Bill Of Rights, Prior Reservation Of Rights?

[suijurisfreeman]

Has anyone actually read the Bill of Rights of your State's Constitution? What is the purpose of that Bill of Rights?

The following is a brief quote from Kentucky's Bill of Rights:

Section 1: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable rights ....."

First: "The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties."

Fifth: "The right of acquiring and protecting property."

Seventh: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ...."

Section 2: "Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority."

Section 26: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

Are the people's terms and conditions for the "social compact" defined in this Bill of Rights?

If the statement, "All men are, by nature, free and equal...." is true, then exactly what is a certain right? An inalienable right?

If "absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic" can the majority lawfully compell anyone to do anything?

"We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate...." Does every thing actually mean everything listed in that Bill of Rights? "Forever", how long is forever? "Inviolate", exactly what does that mean?

"and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void." If any law violates the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution, are you obligated to obey/follow that law?

If you are an advocate of "government", exactly what is the basis, foundation of that "social compact"?

[Lava]

Originally posted by suijurisfreeman, Has anyone actually read the Bill of Rights of your State's Constitution? What is the purpose of that Bill of Rights? The following is a brief quote from Kentucky's Bill of Rights: Section 1: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable rights ....." First: "The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties." Fifth: "The right of acquiring and protecting property." Seventh: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ...." Section 2: "Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority." Section 26: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

Alrighty, lets tackle this one :)


> If the statement, "All men are, by nature, free and equal...." is true, then exactly what is a certain right? An inalienable right?

its obvious it isnt true though.
rights were well covered in anohter thread on here, theyre just what are granted by society. There is nothing inalienable about rights I'm afraid.


> If "absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic" can the majority lawfully compell anyone to do anything?

but that isnt so of America. Think prisons. Can the majority lawfully compel... yes, clearly, the law says they can, thus it is lawful. By definition.


> "We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate...." Does every thing actually mean everything listed in that Bill of Rights?

I guess


> "Forever", how long is forever?

until someone decides otherwise - which will be in no time at all. Its always the way I'm afraid.


> "Inviolate", exactly what does that mean?

nothing. It sounds like a good intention, but not really realistic.


> "and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

they wont in fact. Law just doesnt work like that. Look at the situation today to see that.


> If any law violates the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution, are you obligated to obey/follow that law?

fraid so.


> If you are an advocate of "government", exactly what is the basis, foundation of that "social compact"?

i suppose it would vary from one person to another, but I guess desire for the maximum good for the most people would inevitably lead to government. I'm sure there re many other reasons people choose too... including probably the main one, 'er...'.


Regards, Lava!

[Lava]

Hi


It strikes me that a fair bit of what you quoted was designed to appeal to people's emotions and ideals, to garner support for this daring and brave move, this change of government. Every political step forward needs such froth, the bs that convinces so many to fall in line behind the central idea, and give it enough support to enable it to be put into effect.

Things like inalienable rights forever, all humans born equal, these are the things of popularity seeking, the bs that people so love to believe in. It might be bull but it sure gets support... for almost anything really.

Why do they so love it? Not sure, perhaps because they dont see it is that way in the world but so wish it were. Perhaps because they want to feel equal to those that seem to manage to outwit them, outpossess them, and pretty much outeverything them. But now I'm guessing.


Regards, Lava!

[Mia]

If a law violates the constitution, you can take it to court. All the way to the Supreme Court which is the ultimate decider of what is and is not constitutional.

That is how abortion became legal. One person went to court challenging the law against it as unconstitutional.

There are already cases in court over the Patriot act. The Congress knows many parts will be overturned. But they will gather a lot in the time period before tha happens.

[Lava]

Well, a few people can. I doubt most have the money. But the fact that if you were rich you could go to the Supreme court does not actually prevent unconstitutional laws occurring. The patriot act is an example of limited term unconstitutional laws, and there are many who will point out permanently unconstitutional laws.

Regards, Lava

[Mia]

Lawyers will take these cases for no money for exposure, or because they believe in what you are challenging. The ACLU will work for no fee. Lastly, legal aid will take your case.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

It strikes me that a fair bit of what you quoted was designed to appeal to people's emotions and ideals

Actually a call to action is ethos, and an appeal to emotion is pathos. If you are going to attack debate form you should know debate form.

On that subject, if you are denying ethos and pathos, that leaves logos the appeal to reason. So, if you want to use that approach, it would behoove you to cut down on the typo's, because it is diffult to accept logos from someone that appears to be unfamilular with writing.

[Mia]

If you're using logos you need to avail yourself of the edit button and correct yours as well ;-)

[Lava]

Quote by: GreatWyrm of Babylon, Actually a call to action is ethos, and an appeal to emotion is pathos. If you are going to attack debate form you should know debate form. On that subject, if you are denying ethos and pathos, that leaves logos the appeal to reason. So, if you want to use that approach, it would behoove you to cut down on the typo's, because it is diffult to accept logos from someone that appears to be unfamilular with writing.

I find this an odd response. Here's why...

> Actually a call to action is ethos, and an appeal to emotion is pathos. If you are going to attack debate form you should know debate form.

this doesnt seem to contradict anything I wrote, yet criticises it anyway.


> On that subject, if you are denying ethos and pathos, that leaves logos the appeal to reason. So, if you want to use that approach, it would behoove you to cut down on the typo's, because it is diffult to accept logos from someone that appears to be unfamilular with writing.[/quote]

And this bit
a) fails to grasp why I type as I do,
b) doesnt seem to be on topic,
c) is a criticism of typos written by an author freely using... typos :)
Corrections:
Typos, not typo's.
unfamiliar, not unfamilular
d) claiming I am unfamiliar with writing lacks any credibility, at least in my eyes
e) and finally, its ad hominem, not sound principle-based debate.


Regards, Lava!

[VXerick]

There's this thing called God. That's how these laws originated. From a higher power. Once upon a time, more people believed in God than they do nowadays. That's the basis upon which these Bills of Rights were written and that's why today we have a problem with them. Having lost faith in God, these rights now seem irrelevant or downright stupid and unenforceable.

[Mia]

Huh?

[Jet]

There's this thing called God.

Four hundred years of scientific inquiry and knowledge disagree.

Once upon a time, more people believed in God than they do nowadays.

...which is why women now are in a better position than they have ever been and why in secular parts of the world people are no longer burned at the stake for practicing science.

On that subject, if you are denying ethos and pathos, that leaves logos the appeal to reason. So, if you want to use that approach, it would behoove you to cut down on the typo's, because it is diffult to accept logos from someone that appears to be unfamilular with writing.

On the contrary; typos do not weaken an argument. I suggest that you stop using ad hominem attacks, because attacking an argument for the typos its maker makes is exactly that.



As for inalienable rights, they're a myth. Rights obviously are alienable; in totalitarian regimes people are "alienated" from these rights. In ethics, the operational word is "should" rather than "be," so all we can say is that there are some rights that everybody should have all the time. As a legal concept, rights are obviously created by the law. But the idea that rights are somehow intrinsic or natural is mythical.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Lava
Since I often use a laptop keyboard I understand typo's I was griping about your occassional ambiguous sentence structure. Such as stacking adjectives until I cannot figure out which modifies which.

[Jet]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon, Lava Since I often use a laptop keyboard I understand typo's I was griping about your occassional ambiguous sentence structure. Such as stacking adjectives until I cannot figure out which modifies which.

That's got nothing to do with Lava, let alone Lava's argument, and everything to do with linguistics. If you want a language that doesn't have these ambiguities, learn Lojban.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Jet,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jet,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Four hundred years of scientific inquiry and knowledge disagree.[/b]

Faith transcends those 400 years.

Originally posted by Jet,@ ..which is why women now are in a better position than they have ever been and why in secular parts of the world people are no longer burned at the stake for practicing science.

But religion still trumps secularism. The Soviests tried for 75 years to squelch all form of worship and didn't succeed. Nowadays, they are even rebuilding the Churches in Russia and adding new ones.

<!--QuoteBegin-Jet.
As for inalienable rights, they're a myth. Rights obviously are alienable; in totalitarian regimes people are "alienated" from these rights. In ethics, the operational word is "should" rather than "be," so all we can say is that there are some rights that everybody should have all the time. As a legal concept, rights are obviously created by the law. But the idea that rights are somehow intrinsic or natural is mythical.[/quote] But you confuse your rights with might. Under the US Constitution, those rights are inalienable rights and are non-transferable and are the right of every citizen. In a totalitarian regime, people will lose their rights at the whim of a dictator. But if we follow our Constitution to its logical conclusion, we have rights that can't be taken away. Of course, the problem is that we just can't sit idle and expect to retain them. We have to work at keeping them and fight to protect them.
Rights and freedom are secured by the people. If we allow our government to usurp those rights, we deserve to lose them. And we will. We already have lost some of them.

[Jet]

Faith transcends those 400 years.

I give up. If you have faith in something that you have no reason to believe, then it's up to you and I'm not going to argue with you, considering that you've just proven that you'll believe that 2+2=5 if your religion requries you to.

But you confuse your rights with might. Under the US Constitution, those rights are inalienable rights and are non-transferable and are the right of every citizen.

You're contradicting yourself; the words "under the US Constitution" prove my point, namely that rights are a legal concept that is created and revoked by laws and constitutions.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Jet,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jet,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> you've just proven that you'll believe that 2+2=5 if your religion requries you to.[/b]

Not my religion. I don't have one. But many people have had and still have faith in it.


<!--QuoteBegin-Jet,

You're contradicting yourself; the words "under the US Constitution" prove my point, namely that rights are a legal concept that is created and revoked by laws and constitutions.[/quote] No the rights under the Constitution are irrevocable. But if we the people allow them to be taken away, it's our fault because they are our rights against the government, not their rights against us.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by VXerick, No the rights under the Constitution are irrevocable. But if we the people allow them to be taken away, it's our fault because they are our rights against the government, not their rights against us.

if they were irrevocable they couldn't be taken away...

they are not irrevocable...

remember prohibition?

that involved removal of a constitutional right then its reinstatement...

[VXerick]

Originally posted by Impenitent, if they were irrevocable they couldn't be taken away... they are not irrevocable... remember prohibition? that involved removal of a constitutional right then its reinstatement...

Prohibition was an amendment. An amendment requires that three quarter of the states ratify it. It was approved by the people. This is how it's done. They can't be made into law or taken away without the consent of the people.

But I don't agree that it removed a Constitutional right. It banned liquor. There was nothing in the Constitution prior to the 18th Amendment in 1919, that mentions liquor. It should have been a non-issue. Later it was proven to be, when the 21st Amendment in 1933 repealed it. It should never have been an Amendment in the first place.

[Impenitent]

Originally posted by VXerick,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VXerick,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Impenitent, if they were irrevocable they couldn't be taken away... they are not irrevocable... remember prohibition? that involved removal of a constitutional right then its reinstatement...

Prohibition was an amendment. An amendment requires that three quarter of the states ratify it. It was approved by the people. This is how it's done. They can't be made into law or taken away without the consent of the people.

But I don't agree that it removed a Constitutional right. It banned liquor. There was nothing in the Constitution prior to the 18th Amendment in 1919, that mentions liquor. It should have been a non-issue. Later it was proven to be, when the 21st Amendment in 1933 repealed it. It should never have been an Amendment in the first place.[/b][/quote]

what are the first 10 ammendments?