or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Showdown at the Supreme Court
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Showdown at the Supreme Court - Page 4

post #121 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

If the specific right were not in the Constitution then it would not be a right in the sense of this argument and thus could be infringed upon at will if it were a popular enough issue.

So how do you deal with the 9th amendment then?

The existence of the 9th suggests that the founders had a concept of rights that went beyond the constitution. They appeared to have the concept that rights were things people had regardless of what the constitution said and that they were simply listing a few of the more important ones for the purposes of being explicit.

This discussion leads me to believe that a number of people have a very different idea about rights, namely that they don't exist unless listed explicitly in the constitution and thus can be both revoked and infringed upon (if not listed). But to those folks, I ask...whoat about the 9th?


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

It is also not carved in stone as you could make an amendment to the Constitution that would repeal that right.

I would argue that it is not really a right then.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #122 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The problem with reasonable discussions here in this forum is that attempting to have a reasonable discussion fails immediately due to people who want to prove that the exceptions to rules have parity with rules and then allow all exceptions...

...but not vice versa.

Is that what you perceive me to be doing here?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So how do you deal with the 9th amendment then?

The existence of the 9th suggests that the founders had a concept of rights that went beyond the constitution. They appeared to have the concept that rights were things people had regardless of what the constitution said and that they were simply listing a few of the more important ones for the purposes of being explicit.

This discussion leads me to believe that a number of people have a very different idea about rights, namely that they don't exist unless listed explicitly in the constitution and thus can be both revoked and infringed upon (if not listed). But to those folks, I ask...whoat about the 9th?

I think the argument of rights here is not whether you have them, but whether the Government can infringe upon them or whether they can use them to expand the powers of the Government. The constitution holds the government in check and grants the government it's authority.

Quote:
I would argue that it is not really a right then.

I would argue that you are looking at a bigger picture than the point being made here. Constitutionally, it is spelled out as a right. One that may not be infringed upon by the Government. If you change the Constitution, then it is no longer a Constitutional right. By your logic, there are no true rights if a law can be made that alters them. People have rights, within a framework that society accepts.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #124 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I think the argument of rights here is not whether you have them, but whether the Government can infringe upon them or whether they can use them to expand the powers of the Government.

I guess I think these things are all interrelated and dependent. To be precise, governments can (are capable) of infringing on people's rights and expanding its own power. Whether it may (is allowed to) or has any moral authority to do so is a different and probably more important question. And this question directly intersects with where we get our rights from. If right are merely granted to us by governments then it stands to reason that governments are allowed to and have the moral authority to revoke or infringe them.

I guess I'm saying that I think these deeper questions are much more important and foundational to the specific question posed in this thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The constitution holds the government in check and grants the government it's authority.

The constitution intends to hold the government in check.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I would argue that you are looking at a bigger picture than the point being made here.

Indeed I am.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

By your logic, there are no true rights if a law can be made that alters them.

Not exactly. Any law can be made to say anything. What I'm saying is that if a "right" can truly be taken away (except where the right is being used to infringe on another person's rights and then only taken away or restricted back to the point where they are no longer infringing...but this all seems to be common sense) by government, legislation or the will of the people, then isn't really a right at all. This is subtle but important point to ponder.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

People have rights, within a framework that society accepts.

And I think that view differs markedly both from my own understanding of right and what it appears the founders though as well judging by this kind of statement:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Is that what you perceive me to be doing here?

Not at all, but you're not the only person I've engaged in conversation on this subject.

One gets used to making sure a back is to the wall, a clear view of all the exits are available and the sheep are guarded when dealing with the denizens of this place.
post #126 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I guess I think these things are all interrelated and dependent. To be precise, governments can (are capable) of infringing on people's rights and expanding its own power. Whether it may (is allowed to) or has any moral authority to do so is a different and probably more important question. And this question directly intersects with where we get our rights from. If right are merely granted to us by governments then it stands to reason that governments are allowed to and have the moral authority to revoke or infringe them.

I guess I'm saying that I think these deeper questions are much more important and foundational to the specific question posed in this thread.




The constitution intends to hold the government in check.




Indeed I am.




Not exactly. Any law can be made to say anything. What I'm saying is that if a "right" can truly be taken away (except where the right is being used to infringe on another person's rights and then only taken away or restricted back to the point where they are no longer infringing...but this all seems to be common sense) by government, legislation or the will of the people, then isn't really a right at all. This is subtle but important point to ponder.




And I think that view differs markedly both from my own understanding of right and what it appears the founders though as well judging by this kind of statement:

I don't think we necessarily disagree on the broader picture. The last point about rights is a fine point. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are listed as self-evident truths and unalienable rights. But still they are spoken in the context of a society with a certain viewpoint. If you had said those rights to another nation of people, they may not fully agree that those are rights. They are to be aspired to possibly, but rights?

In this country, they are rights, generally. And more so they are seen as a means to an end by many people.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #127 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

But still they are spoken in the context of a society with a certain viewpoint. If you had said those rights to another nation of people, they may not fully agree that those are rights. They are to be aspired to possibly, but rights?

In this country, they are rights, generally.

How postmodern. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #128 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How postmodern. \

Yes it is. I do not espouse that view, but use it as a way to show that what you and I consider rights in the perspective of another culture would not have the same traction.

If you want to get into a debate over something as ethereal as what a true right is, you have to look at the real overall picture, not just the US centric view. The debate is much simpler when you narrow it down to Constitutional rights, and the implications coming form altering or ignoring them.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Showdown at the Supreme Court