|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 357 of 406:
| 
Nov 1 12:39 UTC 2000 |
The Constitution grants no rights, it merely states "certain" rights as
pre-existing and that the government has no right to ban those rights.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 358 of 406:
|
Nov 1 16:11 UTC 2000 |
Where does the Constitution state that some rights pre-exist?
|
jp2
|
|
response 359 of 406:
|
Nov 1 17:25 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 360 of 406:
|
Nov 1 19:10 UTC 2000 |
Bruce may be thinking of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence
which reads "[men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights.." Despite the reference to a "Creator", let's please not turn
this into another reeligion debate item..
|
gull
|
|
response 361 of 406:
|
Nov 1 19:52 UTC 2000 |
#360 hits it on the head. People who claim that the Bill of Rights provides
a description of rights that existed *before* it was written must be
assuming the rights come from a higher authority, probably God. I'm not
sure which passage in the Bible says we should stockpile guns for the
purpose of overthrowing a corrupt government, though. (In fact, there are
ones that seem to indicate otherwise. "Give to Ceaser what is Ceasar's,"
comes to mind.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 362 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:13 UTC 2000 |
Re #359: I think you might mean "implied" in the 10th. But, no: the
amendment makes no references to any specific pre-existing "rights". It
refers only to "powers not delegated to the United States ... nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively,
or to the people." But that does not even imply anything about the concept
of their existing some prior rights that are inherent without being named.
It refers only to "powers" that might be appropriated following the
ratification of the Constitution.
|
md
|
|
response 363 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:37 UTC 2000 |
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."
(Jefferson) This idea was popular with the Founders, but I don't think
you need to posit the existence of a god to accept it. There is an
undeniable feeling that I can do anything at all unless someone else
stops me. That's the natural state, if you will, before social
organization. So we start with liberty limited only by the laws of
nature, and then start taking away -- by force, by mutual consent, by
governments and their laws. The shalt nots outnumber the shalts 7-3 in
the Ten Comandments. Government in its simplest (some say ideal) form
is the process of taking away rights, not granting them.
|
md
|
|
response 364 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:38 UTC 2000 |
Sorry for the drift. I'm still voting for Nader as long as he's in the
race.
|
brighn
|
|
response 365 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:54 UTC 2000 |
#360/361: The rights to bear arms isn't a Creator-given one, and the
Declaration doesn't have the force of law in this country. The unalienable
rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and possibly more),
which is one of the major foundations of the Libertarian Party (as well as
the Natural Law Party, I believe).
A Creator need not be conscious, and need not be a specific agent, although
Jefferson, Madison, et al, probably thought in those terms, so the religious
argument is moot (i.e., an atheist could also defend those inalienable rights
as "rights of birth").
|
mdw
|
|
response 366 of 406:
|
Nov 1 23:43 UTC 2000 |
The declaration of independence is just a piece of paper, and means
nothing under the law (except perhaps that it's a very *valuable* piece
of paper). A few years back, someone went around trying to get people
to sign the declaration of independence, and most people not only did
not recognize the principles enumerated therein, but thought it was some
sort of communist plot and refused to associate their john hancock with
the thing. Presumably, that means the declaration of independence
hasn't even the force of customary law.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 367 of 406:
|
Nov 2 00:51 UTC 2000 |
Re #363: people talked like that in those days. It wasn't long before
that the three branches of power in a nation were the Royalty, the
Military and the Church. Jefferson helped remove the last from our
government, but couldn't very well change the way he was brought up.
|
bru
|
|
response 368 of 406:
|
Nov 2 13:31 UTC 2000 |
Re #366
Kind of a sad comentary on our education system if people don't even recognize
the Declaration of Independence.
the Bill of Rights grants no rights, it merely tells the state(government)
what it cannot do.
Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...
...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered...
...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital...unless, on presentment of
indictment or of a Grand Jury...
...the accused shall have a right to a speedy and public trial...
...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...
excessive bail shall not be required...
IX The enumertation in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparrage others retained by the people.
right here in plain English it says the "Enumeration" of "certain rights":
This was not a document to grant people rights, it only "listed" certain
rights. It does not deny nor disparrage "others retained by the people".
X Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectivly, or
to the people.
So powers not delegated to the US or to my state, are also mine to use.
(whatever they may be)
You have to look at the document as a whole, not just small snippets here and
there. the 5th also bears on the right to keep and bear arms, as do parts
of the constitution proper list the army and navy and the militia and what
it can amd must do.
My rights, and your, are not their to be granted by anybody, they are a part
of our natural life from birth. No citizen has the right to take them away
without the consent of the governed. Thats why we have laws. To put limits
on peoples rights when they conflict with other peoples rights.
|
brighn
|
|
response 369 of 406:
|
Nov 2 16:07 UTC 2000 |
(Wow, a potential religious gauntlet that Rane and I not only chose not to
get into, but actually said similar things about. Heh. ;} )
|
rcurl
|
|
response 370 of 406:
|
Nov 2 16:37 UTC 2000 |
(He only left out the part about a "well regulated militia". I wonder why?)
|
brighn
|
|
response 371 of 406:
|
Nov 2 18:20 UTC 2000 |
(selective amnesia. Strikes a lot of NRA folks)
|
brighn
|
|
response 372 of 406:
|
Nov 2 19:02 UTC 2000 |
BTW, the latest Reuter polls show Gore up 9 in Michigan (according to Yahoo).
Even if Bush wins, a Gore victory in Michigan would just about guarantee that
whatever chance Engler had for a cabinet post (esp. after Bush's loss in the
primaries) is completely gone. A ray of sunshine. =}
(Gore and Bush are statistically tied in the electoral tally, 215 to 217
[resp.]).
|
janc
|
|
response 373 of 406:
|
Nov 3 06:27 UTC 2000 |
I'm endlessly baffled by people who claim Gore and Bush are interchangable.
They just aren't. Some of the ones I care about:
Environment - Gore talks more environment than he actually does, but he
is still a million miles from Bush, who appears to oppose almost all
regulations which might interfere with corporate appetites for
resources. As governer, he pushed for making air pollution regulations
"voluntary." As president he promises to drill in Alaskan Wildlife
preserves. Like too many Republicans, he is opposed to any environmental
regulation that might inconvenience anyone who is out to make a quick buck.
Rich & Poor - When I observe the world, I see that Democracy really only
works in countries where wealth is not excessively concentrated. In
south american nations where a few families control almost everything
Democracy just doesn't seem to work somehow. I think it is a great
danger to the health of the nation if the gap between the Rich and Poor
in this nation continues to spread at the rapid rate it has in recent
years. Bush's tax plan is designed to accelerate that spread, Gore's
to decellerate it.
Campaign Finance - I think it is bad that our politicans have to raise so
much money from private interests. It interferes with their ability to
honestly serve their constituents. The McCain-Feingold Campaign
Finance Reform bill isn't a complete solution to the problem, but it's
currently the most viable first step. Gore has promised to work to
get it passed. Bush would veto it.
Courts - I think the courts are currently my favorite branch of government.
They do remarkably few stupid things (maybe because they aren't spending
all their time raising corporate money for their next campaigns). I like
the liberal stance that the courts have taken during this century. I like
it a lot better than the "Strict Constructionist" stance that Bush hopes
to favor in his appointees. That kind of shift in the courts could
endanger not only abortion rights, but nearly every other kind of right
too, including gay rights, free speech on the internet, privacy rights,
etc.
|
bru
|
|
response 374 of 406:
|
Nov 3 12:44 UTC 2000 |
Sir and madam, I didn't mention militia because you and I ARE the militia in
this state. If you take the time to read the ENTIRE document, you will notice
that the militia is mentioned in more than just the 2nd ammendment, and is
defenitely distinct from the regular military of which the national guard is
a part.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 375 of 406:
|
Nov 3 13:19 UTC 2000 |
seems as if the candidate of truth, honesty and the american way has failed
to mention that he was busted for drunk driving a couple of decades ago. the
shrub said he never said anything about it because he didn't want his daughter
to know. lame.
oh, and dick cheney has two dui busts from the sixties that he told president
bush about when he was nominated for defense secretary. he never mentioned
that in public either.
aside from the fact that i think that drivers convicted of dui should be
jailed for a first offense, these busts happend many years ago. different
times back then. but....keeping it quiet and blasting al gore for his lack
of verasity, smacks of the height of hypocrisy.
|
jazz
|
|
response 376 of 406:
|
Nov 3 15:39 UTC 2000 |
Bruce, I've never seen a definition of the militia that included women.
I don't recall seeing any Constitutional provisions for a standing
army, either, outside of a vague mention of a "soldier" in the third
amendment.
|
bru
|
|
response 377 of 406:
|
Nov 4 16:33 UTC 2000 |
Read teh constitution, not just the ammendments.
|
scg
|
|
response 378 of 406:
|
Nov 4 19:26 UTC 2000 |
And then read the case law.
|
jazz
|
|
response 379 of 406:
|
Nov 6 14:22 UTC 2000 |
*chuckle*
|
jazz
|
|
response 380 of 406:
|
Nov 6 14:25 UTC 2000 |
Okay, the word "army" is also mentioend in section II of article II
in the constitution, once again without definition.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 381 of 406:
|
Nov 8 07:34 UTC 2000 |
At about 2:20am ET, the networks et al projected that Bush would win Florida,
giving him a projected 271 electoral votes overall, which would more one more
than the 270 required to win. With the close states remaining not yet 100%
reported, and the possibility of recounts, I would take the announcement
cautiously.
|