Originally posted by no1marauderreally? what happens when a "natural right" that isn't in the constitution is violated? what happens when some are changed?
That's not how it works in the US. If the majority imposes things that restrict the Natural Rights of the minority here the latter don't "whine" (strange that you would use such a disparaging term to refer to someone who wishes to have their rights respected ) - they go to court. And courts have tossed out thousands of such laws no matter what the majority wanted.
if the slave owners that founded the us decide on what thing, that thing is final, and nobody can change it? of course, what the forefathers decided has been changed, you just like to believe that they were very nice people and only the ones after them misinterpreted their meaning. so when they said all men are created equal, and have the right to freedom, they really meant all men and women, blacks and whites are created equal. funny how nobody mentioned this to the blacks or to the women. and no court granted the women the right to vote until later. you don't change the constitution you just find its true meaning after decades if misinterpretation.
things change. and are changed by people, not by the fairy of Natural Rights. if people decide gays can't marry, a court may decide for or against that. but anyway, people decide. always. and sometimes they make the wrong decisions which is why they change them after that.
Originally posted by ZahlanziPlease read the 9th Amendment; a right doesn't have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be enforceable.
really? what happens when a "natural right" that isn't in the constitution is violated? what happens when some are changed?
if the slave owners that founded the us decide on what thing, that thing is final, and nobody can change it? of course, what the forefathers decided has been changed, you just like to believe that they were very nice people and only ...[text shortened]... ways. and sometimes they make the wrong decisions which is why they change them after that.
The rest is just babbling.
Originally posted by no1marauderi read it and it is great perhaps even more than right to freedom of speech and certainly greater than the right to bear arms. this leads room for future generations to add. so if the founding dudes thought they don't have the wisdom to think of ALL the possible rights do you think they were arrogant as to not think that maybe they were wrong with some of the rights and that the future generations should not be allowed to alter them?
Please read the 9th Amendment; a right doesn't have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be enforceable.
The rest is just babbling.
"all men are equal" became later all men and women and then all men and women of all races and so on. this is a fundamental right being changed. by the people. if we develop interstellar travel and find a less advanced civilization than ours will we make them our slaves because only humans have the rights we hold fundamental or will we further change this right to include all intelligent life forms?
Originally posted by no1marauderI love revisionist history.
Maybe you should learn how to read. The provision you mention was solely for the purposes of setting the number of representatives each state would have. Counting a slave as a full person FOR THAT PURPOSE would have rewarded the slave states for having slaves. Instead, this compromise provision gave states an incentive to do away with slavery; they'd aut ...[text shortened]... until 1865 (that was 143 years ago) when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
The point, which you so eloquently missed, is that your constitution has holes. You want to be able to buy guns and blow the heads off of theoretical evil doers, and to justify this you point to the 2nd amendment that talks about regulated militia's and somehow equate the two.
Originally posted by uzlessThe Second Ammendment is about the Individual Right to self defense....so said our Supreme Court recently.
I love revisionist history.
The point, which you so eloquently missed, is that your constitution has holes. You want to be able to buy guns and blow the heads off of theoretical evil doers, and to justify this you point to the 2nd amendment that talks about regulated militia's and somehow equate the two.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by uzless(Shrug) The Constitution doesn't create rights and I don't think the language of the 2nd Amendment is terribly important for reasons I've already stated. Suffice to say that the right to self-defense would be eviscerated if you weren't allow to have reasonable tools to do so.
I love revisionist history.
The point, which you so eloquently missed, is that your constitution has holes. You want to be able to buy guns and blow the heads off of theoretical evil doers, and to justify this you point to the 2nd amendment that talks about regulated militia's and somehow equate the two.
There was no "revisionist history" in my post; that is the history. Since you obviously didn't know it, a simple "thank you, no1" would have sufficed.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHa, the reduction of slaves to 3/5's of a person cannot be rationalized, ever, for any reason. I'm surprised you don't realize this.
( There was no "revisionist history" in my post; that is the history. Since you obviously didn't know it, a simple "thank you, no1" would have sufficed.
Originally posted by Zahlanzibut changing something in the bill of rights? i dont know, it seems a little bit dangerous for our government to have that much power.
a law in one of your states required women to drive not faster than 10 mph and her husband or father was required to walk in front of her waving a flag.
a brittish law states that it is forbidden by law for a member of the house of lords to die in parliament.
and there are more. if the laws are outdated they should be changed. of course, while still ...[text shortened]... it would be no point in having one at all. i don't agree however that we should not change it.
Originally posted by no1marauderOH really.
I realize it; however, you should realize that is not what the provision did.
You might want to consider that this provision is part of the discussion going on right now about reparartions to slaves. The argument is that this section essentially legitimized slavery and put it into law by formally recognizing it instead of outright banning it.
Clearly it was a mistake to reduce slaves to 3/5 of a person.
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessYou seem to think that repeating an untrue statement enough times will, at some point, make it true.
OH really.
You might want to consider that this provision is part of the discussion going on right now about reparartions to slaves. The argument is that this section essentially legitimized slavery and put it into law by formally recognizing it instead of outright banning it.
Clearly it was a mistake to reduce slaves to 3/5 of a person.
EDIT: Here's some history to chew on while you are criticizing the Framers for not abolishing slavery: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL15614649
The first sovereign state to abolish slavery was Vermont during the Revolutionary War. Slavery was not abolished in Great Britain (including Canada) until 1833. In 1787, the USA Congress in the Northwest Ordinance forever barred slavery in the territory that now comprises Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, etc. etc. Interestingly, the Canadian government complained that these territories had become a haven for runaway Canadian slaves!
That the Framers could not abolish slavery in the entire US in 1787 was regrettable. But no other country had done so either and none did for another 25 years (that was Spain). The provision regarding representation hardly "legitimized slavery"; slavery was thought of as legitimate by law in every nation in the world.
Originally posted by no1marauderlol.
slavery was thought of as legitimate by law in every nation in the world.
Exactly! Slavery was thought of as legitimate
And now reparations need to made. Thanks for making my point for me.
And now we turn our attention back to the 2nd amendment and how it doesn't apply to a modern society either.....
Originally posted by uzlessFALLACIOUS ARGUMENT ALERT
lol.
Exactly! Slavery was thought of as legitimate
And now reparations need to made. Thanks for making my point for me.
And now we turn our attention back to the 2nd amendment and how it doesn't apply to a modern society either.....
The fact that a practice that was certainly violative of a person's Natural Rights was allowed by law in 1787 and beyond does not mean that the Natural Right to self-defense is no longer applicable.
Originally posted by david haworthWow, they all have our best intrests at heart? Really?
no, i think all politicians have our best interests at heart and are extremely selfless.
of course they're gonna do what is best for them, this has been going on for thousands of years. they payback the people that got them elected, and the people are not completely innocent, there are plenty of candidates who say what they think and tell the truth ...[text shortened]... do, but they never get supported by a party because people will believe what they want to hear.
I did say that it has been going on did I not?
NO, most do not payback the people that go them elected. Unless you are meaning payback as in 'I'll get you back', which is what it seems like.
You are right, people do believe what they want to hear over what is needed or what is true. However, I do not buy into what they say. If they would lie to get into office why would they be worth voting for?
Originally posted by david haworthif the bill of rights says all humans have the right to freedom, and in the future we encounter another civilisation on a distant planet, shouldn't we chaNGE the bill of rights then to include them too? or are we allowed to enslave them?
but changing something in the bill of rights? i dont know, it seems a little bit dangerous for our government to have that much power.