- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional?
I'll say it!
Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional?
I'll say it!
Why is it unconstitutional?
Because there is no authorization for the government to compel the people to do what they want.
The government does a lot of things it has no authorization to do. Are they all unconstitutional?
You should do some research.
You're wrong.
Obviously.
... rights exist becuase of your humanity, you have them whether government exist of not, someone could suppress those rights, but they still exist ...
Why hasn't anyone done anything about them? For instance, the various relief programs (TANF, SNAP, WIC) aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Why do they still exist?
You're confusing interests and rights. Interests exist because of a person's humanity. Communities create rights to allow pursuit of interests.
For instance, we have property rights because a landowner has an interest in controlling a piece of land.
But WHY is it in dispute?I think the responses of the poll suggest that what the 2nd Amendment really says is in dispute.
Are you sure that's not your doormat?It reads, I have a gun, it is loaded, best be on your way...
Are you sure that's not your doormat?
Ha!Nah, I'm not one of them that allows people to walk all over my Rights...
The second is a big right. Deserves a big doormat.Ha!
But I do think that'd make a decent doormat line...bit long perhaps...
The second is a big right. Deserves a big doormat.
The prohibition prevents the government from infringing on the right.its a prohibition on government, it is not a right.
The prohibition prevents the government from infringing on the right.
That's what all the "rights" are - not something the gov gives us, but something they're not allowed to take away.
Basically.
Because not everyone agrees with this interpretation of things?you have your rights from your humanity, and your rights are vast, the founders knew this, some wanted a bill of rights, some didn't, the ones that didn't thought by listing rights, it would in essence limits rights to only what is on the listing in the constitution, which are a few, however the 9th amendment was added to state that citizen's have more rights then are listed in the bill of rights, and placed on the federal government restrictions, that the federal government will make no laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.
since the days of the founders, people have had their vast rights infringed on by government which are not listed, and the USSC, has recognized those rights which are not listed, like the right to privacy, right to association, and placed further restrictions on the government which they are not to infringe on.
so the constitution never gave you a right, it just recognizes rights you have from your humanity, and restricts the federal government from passing any law which would again...infringe on them.
so rights of the people cannot be repealed, because their are no rights in the constitution, just a prohibition on government.
so how can government repeal a restriction........... which is placed on them.
it would be like a robber, having the ability to change the law, to make is crime lawful.
Because not everyone agrees with this interpretation of things?
Okay. We have the right to prohibit government. Izzat better?its a prohibition on government, it is not a right.
well what I trying to convey is we don't get rights from a piece of paper, but our humanity, government cannot take them away, they can only violate the constitution by violating the restrictions placed on them.Okay. We have the right to prohibit government. Izzat better?
I think part of the issue here is that you think I disagree with you.well I will give you proof.
its the preamble to the bill of rights.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
translation: because some members of the constitutional convention, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire in order to prevent the abuses which may come from federal government powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added to the constitution to give the public more confidence in the new government, and will best ensure of the government doing good, by its institution or creation.