• 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!

The rights of man and the duty of citizens

U.S. citizens have two Rights written in the 1787 Constitution that all other people of the world do not have, and those two Rights are the only constitutional Rights that have a force in government. I know of only two Rights that came from God, and neither have a force in government.
 
AllanHampton said:
U.S. citizens have two Rights written in the 1787 Constitution that all other people of the world do not have, and those two Rights are the only constitutional Rights that have a force in government. I know of only two Rights that came from God, and neither have a force in government.
Click to expand...

Might you elaborate and mention those 2 rights?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Might you elaborate and mention those 2 rights?
Click to expand...


Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, (Choose Lawmakers).

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; (Jury Duty).
 
AllanHampton said:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, (Choose Lawmakers).

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; (Jury Duty).
Click to expand...

Disagree， the body of the contitution. is about power， not rights and rights are onliy reconized by the BOR
 
Kal'Stang said:
Know what's sad? That people fully believe that as long as the majority of people agree then it is perfectly OK to take people's Rights away.
Click to expand...

Except that the minority have the same rights as the majority because the laws apply equally to all citizens.

"Equal protection under the laws" is a fourteenth amendment right. I think you have to actually prove in a court of law that a law violates your 14th amendment rights to equal protection in order for it to be unconstitutional or to claim that your rights have been infringed or taken away. It's not an easy thing to prove because the courts usually side with the law more often than not. However, people simply not agreeing with you over policy is not taking your rights away...or unconstitutional.
 
Moot said:
Except that the minority have the same rights as the majority because the laws apply equally to all citizens.

"Equal protection under the laws" is a fourteenth amendment right. I think you have to actually prove in a court of law that a law violates your 14th amendment rights to equal protection in order for it to be unconstitutional or to claim that your rights have been infringed or taken away. It's not an easy thing to prove because the courts usually side with the law more often than not. However, people simply not agreeing with you over policy is not taking your rights away...or unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Simply being equal under the law does not mean jack. Prior to SSM being legalized via SCOTUS based on their being a Right to Marriage, generally marriage being between a man and a woman was considered as being equal under the law. Everyone, regardless of preference was treated equally under the law. Only a man and woman could marry. And that did apply to everyone equally. So, just because everyone is equal under the law...doesn't mean that there isn't something unconstitutional about a law.

Now, you are right that people simply not agreeing with me over policy does not mean that our rights are being taking away or are unconstitutional. But that does not in anyway shape or form discount what I said in that post you responded to. Because while what you said is true, the opposite of that is also true.
 
AllanHampton said:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, (Choose Lawmakers).

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; (Jury Duty).
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with MasterPO in his point that the body of the Constitution is about powers, and nowhere in the text you offer is either the word "power" mentioned or the word "right" mentioned.

That said, you do have a point in that in a roundabout way the right to vote and the right to jury power are alluded to, even if the word itself is not mentioned.

And of course Amendment VII does specifically mention the right to trial by jury.
 
Master PO said:
Disagree， the body of the contitution. is about power， not rights and rights are onliy reconized by the BOR
Click to expand...

The two citizen Rights mentioned also have a power, or a legal force in government.

Mentioning the BOR is silly, and denying what is written in the 1787 Constitution is ignorant.
 
AllanHampton said:
The two citizen Rights mentioned also have a power, or a legal force in government.

Mentioning the BOR is silly, and denying what is written in the 1787 Constitution is ignorant.
Click to expand...

no you are just plain wrong, the body of the constitution sets up the structure of the federal government, and their powers.

voting is not a right in the original constitution of 1787, its a privilege as stated in the constitution.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

rights do not have Qualifications requisite, rights are only recognized in the bill of rights.

no rights arise from the constitution
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
Disagree， the body of the contitution. is about power， not rights and rights are onliy reconized by the BOR
Click to expand...

Amendment #14
(Ratified July 9, 1868)
Andrew Johnson 1865-1869

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial offices of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any male inhabitants of such States, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I liked JFK...very much. He was a popular president with a hot wife.

I know of very few who think he was one of the best Democratic presidents, though.

FDR was a great Democratic president; Harry S Truman was a great Democratic president; LBJ was a damn good Democratic president.

JFK got some things done...and made us feel good about politics for a while.

And while I acknowledge he was a Democrat...he was far from a leftist...so your 180 turn comment was self-serving.
Click to expand...

FDR was so great that it's OK that he ran internment camps and tried to demolish our government by invalidating the Supreme Court with his packing scheme, all the while staying in office for 4 elections and only giving up power when he died. Almost sounds a lot like a real Socialist/Communist leader. Yes, that would make him a hero of Democrats.
 
Fishking said:
FDR was so great that it's OK that he ran internment camps and tried to demolish our government by invalidating the Supreme Court with his packing scheme, all the while staying in office for 4 elections and only giving up power when he died. Almost sounds a lot like a real Socialist/Communist leader. Yes, that would make him a hero of Democrats.
Click to expand...

FDR kept the country together during one of the worst periods in history, when all throughout the world tolitarianism was rising from the ashes of the Depression.
 
Fishking said:
FDR was so great...
Click to expand...

Yes, he was, and ...

...that it's OK that he ran internment camps...
Click to expand...

ditto

... and tried to demolish our government by invalidating the Supreme Court with his packing scheme...
Click to expand...


Selective 'outrage'; it was nothing compared to the Chase Court packed by our first Republican dictator.

..., all the while staying in office for 4 elections and only giving up power when he died.
Click to expand...

yes, he was elected by a majority of Americans 4 times, and this annoys partisan hacks no end.

... Almost sounds a lot like a real Socialist/Communist leader.
Click to expand...


Sounds much more democratic than the Lincoln dictatorship and his Mexican style election tactics in 1864 and the 40 odd years of Republican corruption following his SC packing.

... Yes, that would make him a hero of Democrats.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was a hero to most Americans during some truly trying times, while most Republicans were hiding under their beds on their estates behind private armies, whining like little spoiled Princesses for the government to call out the military and shoot down Americans in the streets. thanks for noticing.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
FDR kept the country together during one of the worst periods in history, when all throughout the world tolitarianism was rising from the ashes of the Depression.
Click to expand...

"Kept the country together"?...from what? Nothing. That's cool, though. Who cares about human rights anyways. I'm sure you're equally as OK with Bush doing water boarding during another trying time in our country's history.
 
Fishking said:
"Kept the country together"?...from what? Nothing. That's cool, though. Who cares about human rights anyways. I'm sure you're equally as OK with Bush doing water boarding during another trying time in our country's history.
Click to expand...

The giant ass depression? The fact that fascism and communism were still considered to be okay political philosophies and had plenty of adherents in America? The rise of hyper aggressive dicatatorships?

And yeah, I actually am ok with Bush's program. Nice try though.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The giant ass depression? The fact that fascism and communism were still considered to be okay political philosophies and had plenty of adherents in America? The rise of hyper aggressive dicatatorships?
Click to expand...

And? Nothing FDR did helped us with the Depression. Thank you WWI and WWII for that transfer of wealth and utter destruction of any economic competitors. As far as fascism and communism, we still had elections and saying that the results would have been different without FDR or that internment camps were needed is ridiculous.

And yeah, I actually am ok with Bush's program. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

At least you're consistent here.
 
Fishking said:
And? Nothing FDR did helped us with the Depression. Thank you WWI and WWII for that transfer of wealth and utter destruction of any economic competitors. As far as fascism and communism, we still had elections and saying that the results would have been different without FDR or that internment camps were needed is ridiculous.



At least you're consistent here.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously things would have been different without FDR. I honestly don't see how you could see otherwise.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Well, obviously things would have been different without FDR. I honestly don't see how you could see otherwise.
Click to expand...

You're right...we wouldn't be saddled with the growing debt issues surrounding all the New Deal policies he implemented.
 
Fishking said:
You're right...we wouldn't be saddled with the growing debt issues surrounding all the New Deal policies he implemented.
Click to expand...

Because no other politician has ever implemented a program which has led to debt issues down the line, right?
 
AllanHampton said:
Amendment #14
(Ratified July 9, 1868)
Andrew Johnson 1865-1869

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial offices of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any male inhabitants of such States, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Click to expand...

the body of the constitution is that without amendments, its the original ratified in 1788

all amendments after the first 10 are powers.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note what it states in Section 5

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

in early american if you did not own land and pay taxes, YOU COULD NOT VOTE.
 
I believe that JFK would be considered alt-right these days.

Democrats went off the rails during the Clinton era.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because no other politician has ever implemented a program which has led to debt issues down the line, right?
Click to expand...
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; ...

Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom