• 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!

Does the Constitution Really Say Freedom of Religion?

?? Because Obama articulated it in an easier to understand form, you dismiss it? You think "congress shall make no law..."

"may not be infringed..." is just "specious," when those are living examples of negative liberties?

<smh>

IMO it is not easier to understand at all. I've long been aware of rights and powers in the context of the US Constitution and Natural Law and other things, because I've read numerous books on the subjects over 25 years or more. Different books and different authors.

Now our illustrious Gunslinger Barack, with all his demonstrated respect for the rule of law and due process (that's sarcasm), articulates specious language and notions that amount to sophistry. Sorry, he has clouded things, not make them easier to understand.
 
I do not understand why you are engaging me with your condescending rhetoric regarding rudimentary positive and negative rights (unalienable and civil rights) if you have never heard of the terms.

I was hoping you would be able to make me understand the significance of those terms, and how they contribute to any discussion of rights or powers.

It's just me I'm sure, but I don't see the point on a negative right. Using the adjective "positive" with "right" seems superfluous IMO, but I don't understand how any of the "Rights of Man" can be considered a negative right.

If I have a right to privacy, for example, how can that be expressed in a negative way?
 
IMO it is not easier to understand at all. I've long been aware of rights and powers in the context of the US Constitution and Natural Law and other things, because I've read numerous books on the subjects over 25 years or more. Different books and different authors.

Now our illustrious Gunslinger Barack, with all his demonstrated respect for the rule of law and due process (that's sarcasm), articulates specious language and notions that amount to sophistry. Sorry, he has clouded things, not make them easier to understand.

Sorry to hear you having such a difficult time with such a basic and simple, well-rooted concept.
 
Why would the doctrines of positive and negative rights be in scripture?
Who said anything about that?

Unalienable rights, or the laws of nature derived from God, can be traced to the Stoics and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and throughout the ensuing history.
So is the flat Earth and geocentric theory and just as accurate.
 
Sorry to hear you having such a difficult time with such a basic and simple, well-rooted concept.

An obscure and esoteric bit of sophistry, as best I can see it.
 
An obscure and esoteric bit of sophistry, as best I can see it.

It's not obscure, esoteric or sophistry. You simply cannot process the concept, obviously.

Perhaps this schoolhouse lesson, aimed at a 6th grade level, might illuminate that which you're having such trouble grasping...

 
Well thank you Paperview! Thank you for at least trying to explain it.

I was onboard for the first 1.5 minutes, but after that it rather lost me. I understand what they're trying to say, but it still comes across as essentially propaganda, an effort to reshape thought processes by introducing new terms into the discussion.

I still fall back on the distinction between rights and powers, as covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I still believe that all political power flows from the people, and that we the people created the government to serve us and help us.

We the people have rights, and we selectively surrender some of those rights SO THAT the government can have certain powers. Those powers are enumerated in the US Constitution, and certain of our procedural rights are also enumerated in the Constitution. Yes, I agree with the video that there are certain specific rights that the government 'issues', but then we know that all power flows from the people.

So to me, the negative and positive adjectives applied to rights is but semantics, similar to but less egregious than the notion of "hate crimes" introduced in this country some years ago.

Propaganda or substantive differences? It seems the former to me.
 
It's not obscure, esoteric or sophistry. You simply cannot process the concept, obviously.

Perhaps this schoolhouse lesson, aimed at a 6th grade level, might illuminate that which you're having such trouble grasping...



this IMO is very good and thank you for posting it.

Notes to remember from your video:

Rights


Innate rights are rights you are born with, they cannot be given or taken away , ..............which would be natural rights of the constitution.

other rights of the video would be Civil rights/Legal rights/ which are created..........................would be Privileges of the constitution


Positive and Negative rights

Positive rights are rights which the government creates and gives you..................IE. civil rights/legal rights/ privileges of the constitution

Positive rights [requires] a government action for the positive right to be exercised.

Negative rights [do not require] a government action, only that government stands back [stay out of the way]......which would be Innate or natural rights, rights you are born with.

the word "Innate"

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms: inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;


the word " Privilege"

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
plural noun: privileges
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
synonyms: advantage, benefit; More
verbformal
1.
grant a privilege or privileges to.
"English inheritance law privileged the eldest son"
 
Last edited:
Innate rights are rights you are born with, they cannot be given or taken away
So what exactly is taking place when someone is executed or a soldier dies in battle?

Positive rights are rights which the government creates and gives you
Where exactly in the Constitution is the government empowered to give or create rights?
 
So what exactly is taking place when someone is executed or a soldier dies in battle?

taken away means..... the population cannot have their rights taken away, a person for violating the rights of another can have his rights curtailed or his life taken by due process.



Where exactly in the Constitution is the government empowered to give or create rights?

Article 4 Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

this part of the constitution states that if a Citizen of state A enters state B, then state B must give the Citizen of state A all the privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of state B

AMENDMENT XIV

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

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


the 14th states that no state shall abridge the privileges of the people AND ...........................the life liberty or property of the people, which are natural rights.
 
Yea a mode of transportation. Christ rode a donkey and you are still not making a relevant comment.

It's plenty relevant in response to your comment. I do lots of things that Jesus didn't do, that doesn't make it wrong.
 
Article 4 Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

this part of the constitution states that if a Citizen of state A enters state B, then state B must give the Citizen of state A all the privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of state B

AMENDMENT XIV

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

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1."
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


the 14th states that no state shall abridge the privileges of the people AND ...........................the life liberty or property of the people, which are natural rights.
First you stated that "they cannot be given or taken away" that that sounds like an absolute, yet now you are saying that they can be taken away. The second part still does not say that the government can make up rights and give them, no doubt because WE are the government.
 
First you stated that "they cannot be given or taken away" that that sounds like an absolute, yet now you are saying that they can be taken away. The second part still does not say that the government can make up rights and give them, no doubt because WE are the government.

we know a person can have his natural rights and his privileges denied by due process, i even posted that.

but natural rights of the people cannot be taken away not even by due process.

i already in my post you cited, shows that privileges are created, and natural rights are not

the word "Innate"

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms: inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;


the word " Privilege"

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
plural noun: privileges
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
synonyms: advantage, benefit; More
verbformal
1.
grant a privilege or privileges to.
"English inheritance law privileged the eldest son"
 
we know a person can have his natural rights and his privileges denied by due process, i even posted that.
We only know that rights can be and have been denied taken away etc.
There is NOTHING to support the notion of "natural" or "innate" rights. Rights are an entirely human construct and exist only to the extent that any society decides to recognize, respect and thus protect them.

the word "Innate"
Does not prove that it is valid when referring to rights.
 
we know a person can have his natural rights and his privileges denied by due process, i even posted that.

but natural rights of the people cannot be taken away not even by due process.

i already in my post you cited, shows that privileges are created, and natural rights are not

the word "Innate"

in·nate
iˈnāt/Submit
adjective
inborn; natural.
"her innate capacity for organization"
synonyms: inborn, inbred, inherent, indwelling, natural, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned;


the word " Privilege"

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
plural noun: privileges
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
synonyms: advantage, benefit; More
verbformal
1.
grant a privilege or privileges to.
"English inheritance law privileged the eldest son"

In the end, it sounds like you see 'right' and 'privilege' as being synonyms. Is that what you mean to communicate?
 
We only know that rights can be and have been denied taken away etc.
There is NOTHING to support the notion of "natural" or "innate" rights. Rights are an entirely human construct and exist only to the extent that any society decides to recognize, respect and thus protect them.

Does not prove that it is valid when referring to rights.

oh, the constitution itself states that the federal government has the power of cases of equity, which are adjudicated by natural law.

innate = natural
 
oh, the constitution itself states that the federal government has the power of cases of equity
And the death penalty is a case of equity?

which are adjudicated by natural law
No, by laws passed by congress.

innate = natural
That it is, but that hardly supports the notion of rights derived from nature or God. If that were the case where are those rights enumerated? How do we know we got all of them. Are we missing some maybe?
 
natural rights and privileges per the constitution are two separate things

I agree, and that's part of the reason this "negative-positive" right terminology seems counterproductive and specious to me.
 
And the death penalty is a case of equity?

No, by laws passed by congress.


the federal judicial system has authority over cases of equity, and those case are adjudicated using natural law.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States


That it is, but that hardly supports the notion of rights derived from nature or God. If that were the case where are those rights enumerated? How do we know we got all of them. Are we missing some maybe?

rights are only recognized by the constitution those which are enumerated, it does not grant rights at all.

all other rights fall under the 9th amendment, and are recognized by the USSC, ...ie... right to privacy
 
I agree, and that's part of the reason this "negative-positive" right terminology seems counterproductive and specious to me.

negative - meaning no action is required .....its a natural right

positive - meaning an action is required.........its a civil right/legal right/ privilege of the constitution


speech is a negative right, because it takes no action from government for me to exercise that right

being a licensed contractor is positive right, its a privilege, because i must pass exams set by the state and any other requirements so i can receive my license from the state, so the state is giving me something they are preforming an action.
 
rights are only recognized by the constitution those which are enumerated, it does not grant rights at all.
Yes and since WE made the constitution, rights, any rights, exist only to the extent that WE agreed to and recognize and have NOTHING to do God or nature. Moreover, rights, any rights can be curtailed, revoked or limited as WE decide to.

all other rights fall under the 9th amendment, and are recognized by the USSC, ...ie... right to privacy
Yet in an earlier post you stated that the government gives them.
 
Back
Top Bottom