@averagejoe1 saidNot at all.
Watch it MG, you are digging a hole. If the framers confirmed that the rights came from an entity that it ends up is non-existent, then the 'rights' do not exist!!!!!
So we need to tell Marauder he has to re-write all of his screeds about these seeming rights that we are all supposed to have. There are NO rights.
Ball in your court.
Libs. Jesus .
Grotius dealt with this argument in the early 1600s:
" He argued that a law deduced from man’s inherent nature would have a degree of validity
even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to Him. (Prolegomena, 11.)"
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hugo-Grotius
We know much more about human nature than Grotius or the Founders did and so we can postulate that there are hardwired rights that all are entitled to by that Nature. Of course, we can say that nature is derived from a Creator God if we wish.
@no1marauder saidNot sure why I wrote "DoC" in these two posts; obviously I meant "DoI" or "Declaration of Independence".
See what I mean, Sleepy? Just because someone can read or even recite the DoC doesn't mean they understand it.
@mott-the-hoople saidSure.
and BTW why dont YOU explain the 9th?
All you ever post is HAVE YOU READ THE NINTH? you never say nothing more as if it backs up your claim.
well Im giving you the chance…go
The Framers at the Convention didn't feel any enumeration of rights was necessary or desirable. Most continued to feel that way, but some politicians in States where the ratification votes were expected to be close thought that inclusion of a Bill of Rights (or at least the promise to include one) would be helpful to sew up enough votes. So a promise was made and a Bill of Rights was drafted, mostly by James Madison.
But Madison was concerned there would be dullards like yourself who would think that IF some rights were spelled in the BoR, no other rights would exist. To protect against such stupidity, he proposed what became the Ninth Amendment which reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That seems clear enough; just because we mentioned some explicitly doesn't mean you don't have other rights we didn't mention. That is perfectly consistent with the DoI which made clear that rights came from the Creator not from man made documents.
@Mott-The-Hoople
You are the fool with Women's rights now under the gun by your precious SCOTUS, a right wing religious puppet show now. Thomas is showing his true colors now, stop even the idea of selling CONDOMS or the pill. Same sex marriage, they are just ASKING for more right wing lower court judges to bring those to the fro so they can kill THOSE rights also.
And you love PRIVACY? Only if it is not YOUR class of so-called people involved, hypocrite.
@no1marauder saidyou seem to suggest people can just make up their own rights…and a mind reader to boot.
Sure.
The Framers at the Convention didn't feel any enumeration of rights was necessary or desirable. Most continued to feel that way, but some politicians in States where the ratification votes were expected to be close thought that inclusion of a Bill of Rights (or at least the promise to include one) would be helpful to sew up enough votes. So a promise was made and ...[text shortened]... sistent with the DoI which made clear that rights came from the Creator not from man made documents.
The US has a system to determine what Federal rights are given. Congress (the people) has the power to amend the constitution.
They way you libs want it done is for the scotus to approve any right you dream up.
@sonhouse saidSCOTUS does not have the power to give rights that do not exist in the constitution…you need to be on your dem politicians to do this the legal way
@Mott-The-Hoople
You are the fool with Women's rights now under the gun by your precious SCOTUS, a right wing religious puppet show now. Thomas is showing his true colors now, stop even the idea of selling CONDOMS or the pill. Same sex marriage, they are just ASKING for more right wing lower court judges to bring those to the fro so they can kill THOSE rights also.
And you love PRIVACY? Only if it is not YOUR class of so-called people involved, hypocrite.
@mott-the-hoople saidWell, I tried.
you seem to suggest people can just make up their own rights…and a mind reader to boot.
The US has a system to determine what Federal rights are given. Congress (the people) has the power to amend the constitution.
They way you libs want it done is for the scotus to approve any right you dream up.
The bottom line is this:
The SCOTUS is not released from its duty to decide which governmental measures are encroachments on basic, Natural Rights by the fact that the Framers felt no obligation to expressly enumerate all of them in the Constitution.
Some asserted rights might be debatable, but surely the right to bodily autonomy, a most basic one, is not.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidYou're a fool for sure.
I am not easily fooled, nice try tho
You really shouldn't pontificate on such matters since you are clearly completely ignorant of the Founders and Framers political philosophy.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidOh, the irony.
I am not easily fooled, nice try tho
What do you call voting for a carnival barker?
@no1marauder saidthat is the states (the people) function. What you suggest is for scotus to act in a totalitarian manner. The scotus doesnt have the power to make law or give rights.
The bottom line is this:
The SCOTUS is not released from its duty to decide which governmental measures are encroachments on basic, Natural Rights by the fact that the Framers felt no obligation to expressly enumerate all of them in the Constitution.
Some asserted rights might be debatable, but surely the right to bodily autonomy, a most basic one, is not.
You are very confused on this.
This power rests with THE PEOPLE through elected representatives.
@no1marauder saidI am fully aware that the founders put in writing what the rules are. Three branches, all with separate duties.
You're a fool for sure.
You really shouldn't pontificate on such matters since you are clearly completely ignorant of the Founders and Framers political philosophy.
You want the scotus to usurp the duty of congress, (the people)
@mott-the-hoople saidTry reading the Ninth Amendment.
that is the states (the people) function. What you suggest is for scotus to act in a totalitarian manner. The scotus doesnt have the power to make law or give rights.
You are very confused on this.
This power rests with THE PEOPLE through elected representatives.
No, it is not to transient majorities to decide what basic, Natural Rights are. Those who created this country would be horrified at such a suggestion.
You should stop babbling and actually read some of their works. I'd suggest Rights of Man by Thomas Paine though Madison's collected works would also perhaps solve your stubborn ignorance.