• 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
well, I disagree. Since we are doing a new constitution, the current one - while informative -is not determinative.

that's correct, however, one point i am trying to get across constantly is........any government that is granted the power concerning the life's liberty and property of the people, is going to be the government with the most power....in the Constitution the states retained this power.

if you try to dole out some powers concerning those 3 things to each government, then this creates problems, because two seats of powers are trying to control the same object/ entity/ person.
 
Last edited:
But, but, but....you have argued that the federal courts do not have the power of judicial review

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


the Constitution grants the federal courts authority over states, to make determinations of law, its there in the Constitution.


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

i am very glad you bought this up.

Madison is speaking about when the government loses reason, and no longer follows the Constitution, then its for the states to decide, because they makeup the compact.

Madison is not saying the states can just nullify laws, they just dont like.

if those people of the federal government take an oath to preserve protect and defend the CONSTITUTION, and they violate that very oath, then who is left to counter them, the states that makeup the compact and formed the government.
 
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.

How does one know what rights that they have?
 
How does one know what rights that they have?

people have many rights, then just what is recognized by the Constitution.

there are things as i have stated which can determine rights

no right lays a cost or burden on another Citizen.

rights do not require a government action to be exercised.


privileges require an action by government, which sets the 2 apart.


Madison states..." if men were angels, no government would be necessary?...in essence if people respected life liberty and property of their fellow Citizens.....we would achieve utopia....however we know this is not going to happen.

however if we limit who can be involved in our life's, .....then will have less rights violations.

by not granting any power to the federal government into the life's of the people, this prevents the federal government from violating people's rights, and only the states and individuals have the ability, and if the an individual does we use criminal law on that person.

if the states violate our rights, we use the Constitution, and take our case to the federal courts.

where the federal courts, strike down actions that states have engaged in, which caused a rights violation.
 
Last edited:
people have many rights, then just what is recognized by the Constitution.

there are things as i have stated which can determine rights

no right lays a cost or burden on another Citizen.

rights do not require a government action to be exercised.


privileges require an action by government, which sets the 2 apart.


Madison states..." if men were angels, no government would be necessary?...in essence if people respected life liberty and property of their fellow Citizens.....we would achieve utopia....however we know this is not going to happen.

however if we limit who can be involved in our life's, .....then will have less rights violations.

by not granting any power to the federal government into the life's of the people, this prevents the federal government from violating people's rights, and only the states and individuals have the ability, and if the an individual does we use criminal law on that person.

if the states violate our rights, we use the Constitution, and take our case to the federal courts.

where the federal courts, strike down actions that states have engaged in, which caused a rights violation.

That doesnt answer my question. It was more of a deflection than anything.

Obviously you are not going to tell me. So.
Why is Life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, rights owned by all living humans?
And knowing you, you wont answer that one either. So.
It is because the founders of this great nation were **** on and they saw other people **** on. It comes down to philosophical common sense to not want to be **** on by other people. Natural rights can be described to be anti-oppressive philosophy. And despite the people in this thread saying that natural rights isnt science, we can show easily that having basic natural rights has made America a much better place than places without natural rights philosophy sawn into the fabric of society and government.
 
Proposed: The purpose of the new Constitution should at a minimum secure the unalienable rights of the people and promote maximum individual liberty.

We've become bogged down in the Preamble thread over this single issue. So let's focus on this issue.

Some members reject the concept of God given aka natural aka unalienable rights.

God given aka natural aka unalienable rights,
for this purpose, are defined as human life, breathing, to think, to speak, to worship, to hope, to believe, to aspire, to create, etc., i.e. all those components and activity of humanity that require no involuntary contribution or participation from any other. Such requires only the non interference of others and should be inviolate.

Those members who reject the concept of unalienable rights seem to be unanimous in the concept that all human rights come from the government in place.

And some have rejected my definition of unalienable rights as given above.

Other members believe as strongly in a concept of God given aka natural aka unalienable rights, all seem to agree that the government should secure them and otherwise keep hands off, and most seem to have no problem with my definition as given above.

On the theory that if we cannot come to a consensus or at least compromise on this one issue, any effort to forge a Constitution will be futile, let's deal with it.

I support the idea that the constitution should secure the life, liberty, and property of the people of the several states.
 
That doesnt answer my question. It was more of a deflection than anything.

Obviously you are not going to tell me. So.
Why is Life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, rights owned by all living humans?
And knowing you, you wont answer that one either. So.
It is because the founders of this great nation were **** on and they saw other people **** on. It comes down to philosophical common sense to not want to be **** on by other people. Natural rights can be described to be anti-oppressive philosophy. And despite the people in this thread saying that natural rights isnt science, we can show easily that having basic natural rights has made America a much better place than places without natural rights philosophy sawn into the fabric of society and government.

you must be under the idea that all your post are clear and concise, ..they are not.

i took your post to mean what kind of rights do we have?....which is hard to answer.

How does one know what rights that they have?

so i gave you and explanation of the most simple terms to understand what a right is.
 
Last edited:
Inalienable rights are in essence a "bottom up" approach to the question of rights while enumerated rights are "top down". Enumerated rights, like most top down approaches to things concentrates the power at the top of pyramid and as such is, in my view, structurally incompatible with a free society. If we miss a right in the enumeration two things happen: 1 - we're already doing harm to people and, 2 - it's an uphill fight to gain that right. Going at it in a bottom up fashion places the power were it's supposed to belong, with the people, and makes subtraction of a right something that only happens in extraordinary circumstances where most people agree to not exercise the right for the betterment of society.
 
you must be under the idea that all your post are clear and concise, ..they are not.

i took your post to mean what kind of rights do we have?....which is hard to answer.



so i gave you and explanation of the most simple terms to understand what a right is.

If the government is in violation of a individuals rights, what legal ground can that individual stand on?

My point is that rights cannot just be subjective they have to be defined in concept, in order for a court of law to work. Now before you freak out and go into the enumerated rights argument, I am not asserting that rights must be enumerated so dont bother with that line. What I am saying though is that there has to be a basis for rights otherwise people will just make crap up to suit their needs (see Citizens United or affirmative action).
 
If the government is in violation of a individuals rights, what legal ground can that individual stand on?

My point is that rights cannot just be subjective they have to be defined in concept, in order for a court of law to work. Now before you freak out and go into the enumerated rights argument, I am not asserting that rights must be enumerated so dont bother with that line. What I am saying though is that there has to be a basis for rights otherwise people will just make crap up to suit their needs (see Citizens United or affirmative action).

please not trying to prove to yourself, that you are in some kind of superior emotional state, and drop the emotional context please.

did right to privacy exist in enumeration.....no it did not.

some of the founders wanted to list rights on paper, however to do that would limit rights, because can you think of every single right you have?.... which is why we have the 9th amendment.

when you believe a government has violated your rights, you seek justice in a court and make you case of what right you where not allowed by government to exercise.

then the court system will determine by the recognition of the right

but there will no legislative [positive law] creation [on paper] of that right via this process, because our legislature does not have that power.

you and i have no power in our being [body] to create a right, since you and i do not possess such an ability , it is not possible for you or me to elect someone, and grant them the power of rights creation either , because i we dont have the ability to began with.



all rights are negative law or unwritten law, they are maxims of conduct, or self evident truths of conduct which government recognizes and positive law is created and used to secure those rights only.


affirmative action is not granting you a right.....[natural right/ negative law]

here is what affirmative action is doing: government by their own determination, have chosen to level the playing field by law in their own way....creating [equality BY law]......instead of equality under the law.

using positive law, they have directed business to hire people of different races into a quota system using the clause of commerce as the vehicle to do this.

they are in fact violating the right of property, the right of association of a person's business....because no positive law can override negative law.

the 1964 civl rights act in effect did two things, it stated that governments could not violate the rights and privileges of Citizens[which is correct], .....but it also did something else, government used the law to create privileges for the people on the property of other
Citizens.

privileges of the Constitution are something the government creates for the people [ positive right/positive law], and privileges requires an action by government to be exercised, not people to be exercised....... no privilege can be exercised over the right of a person.

the government is essence is granting people a privilege on the property of other Citizens, and telling them who to hire.......they also use this to create discrimination laws which are unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the constitution should protect rights to life, breathing, thinking etc etc etc. However I do not believe they are natural rights. So I reject the concept in the poll

I also believe that the concept of human rights comes from society itself. They arise from the people. The government are the people, and so it is up to the government to define what these rights are.

In terms of what the constitution should protect, I think we can include multiple rights under broader umbrellas. If we have to specify each and every one, it'll be pages and pages.

EDIT: aaaannd I accidently clicked the wrong checkbox lol....

Just because something provides a definiton, doesn't mean it provides it. Just as science observes and tries to explain the world around us, the world around us already existed before science.
 
Back
Top Bottom