|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 3, 2014 17:59:58 GMT
I certainly do support that philosophy. Unequivocally. But we appear to have somewhat different interpretations of what that philosophy entails.
I believe that we have to start at the beginning which is the Inalienable Rights of the Person that are not granted by government and exist without government. I have summarized the determining factors related to the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
An inalienable Right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon any other person, that does not infringe upon the Inalienable Rights of another person, nor does it impose any involuntary obligation upon another person.
It is pretty straightforward and relatively easy to apply in determining what is and what is not an Inalienable Right.
A person can act based upon their inalienable rights but cannot act unless it's based upon their inalienable rights. For example I can express my personal opinions (freedom of expression) but I cannot require anyone to listen to them. I can use force defend myself from acts of aggression against me but I cannot use force to commit an act of aggression against another person.
This exists outside of the existance of government and it gives us the understanding of our cummulative authority as individuals in creating government. We cannot authorize government to do anything that we don't as individual person's have an Inalienable Right to do. We cannot delegate a "power" that we don't possess based upon the exercising of our Inalienable Rights.
That is the very beginning of understanding the political philosophy established by the Declaration of Independence. We have to start at square one which is the Inalienable Rights of the Person because those Rights both empower us as well as limit us in our actions.
I can provide examples where we, as a society, have delegated powers to government that we don't possess as individual persons based upon our Inalienable Rights and that violates the political ideology of the United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that is where our opinions are different but I believe I can support my arguments based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
What you refer to (somewhat verbosely, I believe) as "the Inalienable Rights of the Person," sounds a bit like what many of us know as natural rights; and these are the result of natural law. This, however, is only a partial description of the source of our rights. Actually, I should speak of sources--plural. For the other source of our rights is the social contract (a.k.a. the social compact). This was delineated by John Locke, whose thought undergird our Declaration of Independence. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 4, 2014 13:16:35 GMT
What you refer to (somewhat verbosely, I believe) as "the Inalienable Rights of the Person," sounds a bit like what many of us know as natural rights; and these are the result of natural law. This, however, is only a partial description of the source of our rights. Actually, I should speak of sources--plural. For the other source of our rights is the social contract (a.k.a. the social compact). This was delineated by John Locke, whose thought undergird our Declaration of Independence.
John Locke was certainly important as he made the earliest arguments for the "natural rights of man" but remember that all he really provided was the foundation for the understanding of the natural (inalienable) rights of the person. Locke provided the beginning and not the end of our understanding of the Rights of Man. The ideas established by Locke were not the same as those proposed in the Declaration of Independence but were the foundation for it. By way of analogy it would be like the origin of math that only addressed addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division but we didn't stop there. We went on to apply that foundation of math with the development of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. The founders of America had already built upon the foundation of the "natural rights of man" with the understanding of the "inalienable rights of man" and it is up to us to continue to expand our understanding as well.
We need to build on the past and not live in the past.
The understanding of the authority of the social contract goes back thousands of years but Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, placed it in the perspective that it needed to be placed. The social contract is like any other contract. As with any contract it deliniates that "I can do this, you can do that, and based upon we can do individually we can mutually do this."
Once again by way of analogy let's assume I can build and assemble the mechanical parts of a car and you can do body, paint and the interior but neither of us can do chome plating. We can form a company that builds cars, but guess what, our car will not have any chrome on it because we're incapable of chrome plating anything. The contract cannot contain that which we can't do as persons and that is true of any contract.
We can, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, grant powers to a government we create but we cannot grant powers that we don't possess as individuals and never can those powers violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person as we don't have a "Right" to violate anyone's Inalienable Rights.
But we can do something and that is, based upon pragmatic and compelling arguments, voluntarily limit our own Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights as a person. Logically these voluntary limitations upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights should always be to the least extent possible to provide the benefit established by the compelling arguments.
For example we have an Inalienable Right of Thought and with that comes the Freedom to Exercise that Right of Thought by expression. We have a Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech, Expression, and the Press so that we can exercise our Inalienable Right of Thought. At the same time we also limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Thought by prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater where it would cause panic resulting in unnecessary injuries and possibly death to other people. It is a pragmatic limitation upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Thought based upon a compelling argument and it is the "least possible" limitation. You can stand in a field and yell "fire" all you want because it doesn't create panic and possible injuries or death but we've mutually agreed that we won't do that in a theater. Our Inalienable Right is not being violated by this voluntary limitation upon our Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right.
Back to the beginning. The Social Contract is a contract established between the People based upon their own individual Inalienable Right to form partnerships based upon voluntary mutual and informed consent. The Social Contract is based upon the Inalieanble Right of Association between Persons based upon informed voluntary consent that is the foundation of all contracts. As in all contracts it can only address what the parties to the contract can do and not upon that which they can't do. It is really just an issue of "contract" applied to the voluntary establishment of government between the Individuals within a territorial boundry.
Of interest what the "social contract" contains is secondary to the basis for establishment of the social contract. What "criteria" is being applied for the creation of the specific provisions of the "social contract" is really what is important related to the "social contract' more so than what it specific conditions that it eventually contains. For example when the first European settlers arrived in America they agreed upon "democratic" rule. It was upon this foundation that the original villages and towns were formed and later the colonies. By the time of the forming of the United States a much higher criteria was established than just "majority rule" when it came to the national "social contract" that is the United States Constitution. To avoid the oppression of the minority by the majority that was always a flaw with pure democracy it required a super-majority of 3/4ths of the States to first adopt and to later ratify amendments to the US Constitution (i.e. change the social contract of the nation).
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 4, 2014 14:00:16 GMT
What is a 'natural' right if you can't enforce it? Who are 'the People' when they're at home? Who made a 'social contract', when? This is fairytale stuff, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 5, 2014 0:37:53 GMT
What you refer to (somewhat verbosely, I believe) as "the Inalienable Rights of the Person," sounds a bit like what many of us know as natural rights; and these are the result of natural law. This, however, is only a partial description of the source of our rights. Actually, I should speak of sources--plural. For the other source of our rights is the social contract (a.k.a. the social compact). This was delineated by John Locke, whose thought undergird our Declaration of Independence.
John Locke was certainly important as he made the earliest arguments for the "natural rights of man" but remember that all he really provided was the foundation for the understanding of the natural (inalienable) rights of the person. Locke provided the beginning and not the end of our understanding of the Rights of Man. The ideas established by Locke were not the same as those proposed in the Declaration of Independence but were the foundation for it. By way of analogy it would be like the origin of math that only addressed addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division but we didn't stop there. We went on to apply that foundation of math with the development of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. The founders of America had already built upon the foundation of the "natural rights of man" with the understanding of the "inalienable rights of man" and it is up to us to continue to expand our understanding as well.
We need to build on the past and not live in the past.
The understanding of the authority of the social contract goes back thousands of years but Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, placed it in the perspective that it needed to be placed. The social contract is like any other contract. As with any contract it deliniates that "I can do this, you can do that, and based upon we can do individually we can mutually do this."
Once again by way of analogy let's assume I can build and assemble the mechanical parts of a car and you can do body, paint and the interior but neither of us can do chome plating. We can form a company that builds cars, but guess what, our car will not have any chrome on it because we're incapable of chrome plating anything. The contract cannot contain that which we can't do as persons and that is true of any contract.
We can, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, grant powers to a government we create but we cannot grant powers that we don't possess as individuals and never can those powers violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person as we don't have a "Right" to violate anyone's Inalienable Rights.
But we can do something and that is, based upon pragmatic and compelling arguments, voluntarily limit our own Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights as a person. Logically these voluntary limitations upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights should always be to the least extent possible to provide the benefit established by the compelling arguments.
For example we have an Inalienable Right of Thought and with that comes the Freedom to Exercise that Right of Thought by expression. We have a Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech, Expression, and the Press so that we can exercise our Inalienable Right of Thought. At the same time we also limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Thought by prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater where it would cause panic resulting in unnecessary injuries and possibly death to other people. It is a pragmatic limitation upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Thought based upon a compelling argument and it is the "least possible" limitation. You can stand in a field and yell "fire" all you want because it doesn't create panic and possible injuries or death but we've mutually agreed that we won't do that in a theater. Our Inalienable Right is not being violated by this voluntary limitation upon our Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right.
Back to the beginning. The Social Contract is a contract established between the People based upon their own individual Inalienable Right to form partnerships based upon voluntary mutual and informed consent. The Social Contract is based upon the Inalieanble Right of Association between Persons based upon informed voluntary consent that is the foundation of all contracts. As in all contracts it can only address what the parties to the contract can do and not upon that which they can't do. It is really just an issue of "contract" applied to the voluntary establishment of government between the Individuals within a territorial boundry.
Of interest what the "social contract" contains is secondary to the basis for establishment of the social contract. What "criteria" is being applied for the creation of the specific provisions of the "social contract" is really what is important related to the "social contract' more so than what it specific conditions that it eventually contains. For example when the first European settlers arrived in America they agreed upon "democratic" rule. It was upon this foundation that the original villages and towns were formed and later the colonies. By the time of the forming of the United States a much higher criteria was established than just "majority rule" when it came to the national "social contract" that is the United States Constitution. To avoid the oppression of the minority by the majority that was always a flaw with pure democracy it required a super-majority of 3/4ths of the States to first adopt and to later ratify amendments to the US Constitution (i.e. change the social contract of the nation).
First, let me say that I agree completely with your analogy to one's yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, vis-a-vis one's doing exactly the same thing in an empty field. This goes to demonstrate that individual rights--no matter how important (even sacrosanct!)--should not be considered absolute. Context, as usual, is of immense importance. I further agree with your observation, in the final paragraph, above, that undiluted majoritarianism is unwise. It is similar to the proverbial chicken and two foxes voting on what to have for dinner. But your dismissive attitude toward "the past"--it is something, you suggest, that we must "build" upon--is not even remotely in keeping with my own views. In fact, this sounds very much like the mindset of a progressive--someone who believes, for instance, in "Living Constitution" theory. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 5, 2014 9:47:55 GMT
First, let me say that I agree completely with your analogy to one's yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, vis-a-vis one's doing exactly the same thing in an empty field. This goes to demonstrate that individual rights--no matter how important (even sacrosanct!)--should not be considered absolute. Context, as usual, is of immense importance. I further agree with your observation, in the final paragraph, above, that undiluted majoritarianism is unwise. It is similar to the proverbial chicken and two foxes voting on what to have for dinner. But your dismissive attitude toward "the past"--it is something, you suggest, that we must "build" upon--is not even remotely in keeping with my own views. In fact, this sounds very much like the mindset of a progressive--someone who believes, for instance, in "Living Constitution" theory.
In the "fire" analogy you need to understand that two different factors are in play. The Inalienable Right is the Right of Thought of the Person. The Freedom to Exercise that Right through speech, the press, or other form or expression is a different matter. The "Right of Thought" is not being violated by a pragmatic restriction on the "Freedom to Exercise" that Right in a crowded theater. The person can still "think" fire all they want in the theater. They're only restricted related to expressing it. The "Right" is absolute but the "Freedom" is not.
The "Constitution" is a contract and should be interpreted as such. It is not an "old" document because any "contract" is current as of it's last revision which wasn't all that long ago. We have the ability to revise (update) the US Constitution whenever we choose. All that needs to be done is to follow the provisions of Article V. I'm actually very "conservative" when it comes to the US Constitution and have proposed an amendment to it that would require unanimous consent of the Supreme Court to uphold any law or action as I've read too many minority opinions that established dubious Constitutionally of the law or action related to split decisions. If we trace virtually all of our concerns related to government actions, from expansionism of federal reach over intra-state commerce to legal tender currency they all seem to have their foundation in a split decision by the US Supreme Court.
One point I'd make is that the political terms "conservative" and "progressive" as used related to Republicans and Democrats don't have the same meaning when it comes to interpretation of the US Constitution. The political "conservative" agenda of the Republican Party depends just as much on a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution as the "progressive" (i.e. liberal) agenda of the Democratic Party.
I also believe that the term "progressive" is used inappropriately predominately by "social-conservatives" as a smear against their political rivals (i.e. Democrats). "Progressive" means to move forward and we should always been attempting to "move forward" as a nation. I don't want to go back to the 1950's where we had segregation. I don't want to go back to the early 1900's when women couldn't vote in federal elections. I sure as hell don't want to go back to the year 1800 when slavery existed. We very much need to move forward (i.e. be progressive) in our political ideology because we want the nation to be better in the future than it was in the past.
So I'm very much a "progressive" libertarian believing that we need to move forward and no where is this more important that understanding what those "unenumerated" Rights of the Person are that the Ninth Amendment protects. The Ninth Amendment is only referenced in Supreme Court decisions rarely and yet it is at the crux of many Supreme Court decisions.
Perhaps the best example is Roe v Wade where the Supreme Court refers to it but then the final decision is based upon the 14th Amendment. The "religious-right" condemns Roe v Wade (without providing any citations of where there is an error in it) often citing the fact that the final decison was based upon the 14th Amendment but they ignore the woman's unenumerated Rights protected by the Ninth Amendment that were also cited in that decision.
One last thought I'd leave you with.
The government has authority but does not have rights as rights only exist for the person. Based upon their Rights the People grant government authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 5, 2014 16:43:08 GMT
First, let me say that I agree completely with your analogy to one's yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, vis-a-vis one's doing exactly the same thing in an empty field. This goes to demonstrate that individual rights--no matter how important (even sacrosanct!)--should not be considered absolute. Context, as usual, is of immense importance. I further agree with your observation, in the final paragraph, above, that undiluted majoritarianism is unwise. It is similar to the proverbial chicken and two foxes voting on what to have for dinner. But your dismissive attitude toward "the past"--it is something, you suggest, that we must "build" upon--is not even remotely in keeping with my own views. In fact, this sounds very much like the mindset of a progressive--someone who believes, for instance, in "Living Constitution" theory.
In the "fire" analogy you need to understand that two different factors are in play. The Inalienable Right is the Right of Thought of the Person. The Freedom to Exercise that Right through speech, the press, or other form or expression is a different matter. The "Right of Thought" is not being violated by a pragmatic restriction on the "Freedom to Exercise" that Right in a crowded theater. The person can still "think" fire all they want in the theater. They're only restricted related to expressing it. The "Right" is absolute but the "Freedom" is not.
The "Constitution" is a contract and should be interpreted as such. It is not an "old" document because any "contract" is current as of it's last revision which wasn't all that long ago. We have the ability to revise (update) the US Constitution whenever we choose. All that needs to be done is to follow the provisions of Article V. I'm actually very "conservative" when it comes to the US Constitution and have proposed an amendment to it that would require unanimous consent of the Supreme Court to uphold any law or action as I've read too many minority opinions that established dubious Constitutionally of the law or action related to split decisions. If we trace virtually all of our concerns related to government actions, from expansionism of federal reach over intra-state commerce to legal tender currency they all seem to have their foundation in a split decision by the US Supreme Court.
One point I'd make is that the political terms "conservative" and "progressive" as used related to Republicans and Democrats don't have the same meaning when it comes to interpretation of the US Constitution. The political "conservative" agenda of the Republican Party depends just as much on a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution as the "progressive" (i.e. liberal) agenda of the Democratic Party.
I also believe that the term "progressive" is used inappropriately predominately by "social-conservatives" as a smear against their political rivals (i.e. Democrats). "Progressive" means to move forward and we should always been attempting to "move forward" as a nation. I don't want to go back to the 1950's where we had segregation. I don't want to go back to the early 1900's when women couldn't vote in federal elections. I sure as hell don't want to go back to the year 1800 when slavery existed. We very much need to move forward (i.e. be progressive) in our political ideology because we want the nation to be better in the future than it was in the past.
So I'm very much a "progressive" libertarian believing that we need to move forward and no where is this more important that understanding what those "unenumerated" Rights of the Person are that the Ninth Amendment protects. The Ninth Amendment is only referenced in Supreme Court decisions rarely and yet it is at the crux of many Supreme Court decisions.
Perhaps the best example is Roe v Wade where the Supreme Court refers to it but then the final decision is based upon the 14th Amendment. The "religious-right" condemns Roe v Wade (without providing any citations of where there is an error in it) often citing the fact that the final decison was based upon the 14th Amendment but they ignore the woman's unenumerated Rights protected by the Ninth Amendment that were also cited in that decision.
One last thought I'd leave you with.
The government has authority but does not have rights as rights only exist for the person. Based upon their Rights the People grant government authority.
(1) I thoroughly agree that America's treatment of black people and women, in times past--as secondary creatures, at best, if not as downright subhuman--was very wrong. (2) I use the term, "progressive," in order to speak in a civil manner. Ever since George H.W. Bush uttered the term, "liberal," with a bit of a sneer in 1988, it has seemed almost like an epithet. (There is, of course, the additional fact that it may be a bit confusing, since a classical liberal, from 100 years ago, resembles a modern-day conservative much more closely than he or she resembles a modern-day liberal.) (3) Only in an authoritarian government--where rights derive from the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao--may there be a reasonable distinction between "authority" (however arbitrary) and "rights." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 6, 2014 11:55:16 GMT
(1) I thoroughly agree that America's treatment of black people and women, in times past--as secondary creatures, at best, if not as downright subhuman--was very wrong. (2) I use the term, "progressive," in order to speak in a civil manner. Ever since George H.W. Bush uttered the term, "liberal," with a bit of a sneer in 1988, it has seemed almost like an epithet. (There is, of course, the additional fact that it may be a bit confusing, since a classical liberal, from 100 years ago, resembles a modern-day conservative much more closely than he or she resembles a modern-day liberal.) (3) Only in an authoritarian government--where rights derive from the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao--may there be a reasonable distinction between "authmority" (however arbitrary) and "rights."
In addressing the political philosophy I'm going to try to avoid our failures to a large degree even though to understand that philosophy allows us to see our short-comings in achieving it. The past is the past and cannot be changed although it can and does effect the present and future.
Unfortunately even today there are those that believe: Man > Woman, White > Non-White, Citizen > Non-Citizen, Christian > Non-Christian, and based upon this stereotyping they apply this to the "person" which wrongfully denies the basic equality of the person. Using just one of these as an example a "Christian" can certainly hold the belief that their religious philosophy is superior to that of the Muslim or the Athiest but that doesn't imply they are a superior person to someone that might happen to be a Muslim or an Athiest. Their philosophy may be superior but as a person they are not.
Addressing these issues based upon our political philosophy is the challenge but that can be addressed elsewhere. Here I would choose to refine our understanding of what our political philosophy is instead.
To clear up the semantics of "right v authority" perhaps I can clarify that. Through our "social contracts' (State Constitutions and the US Constitution) we define the structure and processes of government as well as delegating the "roles and responsibilities" of our government. For our government to fulfill these roles and responsibilities we grant it the authority necessary. That granting of "authority" is referred to as the "powers" of government. It is not a "right" of government but instead it is a contractural authority (power) that is provided in writing by the contract. A "right" implies that our government can do that which we, as the people of the nation, have not authorized it to do under the social contract.
Let me provide an analogy using an automotive repair shop. The purpose of the auto repair shop is to fix cars but does it have the Right to fix cars or the Authority to fix cars? I can take my car in for a brake job and make an agreement in writing with the repair shop to fix my brakes. The repair shop, based upon that work order, can do what is necessary to fix my brakes such as purchase parts, expend labor, and subcontract work like sending the rotors out to a machine shop to be turned. It can even partner with other repair shops to create a machine shop to turn rotors, and I'm responsible for paying for the authorized work. That auto repair shop does not have a "Right" to overhaul my engine regardless of how bad the engine needs it even though it is capable of doing so. I have not granted the auto repair shop the "Authority" to overhaul my engine and it has no "Right" to do so.
Do you see where I draw the line between an "authority" (power) of government granted by the people and a "right" of government not granted by the people? In totalitarian regimes the government assumes the "Right" to take action as opposed to being dependent upon an "Authority" to take action granted by the People.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 6, 2014 20:51:08 GMT
(1) I thoroughly agree that America's treatment of black people and women, in times past--as secondary creatures, at best, if not as downright subhuman--was very wrong. (2) I use the term, "progressive," in order to speak in a civil manner. Ever since George H.W. Bush uttered the term, "liberal," with a bit of a sneer in 1988, it has seemed almost like an epithet. (There is, of course, the additional fact that it may be a bit confusing, since a classical liberal, from 100 years ago, resembles a modern-day conservative much more closely than he or she resembles a modern-day liberal.) (3) Only in an authoritarian government--where rights derive from the barrel of a gun, to paraphrase Mao--may there be a reasonable distinction between "authmority" (however arbitrary) and "rights."
In addressing the political philosophy I'm going to try to avoid our failures to a large degree even though to understand that philosophy allows us to see our short-comings in achieving it. The past is the past and cannot be changed although it can and does effect the present and future.
Unfortunately even today there are those that believe: Man > Woman, White > Non-White, Citizen > Non-Citizen, Christian > Non-Christian, and based upon this stereotyping they apply this to the "person" which wrongfully denies the basic equality of the person. Using just one of these as an example a "Christian" can certainly hold the belief that their religious philosophy is superior to that of the Muslim or the Athiest but that doesn't imply they are a superior person to someone that might happen to be a Muslim or an Athiest. Their philosophy may be superior but as a person they are not.
Addressing these issues based upon our political philosophy is the challenge but that can be addressed elsewhere. Here I would choose to refine our understanding of what our political philosophy is instead.
To clear up the semantics of "right v authority" perhaps I can clarify that. Through our "social contracts' (State Constitutions and the US Constitution) we define the structure and processes of government as well as delegating the "roles and responsibilities" of our government. For our government to fulfill these roles and responsibilities we grant it the authority necessary. That granting of "authority" is referred to as the "powers" of government. It is not a "right" of government but instead it is a contractural authority (power) that is provided in writing by the contract. A "right" implies that our government can do that which we, as the people of the nation, have not authorized it to do under the social contract.
Let me provide an analogy using an automotive repair shop. The purpose of the auto repair shop is to fix cars but does it have the Right to fix cars or the Authority to fix cars? I can take my car in for a brake job and make an agreement in writing with the repair shop to fix my brakes. The repair shop, based upon that work order, can do what is necessary to fix my brakes such as purchase parts, expend labor, and subcontract work like sending the rotors out to a machine shop to be turned. It can even partner with other repair shops to create a machine shop to turn rotors, and I'm responsible for paying for the authorized work. That auto repair shop does not have a "Right" to overhaul my engine regardless of how bad the engine needs it even though it is capable of doing so. I have not granted the auto repair shop the "Authority" to overhaul my engine and it has no "Right" to do so.
Do you see where I draw the line between an "authority" (power) of government granted by the people and a "right" of government not granted by the people? In totalitarian regimes the government assumes the "Right" to take action as opposed to being dependent upon an "Authority" to take action granted by the People.
I believe that an authority (or power) is is an interchangeable concept with a right, in constitutional language. For instance, the Tenth Amendment--which most on the left would prefer to pretend is simply not there--notes that the "powers" that are not specifically granted to the federal government, by the US Constitution, belong, instead, to the several states. In other words, it should be their right to act in whatever manner they prefer, unless the federal government has been specifically granted authority in that particular area. As for citizens of the US being more than non-citizens (which is the way I read your mathematical symbols), I certainly do believe that American citizens are empowered in ways that non-citizens--even legal residents, let alone illegals--are not. And that is as it should be. We would not want "Citizens of the World" voting in American elections, for instance. (I seriously doubt that the French people would open up their elections to allow voting by Scots; or that the Scottish people would allow their elections to be determined by Germans; or...well, you get the point.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 6, 2014 22:35:24 GMT
I believe that an authority (or power) is is an interchangeable concept with a right, in constitutional language. For instance, the Tenth Amendment--which most on the left would prefer to pretend is simply not there--notes that the "powers" that are not specifically granted to the federal government, by the US Constitution, belong, instead, to the several states. In other words, it should be their right to act in whatever manner they prefer, unless the federal government has been specifically granted authority in that particular area. As for citizens of the US being more than non-citizens (which is the way I read your mathematical symbols), I certainly do believe that American citizens are empowered in ways that non-citizens--even legal residents, let alone illegals--are not. And that is as it should be. We would not want "Citizens of the World" voting in American elections, for instance. (I seriously doubt that the French people would open up their elections to allow voting by Scots; or that the Scottish people would allow their elections to be determined by Germans; or...well, you get the point.)
I believe the only time the term "Right(s)" are referenced in the US Constitution it refers to the individual person. It refers to the "powers" of government but "power" does not imply a "Right" but instead an "Authority" to do something.
Under the US Constitution all "persons" are afforded the identical "Rights" and are equal as "persons" while citizens have certain privileges and immunities under the law.
For example a US citizen cannot be denied re-entry into the United States and a "natrual born citizen" cannot have their citizenship revoked by our government (a naturalized citizen can if they committed fraud in their application). As citizens we also have certain privileges under the law that are not provided to permanent residents. When it comes to our Inalienable Rights all of the People in the United States are equal.
Once again though this relates to the social contract created by the People and it can have inherent flaws that we must seek to eliminate over time based upon the political philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 7, 2014 20:53:16 GMT
I believe that an authority (or power) is is an interchangeable concept with a right, in constitutional language. For instance, the Tenth Amendment--which most on the left would prefer to pretend is simply not there--notes that the "powers" that are not specifically granted to the federal government, by the US Constitution, belong, instead, to the several states. In other words, it should be their right to act in whatever manner they prefer, unless the federal government has been specifically granted authority in that particular area. As for citizens of the US being more than non-citizens (which is the way I read your mathematical symbols), I certainly do believe that American citizens are empowered in ways that non-citizens--even legal residents, let alone illegals--are not. And that is as it should be. We would not want "Citizens of the World" voting in American elections, for instance. (I seriously doubt that the French people would open up their elections to allow voting by Scots; or that the Scottish people would allow their elections to be determined by Germans; or...well, you get the point.)
I believe the only time the term "Right(s)" are referenced in the US Constitution it refers to the individual person. It refers to the "powers" of government but "power" does not imply a "Right" but instead an "Authority" to do something.
Under the US Constitution all "persons" are afforded the identical "Rights" and are equal as "persons" while citizens have certain privileges and immunities under the law.
For example a US citizen cannot be denied re-entry into the United States and a "natrual born citizen" cannot have their citizenship revoked by our government (a naturalized citizen can if they committed fraud in their application). As citizens we also have certain privileges under the law that are not provided to permanent residents. When it comes to our Inalienable Rights all of the People in the United States are equal.
Once again though this relates to the social contract created by the People and it can have inherent flaws that we must seek to eliminate over time based upon the political philosophy.
The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So in this amendment, "power" is vested either in "the people" (as you suggest) or in "the States." And what "inherent flaws" in the social contract do you seek to "eliminate"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 8, 2014 10:55:48 GMT
The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So in this amendment, "power" is vested either in "the people" (as you suggest) or in "the States." And what "inherent flaws" in the social contract do you seek to "eliminate"?
The "Power" is the authority to take action and all "Powers" originate with the "Person" based upon their Inalienable Rights. Powers (i.e. the authority to act) of government are delegated from the People to the Government through their respective State Constitutions. A State Constitution is the "social contract" of the People. The States, in turn, based upon the "powers" granted to them from the People, created the US Gon'vernment with the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the "social contract" of the States that they created based upon the powers granted to them by the People through the State Constitution. Basically this goes back the the analogy of the owner of a car (power) granting an auto repair shop the authority (power) to fix the brakes with the repair contract and, in turn, based upon that repair contract the auto repair shop subcontracts the turning of the rotors machine shop with another contract that grants the machine shop the authority (power) to turn the brake rotors. Neither the auto repair shop or the machine shop can work on the customer's engine because they weren't granted that authority (power) by the customer in the repair contract.
The Tenth Amendment merely looks at the situation in reverse. It is the "machine shop" stating that it cannot overhaul the engine because that authority (power) was not granted to it by the repair shop so it is either retained by either the repair shop based upon a repair contract it has from the customer or with the customer if they haven't authorized the engine overhaul at all.
***********************
Perhaps I should rephrase my statement. Logically the 9th Amendment would cover remove "inherent flaws" in the US Constitution but we are then back to square one in having to define what the (inalienable) Rights of the Person are that are not enumerated in the US Constitution. What we have found historically is that we needed new Amendments to protect the "unenumerated" Rights of the Person that were being violated.
For example the ending of slavery, equal protection under the law, women being allowed to vote, etc., were Amendments that because government was violating the Inalienable Rights of the Person that were technically protected by the 9th Amendment without enumeration.
With that said I would make the proposition that there are still cases where our Inalienable Rights as a Person that are protected by the 9th Amendment are being violated and we need a Constitutional Amendment to enumerate the protections of those Rights or we require a Supreme Court decision based upon the 9th Amendment to end the violation of those Rights.
In the end though this takes us back the the basic requirement that we need to understand what an Inalienable Right is because we cannot address the violations of our Inalienable Rights that is prohibited by the 9th Amendment if we don't know what they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 8, 2014 17:28:21 GMT
The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So in this amendment, "power" is vested either in "the people" (as you suggest) or in "the States." And what "inherent flaws" in the social contract do you seek to "eliminate"?
The "Power" is the authority to take action and all "Powers" originate with the "Person" based upon their Inalienable Rights. Powers (i.e. the authority to act) of government are delegated from the People to the Government through their respective State Constitutions. A State Constitution is the "social contract" of the People. The States, in turn, based upon the "powers" granted to them from the People, created the US Gon'vernment with the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the "social contract" of the States that they created based upon the powers granted to them by the People through the State Constitution. Basically this goes back the the analogy of the owner of a car (power) granting an auto repair shop the authority (power) to fix the brakes with the repair contract and, in turn, based upon that repair contract the auto repair shop subcontracts the turning of the rotors machine shop with another contract that grants the machine shop the authority (power) to turn the brake rotors. Neither the auto repair shop or the machine shop can work on the customer's engine because they weren't granted that authority (power) by the customer in the repair contract.
The Tenth Amendment merely looks at the situation in reverse. It is the "machine shop" stating that it cannot overhaul the engine because that authority (power) was not granted to it by the repair shop so it is either retained by either the repair shop based upon a repair contract it has from the customer or with the customer if they haven't authorized the engine overhaul at all.
***********************
Perhaps I should rephrase my statement. Logically the 9th Amendment would cover remove "inherent flaws" in the US Constitution but we are then back to square one in having to define what the (inalienable) Rights of the Person are that are not enumerated in the US Constitution. What we have found historically is that we needed new Amendments to protect the "unenumerated" Rights of the Person that were being violated.
For example the ending of slavery, equal protection under the law, women being allowed to vote, etc., were Amendments that because government was violating the Inalienable Rights of the Person that were technically protected by the 9th Amendment without enumeration.
With that said I would make the proposition that there are still cases where our Inalienable Rights as a Person that are protected by the 9th Amendment are being violated and we need a Constitutional Amendment to enumerate the protections of those Rights or we require a Supreme Court decision based upon the 9th Amendment to end the violation of those Rights.
In the end though this takes us back the the basic requirement that we need to understand what an Inalienable Right is because we cannot address the violations of our Inalienable Rights that is prohibited by the 9th Amendment if we don't know what they are.
Specifically, what constitutional amendments do you believe are necessary to protect our rights, based upon the Ninth Amendment? |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 8, 2014 18:09:47 GMT
I am genuinely baffled about why we should 'support' archaic nonsense. Could someone please explain! And, yes, I did study all this guff under what were described as 'English Moralists', for no obvious reason, in the University I attended.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 9, 2014 11:53:05 GMT
Specifically, what constitutional amendments do you believe are necessary to protect our rights, based upon the Ninth Amendment?
While nothing is 100% perfect I believe there are two issues where problems exist that need to be addressed.
First are split decisions by the Supreme Court that uphold a law or action. Far too often in reading the minority opinion I've read arguments by a Supreme Court Justice(s) that establishes dubious Consitutionality. I would suggest that the Constitutionality of a law or act such be subjected to the most severe test of requiring unanimous consent of the Supreme Court.
Next is the issue of "standing" for the plaintiff in addressing a law or act. While generally the requirement of "standing" prevents frivilous lawsuits there are cases of law where I find it virtually impossible for anyone to establish that they directly suffered "harm" which would provide a foundation of "standing" in bringing a lawsuit addressing the Constitutionality of a law. Perhaps the best example is the War Powers Act because I can't figure out who could establish "standing" to address the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act. I would suggest that in the dismissal of a lawsuit based upon "standing" addressing issues of Constitutionality that the Court should be required to state who would have standing if the plaintiff does not. If the Court cannot define who would have standing then the issue should be adjudicated.
So two issues of serious concern can and should be addressed. Laws and acts of dubious Constitutionality should not exist because of split decisions nor should law or acts be exempted from Constitutional scrutiny due to a "lack of standing" by any plaintiffs.
Not absolutely perfect but addressing these two issues would provide the maximum pragmatic protections of our Inalienable Rights as a Person.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 9, 2014 12:01:42 GMT
I am genuinely baffled about why we should 'support' archaic nonsense. Could someone please explain! And, yes, I did study all this guff under what were described as 'English Moralists', for no obvious reason, in the University I attended.
"Morality" is subjective based upon opinion whereas the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" are identifiable based upon objective criteria.
|
|
