the bill of rights did), you cannot punish those who harm.
 
Yet someone must.

Because without defining what is unacceptable harm (that's basically what the bill of rights did), you cannot punish those who harm.

harm as you speak falls under state, local law, not federal.

when one violates the rights of another, or threatens the health and safety of the public, government can use force on that person, however if the person is not committing either of those actions, government has no authority to act.

rights, should never be under the thumb of anyone or entries authority, ..meaning to control them, because it leads to tyranny.

i shall give an example of tyranny going on in america today ..the violation of the right of property.

France is a socialist democratic republic. where rights are defined by government, they dont have natural rights.

our founders created a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.... not a democratic form, ..so government does not define rights.....there is no authority over rights, they come from our humanity, people cannot vote on rights.

today...direct democracy is taking place in america which is a violation of constitutional law, because every state in the union must be republican, not democratic.

how is tyranny rearing its head?, thru referendums and initiatives [democracy], where people are given the power to determine what rights a person is going to have on his own property.

people are voting ....no to allow a business owner to have or not have smoking on his own property......where did the people get to vote on property which belongs to another Citizen?

by entrusting themselves in democracy and believing the will of the majority has the power to create rights for the .......collective.
 
harm as you speak falls under state, local law, not federal.

when one violates the rights of another, or threatens the health and safety of the public, government can use force on that person, however if the person is not committing either of those actions, government has no authority to act.

rights, should never be under the thumb of anyone or entries authority, ..meaning to control them, because it leads to tyranny.

i shall give an example of tyranny going on in america today ..the violation of the right of property.

France is a socialist democratic republic. where rights are defined by government, they dont have natural rights.

our founders created a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.... not a democratic form, ..so government does not define rights.....there is no authority over rights, they come from our humanity, people cannot vote on rights.

today...direct democracy is taking place in america which is a violation of constitutional law, because every state in the union must be republican, not democratic.

how is tyranny rearing its head?, thru referendums and initiatives [democracy], where people are given the power to determine what rights a person is going to have on his own property.

people are voting ....no to allow a business owner to have or not have smoking on his own property......where did the people get to vote on property which belongs to another Citizen?

by entrusting themselves in democracy and believing the will of the majority has the power to create rights for the .......collective.


I really don't understand why you think states are less tyrannical than the federal govt. I think we can point to many cases of states stepping on people's rights.
 
harm as you speak falls under state, local law, not federal.

when one violates the rights of another, or threatens the health and safety of the public, government can use force on that person, however if the person is not committing either of those actions, government has no authority to act.

rights, should never be under the thumb of anyone or entries authority, ..meaning to control them, because it leads to tyranny.

i shall give an example of tyranny going on in america today ..the violation of the right of property.

France is a socialist democratic republic. where rights are defined by government, they dont have natural rights.

our founders created a republican form of government, article 4 section 4.... not a democratic form, ..so government does not define rights.....there is no authority over rights, they come from our humanity, people cannot vote on rights.

today...direct democracy is taking place in america which is a violation of constitutional law, because every state in the union must be republican, not democratic.

how is tyranny rearing its head?, thru referendums and initiatives [democracy], where people are given the power to determine what rights a person is going to have on his own property.

people are voting ....no to allow a business owner to have or not have smoking on his own property......where did the people get to vote on property which belongs to another Citizen?

by entrusting themselves in democracy and believing the will of the majority has the power to create rights for the .......collective.
It is my opinion that, barring some activity that causes significant negative affects to nearby properties or causes harm to people without their knowing consent, restrictions on activity on privately owned property should be zero.

This would basically mean that so long as you're not doing some **** like testing out your homemade plastic explosives on the neighborhood kids in your backyard on the corner of 8th and chestnut, or some ****, you are allowed. Extreme example, I know.



Edit: That said, states are basically a smaller version of the federal government, these days. Why are they allowed to do things you don't want the federal government to do? Or how are you thinking this will play out?
 
I really don't understand why you think states are less tyrannical than the federal govt. I think we can point to many cases of states stepping on people's rights.

who says states cannot be tyrannical?..... they sure can, that why we have the federal government [federal courts] to stop RIGHTS violations, and to see that privileges and immunities of states are granted equally.

but no where is congress granted the power to legislate rights violations by law...no where....because that would put them into state powers, where they are not granted any authority.
 
It is my opinion that, barring some activity that causes significant negative affects to nearby properties or causes harm to people without their knowing consent, restrictions on activity on privately owned property should be zero.

This would basically mean that so long as you're not doing some **** like testing out your homemade plastic explosives on the neighborhood kids in your backyard on the corner of 8th and chestnut, or some ****, you are allowed. Extreme example, I know.



Edit: That said, states are basically a smaller version of the federal government, these days. Why are they allowed to do things you don't want the federal government to do? Or how are you thinking this will play out?




anything that causes the harm of the health and safety of the public, government can intervene, ..but not federal.

now if there was a threat, which is on a scale of foreign powers, or domestic terrorist... yes...the federal government would have authority.

but they have no authority, via smoking, food, buildings, wages.

states are government themselves with powers, more then federal powers....and no where is the state subservient to the federal government.

only when the federal government and the state government have a conflict of exercising the same power, does the federal government have.... the right of way....

the federal government was create after the state governments.
 
who says states cannot be tyrannical?..... they sure can, that why we have the federal government [federal courts] to stop RIGHTS violations, and to see that privileges and immunities of states are granted equally.

but no where is congress granted the power to legislate rights violations by law...no where....because that would put them into state powers, where they are not granted any authority.

I apologize, I'm sure I'm just not getting what you are saying - but it seems like you are saying "states can be tyrannical, therefore the fed'l govt can step in, but the fed'l govt can't legislate rights violations"

how does the fed'l govt step in if they can't legislate rights violation?
 
athe federal government would have authority.

but they have no authority, via smoking, food, buildings, wages.

sorry, again, can't agree. Someone has to set a floor for wages, for buildings standards, for food safety, for smoking regs; and states can go beyond those rules if they want.
 
I apologize, I'm sure I'm just not getting what you are saying - but it seems like you are saying "states can be tyrannical, therefore the fed'l govt can step in, but the fed'l govt can't legislate rights violations"

how does the fed'l govt step in if they can't legislate rights violation?

I believe he is saying that the federal courts can overrule state laws that are unconstitutional because they infringe on people's rights

I'm also certain that he has also said that the courts cannot overturn laws based on unconstitutionality because the courts do not have the power of judicial review.
 
I apologize, I'm sure I'm just not getting what you are saying - but it seems like you are saying "states can be tyrannical, therefore the fed'l govt can step in, but the fed'l govt can't legislate rights violations"

how does the fed'l govt step in if they can't legislate rights violation?

by the federal courts:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,

the congress in its delegated powers, has powers which are to be used externally on the union...not internal to the states.

article 1 section 8, are the powers of congress none of them deal in the personal life's of the people, as Madison states.

states deal with the people's personal life's, not federal
 
sorry, again, can't agree. Someone has to set a floor for wages, for buildings standards, for food safety, for smoking regs; and states can go beyond those rules if they want.

where is the federal government or state government granted authority to set wages?

building standards fall under state /local code, the federal government has no authority for building codes of state/cities

again food safety falls under state /city code...where is no federal authority granted, except, food that would enter the u.s., from a foreign nation.

government has no authority to apply no smoking to private business,..pubic buildings... yes...
 
I believe he is saying that the federal courts can overrule state laws that are unconstitutional because they infringe on people's rights.

correct.

I'm also certain that he has also said that the courts cannot overturn laws based on unconstitutionality because the courts do not have the power of judicial review.

my problem only with the courts, is when they reach a decision, that is complete opposite of what the founders say on that issue.

the courts were meat to be non political, but have become political, because of the presidents appointing people to the court to do their bidding.
 
by the federal courts:

But, but, but....you have argued that the federal courts do not have the power of judicial review

really ?show where the link is in the constitution, i would love to see it.

my problem only with the courts, is when they reach a decision, that is complete opposite of what the founders say on that issue.

But you are now saying that the courts can overturn laws even though you have said the constitution does not allow them to oveerturn laws

then its comes to the Constitution, Madison states it is up to the states [the compact] to be the final determining factor it something is constitutional.
 
Last edited:
But, but, but....you have argued that the federal courts do not have the power of judicial review

the courts are supposed to read the Constitution, and to determine what it means on the matter at hand.

when these conditions below arise the court has the authority....but not congress.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
 
where is the federal government or state government granted authority to set wages?

building standards fall under state /local code, the federal government has no authority for building codes of state/cities

again food safety falls under state /city code...where is no federal authority granted, except, food that would enter the u.s., from a foreign nation.

government has no authority to apply no smoking to private business,..pubic buildings... yes...


well, I disagree. Since we are doing a new constitution, the current one - while informative -is not determinative.
 
the courts are supposed to read the Constitution, and to determine what it means on the matter at hand.

when these conditions below arise the court has the authority....but not congress.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,

So you accept the courts setting rights, but not Congress? interesting.
 
the courts are supposed to read the Constitution, and to determine what it means on the matter at hand.

But, but, but.....you have said the federal courts do not have the power of judicial review

Now you're saying that they do

then its comes to the Constitution, Madison states it is up to the states [the compact] to be the final determining factor it something is constitutional.
 
anything that causes the harm of the health and safety of the public, government can intervene, ..but not federal.

now if there was a threat, which is on a scale of foreign powers, or domestic terrorist... yes...the federal government would have authority.

but they have no authority, via smoking, food, buildings, wages.

states are government themselves with powers, more then federal powers....and no where is the state subservient to the federal government.

only when the federal government and the state government have a conflict of exercising the same power, does the federal government have.... the right of way....

the federal government was create after the state governments.
Indeed. But we don't really have states here, unless we imagine that the states as they currently are composed (plus maybe a few territories?) are theoretically behind this constitution, and operate under that premise?

If not, we're basically saying "this is what we think the constitution should say".


Or...something?
 
in the Constitution, all powers delegated are federal, there are no state powers in the Constitution.

those powers are few and defined for the federal government by the Constitution.

both government federal and states are on equal footing, neither one is supposed to rule over the other, but both are to follow the Constitution.

it is the federal court system, which is a (national aspect) of the federal government that is granted final judicial authority concerning states, their power is to deal with problems between states and Citizens and states vs states.

today it is common to see the u.s.congress creating legislation, to solve the problems that the court is granted the power to solve, and everytime congress does that, they insert themselves deeper into the state powers, and into the personal life's of the people.
 
So you accept the courts setting rights, but not Congress? interesting.

the courts are to solve problems of the union that exist between Citizens vs states and states vs states, the court has recognized rights like the right to privacy as the founders expected would happen, which is why we have the 9th amendment which encompasses all other rights not listed in the bill of rights.

again ..the court does not make law, no right is written down on paper, its just recognized by the court as a right that exist for the people an unalienable right.

by just the recognizing the rights, this does not grant anyone authority of creation of rights, since their is no authority of creation, then rights cannot be taken away by the people or government, because they did not create them for you.

one thing some people do not get, if the people or government had the power to create rights, then they also have the same power to deny rights to any individual, group, race, sex.

it must also be noted, that no right has the power of force on another Citizen, and does not lay a cost or burden on another Citizen.
 
Back
Top Bottom