- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.