Off-Topic DiscussionsThis is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. Enter at your own risk as some posts in here may be NSFW
God was my term, the founders actually used the term "Our creator". But not to worry, the very first amendment mentioned that we have the right to worship any god, or no god at all.
If we want to keep this thread open, we should steer clear of discussions (or in your case, bashing) of religion.
In case you still don't understand, "rights" can be conveyed by a number of methods.
I don't know for sure, but here's a question for anybody. Now that I think of it, all of the rights that I know of became the law of the land through the same process - amending the Constitution.
Can you name any commonly held rights that we hold that became law by passing through the House and Senate and then being signed into law by the President?
The only ones that I can think of were big spending bills with lots of junk tossed in that were then named "The Right to Sunshine and Lollipops Bill" to make them sound better than the bloated spending bills that they really were.
The rights of the accused, and the rights to assemble, speak, worship, and to own and defend property. The rights to vote, freedom from slavery, etc, etc, including all of the rights on the Wiki page posted by AK were all made into law by amending the Constitution.
Can anybody name a common "right" that we enjoy that became law by passing through the House, Senate and then signed by the President?
In this thread I'd like to avoid the tit for tat about specific laws/bills, etc, but I can offer the following as fodder for further discussion about rights.
I believe that our rights precede and are bigger than our laws. Our laws should recognize and defend our rights.
I don't know if you read the blue quote above, but I'd appreciate it if you would:
The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence states my opinion very well. Our rights are given to us by God and our government was formed to protect those rights. That was stated right up front as the primary role of government.
Our government was set up by "We the people" (the very first sentence in the US Constitution!!!). Not "We the rulers", "We that are smarter than you", etc. As the last sentence in the blue quote above states, the government gets it's power from us, not the other way around.
Since WE grant power to the government, there are limits to its power.
If you and I were neighbors and I wanted to take your possessions, I would be prohibited from doing so. The same prohibition applies to each of our our other neighbors. If our neighbors and I form a small governing body, vote in a new law, and then hire a collector to go relieve you of your possessions, would that be OK?
The answer is NO. If neither I nor my neighbors have the legal ability to confiscate your possessions, then how can we give that ability to our elected representative? We can't.
For much of history, for most of the world, slavery was the law of the land. Before this country shed a tremendous amount of blood to rid ourselves of slavery, the law said that slavery was OK.
If a future congress was to decide that slavery was OK again, then so much for the rights and freedoms of the enslaved? Here today, gone tomorrow? I say no. People have a right to be free. Some governments fail to protect that right. But the right still exists.
Isn't it true that if the government is the source of our rights, then the government can very well take our rights away?
I hope that you won't counter with "oh, that won't happen here". Far worse things have happened by elected governments in not too distant history. Our government was specifically set up to guarantee our rights instead of simply trusting that we'll be taken care of.
Oky doky.
An idealogical discussion is fine but I guess I thought you were going to relate it to something or some events that are ocurring today and based on your past posts, I figured it was going to be a generic rant against any and all taxation.
Let's throw out something random, would you feel better paying 300 bucks less in taxes or would you rather not have 300 bucks and NASA gets to go to Mars?
Can you name any commonly held rights that we hold that became law by passing through the House and Senate and then being signed into law by the President?
Can anybody name a common "right" that we enjoy that became law by passing through the House, Senate and then signed by the President?
That is the best example that I came up with. Similar (anti discrimination) would be ADA of 1990.
Both of those came with a LOT of baggage and at a tremendous cost.
When, and why did our rights, when written out, cease becoming a single sentence long and start becoming hundreds and thousands of pages long and require armies of bureaucrats to enforce?
My guess is with all of the paperwork, agencies, overseers, etc comes jobs for the special interest groups and more control for Washington.
An idealogical discussion is fine but I guess I thought you were going to relate it to something or some events that are ocurring today and based on your past posts, I figured it was going to be a generic rant against any and all taxation.
Let's throw out something random, would you feel better paying 300 bucks less in taxes or would you rather not have 300 bucks and NASA gets to go to Mars?
Personally, my beef is less about taxes (although by taking my earnings, you do deprive me of opportunities and arguably, my freedom) than about the size, scope and corruption in Washington.
If I could pay the same amount in taxes next year, but was given the opportunity to choose where it went, I'd be happy! I've actually talked with some folks about that very option. Imagine if people were able to choose where their tax dollars went and government programs lived and died based on direct public support. I am not advocating such a system and recognize that that it would have flaws, but it's interesting to think about.
Of all of the federal programs, NASA would be one that I would complain about least. They do take resources from the economy that could be used elsewhere, but other than that, they have zero impact or influence on the daily lives of Americans. So to keep this thread cruising along happily, put me down for $300 for the NASA Mars mission. I'd prefer that it were a donation instead of a tax, but I'm playing along here....
Great question Check. Thanks for offering.
While we're having such a great discussion, would you comment on the specific question I asked above?
Quote:
If a future congress was to decide that slavery was OK again, then so much for the rights and freedoms of the enslaved? Here today, gone tomorrow? I say no. People have a right to be free. Some governments fail to protect that right. But the right still exists.
Isn't it true that if the government is the source of our rights, then the government can very well take our rights away? Isn't it at least possible that that could be a very bad thing?
Who is the fanatic? Me? I wish. I am not proud of the fact, but I am very mellow about my religious beliefs. Did quoting the first sentence in the Declaration of Independence where the founders give "Our Creator" credit for our rights make me (or them?) fanatics?
I've also often heard those most basic rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights described as "Natural Law" or "Natures Laws".
Those aren't the terms that the founders used, but perhaps those terms are less offensive to some. The point is, the rights that our founders talk about, and "Natural Law" are all said to belong to all of man before and without being codified into law by any government.
If a future congress was to decide that slavery was OK again, then so much for the rights and freedoms of the enslaved? Here today, gone tomorrow? I say no. People have a right to be free.
So why didn't the Founding Fathers think so?
In other words, some people want to hold up the Constitution as some 'Holy Document' that is inviolate when...in fact....it has its problems/inequities.
Quote:
Isn't it true that if the government is the source of our rights, then the government can very well take our rights away? Isn't it at least possible that that could be a very bad thing?
Absolutely and Yes.
That's why it is up to us, voting citizens, to make sure it doesn't happen.
The sticky wicket in that argument however are things like smoking in public.
One side says it is their "right" to have a smoke free environment.
The other side says it is their "right" to smoke.
So......regardless of what occurs, someone will feel their "rights" are being infringed.
I think they did. It was different times back then. Banning slavery in the Constitution would have prevented it from being adopted. The first draft of the Declaration stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. Property was changed to "pursuit of happiness" to avoid codifying support for slavery since slaves were considered property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Gandy
In other words, some people want to hold up the Constitution as some 'Holy Document' that is inviolate when...in fact....it has its problems/inequities.
You are right that it wasn't, and isn't perfect. On the other hand, it is the best form of government on the planet, PLUS, they provided a mechanism to correct any deficiencies via amending the Constitution. Of course this very mechanism was later used to correct the very obvious (especially to us now) problem of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Gandy
Absolutely and Yes. (responding to my question about can the government take away are rights and can that be a very bad thing)
Cool. I want to disagree with your first answer, but applaud your second one. If the government can take away our rights, that indeed could be a Very Bad Thing.
Here's the thing. I realize that I am splitting hairs here.
If I have a right to be free, but my government doesn't protect that right and I am enslaved, the "right to be free" doesn't do much for me, does it?
Here's the important distinction.
If we believe that rights are created and denied by government, what logical basis can we rally behind to fight for rights that we are denied? Do we all just cry out "it's not fair!"?
By believing that we have certain rights that no government can ever take away, that serves as a good foundation to stand upon to try to reclaim those rights. IMO, it would be best if the citizens of the US believed that we have certain rights that our government absolutely has no power to touch. I bet that you agree with that, correct?
After one of my last notes where I mentioned "Natural Law", I Google'd it and found the following on Wiki:
Quote:
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.
That sounds like it is pretty close to the argument I am trying to make. We all have Natural Law on our side. If a "man made" law takes away our rights provided by Natural Law, we have "a standard by which we can criticize that (man made) law"
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Gandy
That's why it is up to us, voting citizens, to make sure it doesn't happen.
You are right. I just hope that the citizens of the US will give some thought to the concept of rights, where they come from and can form a logical basis from which they build their opinions and upon which they will defend their rights should they be attacked.
We're doing just that in this thread. I have benefited from participating and thank you for joining in.
IMO, it would be best if the citizens of the US believed that we have certain rights that our government absolutely has no power to touch.
Right on! To say that we only have our basic rights until the government decides otherwise is total BS.
Most Americans (except for growing exceptions, primarily on the coasts and in the big cities) believe that our rights are not to be messed with. Look what happens when any politician campaigns on an anti-gun policy, they go down in flames. With a few nutburger exceptions, even the dems are mostly on board with 2nd amend rights these days.
Bob, I think you have a great topic of discussion.
I am submitting a article that require a lot of reading but since we are speaking of liberties and rights this is applicable and anything worth fighting for is worth the effort.
Bob this may explain how we as a society have been incrementally duped into our present condition via the media, educational system etc.; but here we are.
Dr. von Mises refers to the clash between New Deal economics and classical economics as "the clash of two orthodoxies; the Bismarck orthodoxy versus the Jefferson orthodoxy."[18]
The fundamental assumption underlying the neoliberal, New Deal cure for the ills of society is that it is possible to make the government virtually an economic dictator and still have our citizens retain a substantial portion of their individual liberties. It represents the ancient fallacy of those who are unwilling to face the facts—the fallacy that you can "eat your cake and have it too." In the words of Henry Wallace, "America must choose." It must choose dictatorship or liberty — it cannot have both.
Many people will conclude from the recent election returns that America has chosen. No assumption can be more dangerous. The New Deal is the American manifestation of the worldwide trend which produced fascism, communism and British socialism. It results from the desire of man to escape individual responsibility, to lean upon the all-powerful state and to trade his freedom for the politician's promise of security.
The recent election may conceivably mark the first step in the reversal of this worldwide trend. But, it may represent merely the desire to change the personnel of those administering centralized authority, or at most, a temporary reversal in the long-term trend.
Speaking of civil rights, our Constitution already has provions for civil rights, but as history shows the law was necessary to force the issue that all men are created equal. And so it goes.
The POTUS HATES our US Constitution because of its "Negative Liberties". In other word he does not like the idea that it is written to restrain the hand of government. Which of course for an educated man as himself and his Communistic ideology it just rubs against the grain. Hence the unprecedented number of CZARS to circumvent the check and balance system of our government.
I hope this article will help educated many and maybe Bob we can vote enough of the corrupt politicians out in both parties.
C-man.....
__________________
2003 7.3 CC XLT Sport short box 2wd dark shadow gray ,AIS Intake Kit, MBRP 4" w/3.5" D/P & 5" SS tip;Wicked Wheel ;Ultra Duty Aluminum Diff.cover JNB kit "HUTCH MOD" and Dahl 100 fuel filter. Silverstar lamps,203 T-stat w/Red billet housing. Fumoto DV w/nipple, AIH mod, Zoodad, Amsoil BMK-11 Oil ByPass Kit,fuel reg. shim @ 0.055 for 65-68 psi. Harpooned tank,Hx Mod, Coolant Filter, Po'man's Fx mod,CCV mod & 6.0 tranny cooler! Pull Rite Super Glide 14k Hitch.
Yeah FDR really shackled us up when his administration mandated the Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan keep their gambling banking seperate from Commercial Banks where you and I keep our money.
He really went over the edge when he created BPA and TVA. How dare they build dams that provide us with cheap power. How DARE THEY TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS LIKE THAT!
Right on! To say that we only have our basic rights until the government decides otherwise is total BS.
Most Americans (except for growing exceptions, primarily on the coasts and in the big cities) believe that our rights are not to be messed with. Look what happens when any politician campaigns on an anti-gun policy, they go down in flames. With a few nutburger exceptions, even the dems are mostly on board with 2nd amend rights these days.
That is where the DEMS went wrong. They went from being pro-union labor supporters to anti-gun, industrialist haters.
We went from FDR who said yes! We need industry and more of it! To Al "No you all consume too much electricity, except for me but it's ok because I am rich" Gore, to NAFTA signing and Glass-Steagal repealing Clinton.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
