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.