Constitutional Convention Preamble[W:425]

[AlbqOwl]

Then we're in trouble!

I don't agree with "natural" rights. Civilization determines the rights that people have, there is nothing inherent.

Yes. If we aren't able to reach a substantial majority consensus on that, we are probably in trouble.

But ask yourself whether you want any other person to be able to dictate to you what you must think, must believe, must aspire to do or be? And will have the power to punish you if you do not conform to what the other person dictates? If you say no, then you do believe in the concept of natural rights that should be secured but not dictated by government.

 

[Master PO]

Yes. If we aren't able to reach a substantial majority consensus on that, we are probably in trouble.

something i run into all the time, is people thinking rights are determined by the people.

if what were to ever be enacted, then we have created our own tyranny

for some reason people do not get the idea that if people can create rights, they can also abolish them for the 49%

 

[AlbqOwl]

OFF TOPIC QUESTION:

Why does this Constitutional convention forum not show up on the list of forums? It doesn't even show in the Constitution forum section. I have it favorited on my desktop so I can get here easily, but I'm thinking a whole bunch of folks who have indicated interest in this process don't have a clue how to get here.

 

[US Conservative]

and thus we ended up with segregated schools in the south, guns moving from "loose" states to "tight" states, voter disenfranchisement laws...

I think the central govt needs to establish a baseline of standards; then individual localities can go tighter or looser (depending on the issue) to adapt to local conditions

Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. There were segregated schools everywhere and nobody thought there was anything wrong with them-there still ARE defacto segregated schools.

None of it is an excuse for authoritarian top down one size fits all law. Govt closer to the people is more responsive to the people-thats a good thing.

 

[US Conservative]

something i run into all the time, is people thinking rights are determined by the people.

if what were to ever be enacted, then we have created our own tyranny

for some reason people do not get the idea that if people can create rights, they can also abolish them for the 49%

The founders knew that and we know that. This document wont serve future generations if it leaves a gaping hole for the wolves of society to prey on others.

 

[US Conservative]

OFF TOPIC QUESTION:

Why does this Constitutional convention forum not show up on the list of forums? It doesn't even show in the Constitution forum section. I have it favorited on my desktop so I can get here easily, but I'm thinking a whole bunch of folks who have indicated interest in this process don't have a clue how to get here.

Good question, perhaps one of our officers can see to it that all convention members are again notified as well as checking with the mods about forum headings?

 

[PirateMk1]

For clarification: National is centralized; federal is a system.

You cant have a hybrid of the 2?

 

[sangha]

Yes. If we aren't able to reach a substantial majority consensus on that, we are probably in trouble.

But ask yourself whether you want any other person to be able to dictate to you what you must think, must believe, must aspire to do or be? And will have the power to punish you if you do not conform to what the other person dictates? If you say no, then you do believe in the concept of natural rights that should be secured but not dictated by government.

No one has to believe in natural rights in order to not want others to dictate what one thinks, believes and aspires to. To claim that one *must* believe in natural rights is to engage in the same sort of tyranny that the theory of natural rights argues against.

 

[PirateMk1]

For sure, the central government would need to regulate immigration, establish a fair and equitable means of funding the central government and the responsibilities assigned to it, and the Constitution will need to establish some universal concept for federal elections and whatever the individual states cannot realistically do themselves. But as for how law and order, gun laws, etc. are done throughout the country, I don't want the federal government to have any say about that. What is practical and desirable in New York City may be entirely impractical and ridiculous in Albuquerque NM. Each state and/or local community should organize the society that the people want to have.

The 2nd amendment is a right? No? So does it make sense to allow a state to regulate that right? I say no. We see what happens when they do. new York and California prime examples of trampling all over rights. Those rights that are enumerated in the constitution ought not to be touched by the states. The laws if any should be absolutely universal regarding those. wherever you go in the union certain things should be the same regardless.

 

[sangha]

OFF TOPIC QUESTION:

Why does this Constitutional convention forum not show up on the list of forums? It doesn't even show in the Constitution forum section. I have it favorited on my desktop so I can get here easily, but I'm thinking a whole bunch of folks who have indicated interest in this process don't have a clue how to get here.

The Constitutional Convention forum is located under DP Extras->DP Games

If you go to the "top" of the Constitutional Convention forum, you can subscribe to the forum by clicking on "Forum Tools" which can be found on the right hand side of the 2nd from the top gray bar.

 

[jet57]

You cant have a hybrid of the 2?

Never said you couldn't. I was just posting the definitions so that everybody's on the same page with it.

Many today for instance are falsely claiming we have a nationalized country with this business about "a centralized government", but in fact we do not, nor have we ever had. Or current government is still a federalized system of checks and balances.

In order to have a hybrid, we would need a centralized government of sorts and I would disagree with that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No one has to believe in natural rights in order to not want others to dictate what one thinks, believes and aspires to. To claim that one *must* believe in natural rights is to engage in the same sort of tyranny that the theory of natural rights argues against.

"Natural rights" is a term, a concept, a word with a specific definition just as chair or sofa or table is a term, a concept, a word with a specific definition. I use the term "natural rights' or 'unalienable rights' because we have no other word/phrase in our vocabulary that demonstrates or indicates that. Nobody has said one must believe in natural rights, but to deny that such a definition exists is silly. I have not insisted that you believe that a chair or a table exists either, for that matter.

But I'll put to you the same argument I put to Paddy. Ask yourself whether you want any other person to be able to dictate to you what you must think, must believe, must aspire to do or be? And will have the power to punish you if you do not conform to what the other person dictates? If you say no, then you do believe in the concept of natural rights that should be secured but not dictated by government. If you have another word that means 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights as described, I'm not dogmatic about what word we use. I am unaware of any other word that conveys that as accurately, however.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Please contribute your ideas to the Debate Politics Constitutional Preamble. Preamble=an introductory statement; preface; introduction.

I feel the preamble to COTUS is actually a fine starting point to our DP constitution. It is brief but covers the important points, and I think that adopting it into our own DP constitution is a good idea. Another benefit, is that its existing structure will expedite the processes to the DP constitution.

There are assumptions made in adopting this, clearly it would imply that a group of states be united as one nation, that we expect our govt to maintain domestic peace and common defense (so law enforcement/military at the very least) etc.

Perhaps there are some who agree or disagree with this if so make your opinions known!

Rewrite it yes, if needed. I would would be happy is presidents began actually adhering to it.

 

[gdgyva]

Never said you couldn't. I was just posting the definitions so that everybody's on the same page with it.

Many today for instance are falsely claiming we have a nationalized country with this business about "a centralized government", but in fact we do not, nor have we ever had. Or current government is still a federalized system of checks and balances.

In order to have a hybrid, we would need a centralized government of sorts and I would disagree with that.

we are getting closer everyday to a nationalized government

more and more items that were once controlled by the states are now under federal jurisdiction

our government has grown out of control......as Mark Levin calls it, the 4th branch

only once we create agencies like DHS, EPA, IRS, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, they never seem to go away

limited government.....that is what was originally designed

that is what i hope one day we can return to

 

[PirateMk1]

Never said you couldn't. I was just posting the definitions so that everybody's on the same page with it.

Many today for instance are falsely claiming we have a nationalized country with this business about "a centralized government", but in fact we do not, nor have we ever had. Or current government is still a federalized system of checks and balances.

In order to have a hybrid, we would need a centralized government of sorts and I would disagree with that.

I don't know, the federal government we have sure seems centralized. My thing was that there certain rights and laws that should be the done by the national government and not the states, that there should be certain laws and rights uniform across state boundaries that you need not wonder when you cross one if you are breaking the law.

 

[US Conservative]

Rewrite it yes, if needed. I would would be happy is presidents began actually adhering to it.

Imagine that. Ive been actually meaning to glance over the Canadian constitution. With our common lineage perhaps there is something to be gained from doing so.

 

[sangha]

"Natural rights" is a term, a concept, a word with a specific definition just as chair or sofa or table is a term, a concept, a word with a specific definition. I use the term "natural rights' or 'unalienable rights' because we have no other word/phrase in our vocabulary that demonstrates or indicates that. Nobody has said one must believe in natural rights, but to deny that such a definition exists is silly. I have not insisted that you believe that a chair or a table exists either, for that matter.

But I'll put to you the same argument I put to Paddy. Ask yourself whether you want any other person to be able to dictate to you what you must think, must believe, must aspire to do or be? And will have the power to punish you if you do not conform to what the other person dictates? If you say no, then you do believe in the concept of natural rights that should be secured but not dictated by government. If you have another word that means 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights as described, I'm not dogmatic about what word we use. I am unaware of any other word that conveys that as accurately, however.

Unalienable rights are not necessarily natural rights. The concept of natural rights is nothing more than an unprovable assertion about the nature of rights that some use to justify opposition to any govt limitation or regulation of rights. IMO, there are plenty of ways to justify one's opposition to such things without resorting to the use of the natural rights argument and those other ways have the added benefit of being based on reality.

In addition, the concept of natural rights does nothing to protect any specific right. People can agree that rights are natural rights or unalienable rights and still disagree about what those rights are. In the end, the govt's power to regulate behavior and rights will come down to what people will allow or tolerate.

 

[US Conservative]

we are getting closer everyday to a nationalized government

more and more items that were once controlled by the states are now under federal jurisdiction

our government has grown out of control......as Mark Levin calls it, the 4th branch

only once we create agencies like DHS, EPA, IRS, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, they never seem to go away

limited government.....that is what was originally designed

that is what i hope one day we can return to

And thats the road to serfdom-power is consolidated and what are we left with? Knowing this, we must take every effort to prevent this from happening. We owe it to the future, not just ourselves. (sounds important, doesn't it? )

 

[jet57]

we are getting closer everyday to a nationalized government

more and more items that were once controlled by the states are now under federal jurisdiction

our government has grown out of control......as Mark Levin calls it, the 4th branch

only once we create agencies like DHS, EPA, IRS, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, they never seem to go away

limited government.....that is what was originally designed

that is what i hope one day we can return to

I think you're wrong on that. Our government is not centralized. Bureaucracies have arisen do to public demand, the IRS excepted. Mark Levin is selling his own books to own agenda, he is not any kind of expert on anything. The right is anti government and have used what ever bent perspective that they can create to convince their minions that that is what is happening. What has become centralized however are the agendas that have control in this country and the money to pay for it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

we are getting closer everyday to a nationalized government

more and more items that were once controlled by the states are now under federal jurisdiction

our government has grown out of control......as Mark Levin calls it, the 4th branch

only once we create agencies like DHS, EPA, IRS, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, they never seem to go away

limited government.....that is what was originally designed

that is what i hope one day we can return to

Make that limited federal government, and I'm with you 100%. As for what the people choose at the state or more local levels, that should be for them to decide. Some will want a heavy handed government that dictates how almost every aspect of how their society will be ordered and managed. Others will choose a much more loose live and let live approach while others could choose an almost lawless "Deadwood" style of governance. That is what freedom looks like; what freedom is, what self governance is. The role of the federal government in that is to intervene if Deadwood should try to impose its standards or values upon Prim and Proper Village or vice versa.

 

[jet57]

I don't know, the federal government we have sure seems centralized. My thing was that there certain rights and laws that should be the done by the national government and not the states, that there should be certain laws and rights uniform across state boundaries that you need not wonder when you cross one if you are breaking the law.

You're talking about two different things: uniform laws / federal laws; we have those. But we do not have a centralized government that is in charge of the nation: we created a 10th amendment to prevent that. Some of the federal laws, marijuana for instance, are being changed through state's rights, which is the way to do it outside of an amendment.

We guarded against a centralized government in the beginning because we had just broken away from one: the crown of England. That centralized government, though including a parliamentary system, was still headed and led by it's minions: the nobility who would do what ever it took to stay within that financial stream and the power that go with it. This is why the earls in 1215 didn't just kill King John outright, but made him an offer he couldn't refuse...

As I said; we do have centralized agendas however, and that creates a pretty good illusion, particularly with citizen's united.

 

[US Conservative]

"Natural rights" is a term, a concept, a word with a specific definition just as chair or sofa or table is a term, a concept, a word with a specific definition. I use the term "natural rights' or 'unalienable rights' because we have no other word/phrase in our vocabulary that demonstrates or indicates that. Nobody has said one must believe in natural rights, but to deny that such a definition exists is silly. I have not insisted that you believe that a chair or a table exists either, for that matter.

But I'll put to you the same argument I put to Paddy. Ask yourself whether you want any other person to be able to dictate to you what you must think, must believe, must aspire to do or be? And will have the power to punish you if you do not conform to what the other person dictates? If you say no, then you do believe in the concept of natural rights that should be secured but not dictated by government. If you have another word that means 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights as described, I'm not dogmatic about what word we use. I am unaware of any other word that conveys that as accurately, however.

Again, exceedingly well stated.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Imagine that. Ive been actually meaning to glance over the Canadian constitution. With our common lineage perhaps there is something to be gained from doing so.

I bet there is. Ours is borrowed/stolen from you with an overlay of British Common law and the Napoleonic code.

You can start here

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf

 

[US Conservative]

In the end, the govt's power to regulate behavior and rights will come down to what people will allow or tolerate.

Which is why the concept of natural rights is so beneficial for a constitution, it merely recognizes what exists, and is therefore not subject to what others tolerate. For a timeless document its highly appropriate.

 

[US Conservative]

Make that limited federal government, and I'm with you 100%. As for what the people choose at the state or more local levels, that should be for them to decide. Some will want a heavy handed government that dictates how almost every aspect of how their society will be ordered and managed. Others will choose a much more loose live and let live approach while others could choose an almost lawless "Deadwood" style of governance. That is what freedom looks like; what freedom is, what self governance is. The role of the federal government in that is to intervene if Deadwood should try to impose its standards or values upon Prim and Proper Village or vice versa.

Correct and additionally people within the nation are free to move to the state/county/city they most relate to. Instead of a top down one size fits all govt that tells someone in Maine what they must do because of something happening in Arizona.