What is a Right?
by Michael ZakCivil rights. Inalienable rights. Human rights. Animal rights. Individual rights. Group rights. God-given rights. Sacred rights. Natural rights. Positive rights. Negative rights. Children’s rights. Parent’s rights. Patient’s rights. Property rights. Personal rights. Basics rights. Fundamental rights.
Just what is a right? Can some rights be more basics or fundamental than others? Which is more important, a basic right or a fundamental right? Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few? Are rights absolute? One could assert whole new kinds of rights and then argue about where they fit in among all the other rights. How about essential rights, or core rights, or perhaps preeminent rights?
Definitions of the nature and origin of rights vary widely – from a gift from God, to one of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison’s tenets, all the way down to “a good thing” – but these disputes can be left to theologians and historians and scatterbrains. Let constitutional scholars debate the fine points of original intent or understanding (of each delegate? or the drafter of a particular clause? or the Convention as a whole? or Congress? or the ratifying state conventions?). What really matters is how rights function within our constitutional system.
A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him. To admit there is such a right is to accept that the opinion of the majority on his having XYZ is meaningless; it is to accept that your opinion on the issue is meaningless, too. As anti-democratic limitations on the scope of majority rule, rights are like provisions of the Constitution. Indeed, they are one and the same, because in a practical sense – the only sense that matters – a right is a government policy that must be so regardless of majority will.
Any constitutional provision can be seen as a right. For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 – “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state.” – can as easily be: “Every person has the right to export Articles from any State without a federal Tax or Duty laid on it.” The first part of Article II, Section 2 is the equivalent of “The President has the right to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” One could say he has the right to veto laws and grant pardons. A Supreme Court Justice has the right to serve for life, and the Supreme Court has the right to original jurisdiction over cases involving foreign ambassadors. The residents of every state have the right to representation by two Senators. People have the right to have their federal laws enacted by a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. There are many more such variations on the theme, but the point is that the Constitution is nothing but a long list of rights, that is, government policies that must be so regardless of majority will.
In addition to provisions limiting the ability of Congress or the President to change the general structure of the government apart from the amendment process, the Constitution contains many specific limitations on government action that are recognizable as rights. The narrow definition of treason means that a person has the right not to be convicted of treason for a crime that does not fit the definition. The privileges and immunities provision is a right, as is the jury trial guarantee. The Constitution protects creditors by prohibiting states from voiding contracts (as they had done under the Articles of Confederation). Congress may not pass a bill of attainder (a legislative pronouncement of guilt) or an ex post facto law (making an act illegal after it was committed). The habeas corpus protection against arbitrary arrest is one of the most important rights protected by the Constitution.
As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist 84, the Constitution contains these rights and more even without the amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Can the Bill of Rights protection against unreasonable searches somehow supersede the right to a jury trial spelled out in Article III? Does freedom of the press outrank freedom of speech? Is the 3rd Amendment ban on quartering soldiers in private homes more important than the 13th Amendment ban on slavery? Does the order in which they are listed matter, so that freedom of religion is more important than freedom of speech? No, to all these questions. Since the entire Constitution – every rule in the rule book – must be so regardless of majority will, every provision of the original text (where unamended), of the Bill of Rights, and of the later amendments is no more or less important than any other.
Since the entire Constitution – from “We, the people” to “shall have intervened” – is one long right and rights can only be exercised within our constitutional framework, constitutional rights are the only kind with any meaning. As determined, ultimately, by the Supreme Court, an issue is either a political question – meaning it is to be decided by majority vote – or it is a constitutional right – meaning the correct decision, as determined by the Constitution, must be imposed on the American people whether people want it or not. In the latter case, figuring out just what it was the Constitutional Convention decided for us on a particular issue may be difficult to determine, but the task does not involve balancing one provision of the document against another.
Some rules in our society’s rule book cannot outweigh other rules; they are all equally valid. Once understanding that any part of the Constitution, whether expressed as a provision or a right, is a policy that must be so, a person can see the absurdity of trying to balance one right against another. Gone are tussles between rights and responsibilities, positive rights and negative rights, the rights of the many and the rights of the few, personal rights and property rights, human rights and economic rights, group rights and individual rights, fundamental rights and not-so-fundamental rights. No constitutional right can be outweighed by some other consideration, because all constitutional rights are absolute. Either something is mandated by the Constitution or it isn’t.
This essay is adapted from Back to Basics for the Republican Party, a history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
192 Comments
Let's just stick with the "Bill of Rights" for starters.
Stop letting congress and the supremes invent imaginary rights like abortion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "privacy" but it does have everything to do with murder.
"No constitutional right can be outweighed by some other consideration, because all constitutional rights are absolute. Either something is mandated by the Constitution or it isn’t."
That's right (yes, the pun's intended) so if your complaint isn't in the Bible or in the Constitution, I don't wanna hear about it.
Ayn Rand on the concept of rights:
"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)"
"The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."
"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."
"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
Preaching to the choir here…
I am at the point where I would settle for elected Republicans to simply agree with this. Let alone stepping up and holding the Dems accountable.
I have the right to be left alone if I so choose.
A true right is something you can have or provide for yourself independent of society. Rights that you have simply because society exists aren't true rights because they depend on the functions of others to provide them for you. The second kind of right can be created legally, but it is still a findamentally different animal than the first kind and if society were to fall apart or change radically tomorrow, you would no longer have it. Those are the rights you can't count on to always be yours and unalienable; they exist purely at the whims of your society. As for the first kind of right, they can only be kept from you either by your unwillingness to attain them or someone else's determination to stand in your way and keep you from them with force if necessary.
Pt. 1
Pt. 2
Example: I have the unalienable right to enjoy the fruits of my labor. I might use my labor to build a shelter. It relies on no one else to help me build it, and the only way to stop me is to either take my shelter by force or physically impede me in some way.
Example: I have the right to an attorney via the COTUS, but if polite society fails tomorrow, I can't count on that lawyer to be there to defend me. He/She relies on the constructs of society to provide an acceptable framework within which he/she is willing to provide that service. Without those constructs, he/she is no longer under any real obligation to provide that right.
NOTICE TO LIBERAL TROLLS;
IF YOU'VE COME TO ARGUE OR TO COMMENT WITHOUT FACTS OR VALID POINTS, DO NOT WASTE OUR TIME OR OUR POSTING SPACE.
NOTICE TO POSTERS:
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
most "rights" in the constitution cost nobody anything, most "rights" today cost way too much. the right to bear arms, does not supply you with one. the right to free speech, does not give you a microphone, radio station, or listeners. the right to worship the faith of my own, does not supply me with tickets to jamaca, and mary jane supplies. the right to peaceably assemble, does not give me plane tickets to las vegas for that meeting. but the rights of health care? wtf. the right of free abortions? wtf. the right to paid leave? wtf. do unicorns, and leprichauns supply this money to pay for these rights? i want the right to a caddilac, my neightbor owns one, why not me?
It has everything to do with privacy. Look at the current plan to create a health data network where everything your doctor does for you must be entered into a national database that can be referenced by any other doctor. Of course it will be "secure", just like every other database.
Once it is in place everything, every last thing, you see your doctor about will be in that database, waiting to be referenced. Every itch. Every innoculation. Every dose of antibiotics. Every case of herpes. (And the clap.) Every case of AIDS. (I bet they forgot about that one.) Every pregnancy. (You had how many abortions? You have how many illegitimate children you gave up for adoption?) Every heart attack. Every melanoma scraped off your well tanned body. Every . . . thing.
Just sitting there, in a nice, safe, secure, fiftyotherbuzzwords, government database, that will just be between you, your doctor, every other doctor you ever need to see, every other doctor you happen to see, every data technician that uses your account to check the system, every bureaucrat that logs on while bored, every employer that bribes a bureaucrat to check you out before hiring you, every hacker that wants to know your measurements, every random jerk who finds a lost or discarded hard drive with your information on it, every . . . body.
Yeah, that doctor-patient privilege has nothing at all to do with privacy. Well, not any more.
OP is making a very common error, by mixing Rights, with obligations and authorities. The President does not have the Right to be Commander in Chief, he has the obligation to do that job… just as Congress is Limited in ita ability to infringe on the Right of Freedom of Speech.
Just because its in the Constitution, it does not make it a Right. Rights are held by individuals, Governments are given Powers, and Limitations to those powers… Rights come from the Creator, while Government, was LIMITED by MAN to not infringe on those Rights. To elevate Government to an entity which has Rights, would Personalize it and give it a Mandate from the Creator… which would make us some type of Theocracy…
[...] » What is a Right? – Big Government [...]
I was considering how to say that, but you have beaten me to it.
Absolutely, 100%.
My 7th grade sociology teacher (back in the '50s) taught us a very simple truth:
A RIGHT is anything that does not require anything from someone else except non-interference.
ANYTHING else is a PRIVILEGE.
If we want enumerated privileges, we need to build societies that voluntarily support them, and we need to remember that they can be removed — for good or bad reasons by the society we build. What we end up with is our own collective fault.
Thats the one Stan — also see — Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
If our 'rights' are right; then what are lefts? Wrongs.
Bronx, I think Missy is referring to the abortion clinic's claiming their 'right' to keep information from the parents of underaged girls having abortions. The abortionists claim that withholding the information is in deference to the girl's 'right' to privacy when, in truth, the abortion industry is actually trying to cover their asses and keep their murders secret.
(If I'm mistaken, Missy, please clarify.)
Rights come from Jesus. They cannot be taken away by man.
Privileges are offered by the state and by man. They can be taken away.
What we call "entitlements" are mockeries of everything our Founding Fathers stood for.
We are not "entitled" to healthcare, nor social security, nor anything that steals from the hard-working man and gives to the idle do-nothings.
We are entitled to do our best and become the best we can become. We are not entitled to pick each others pockets or noses.
"This essay is adapted from Back to Basics for the Republican Party, a history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision".
We still haven't convinced ANYONE that the Dems are the party of slavery.
WTF……We can’t even sell this fact!!!
We can't even raise our head above the water of progressive disinformation to even start.
If all you big brains out there are hoping the Patriots will not get violent… You better hurry the f**k up and convince us ….maybe with more essays and lecturing, on how we can stop this destuction of the Republic now.
Agreed, what bothers me most about the court's more liberal members is their proclivity "legislate" rather than "interpret" the constitution.
The most damaging decisions they have handed down over the years tend to pit one right against another in the name of "redefining" the constitution rather than adhering to strict interpretations of it.
They have done "some good" such as the Citizens United vs Clinton case and the "Heller vs Washington DC" case.
We need to see sanity restored to the concept of jurisprudence based on existing law and stop this madness such as giving rights to fish over the rights of people.
The courts have steadily undermined morality and America is paying a dear price for it, it needs to change.
From Jesus? Really? How exactly do you know that?
Nope, you nailed it.
Hi Missy
I enjoy most of your posts. The Abortion issue is already "settled science" by technology and is only used to divide potential politician candidates to split the vote 50 / 50 (today). Whether by a 'coat hanger' or 'morning after pill' the result is that, until that new American Citizen comes out of that vagina and gets a SSN to track the "mommy state" which takes over at birth, it is up to the woman! Technology has already thrown a 'monkey wrench' into your Murder argument. Forty Five years ago my Grandfather (an MD) performed abortions (safely) for those who could afford them. Abortions are a terrible form of birth control, but a reality!
Within the next 50 – 100 years, due to technolo I assure you, we will be dealing with a pill to extend life FOREVER'. What happens to your 'murder' argument then?
I heard on the news today, that the government wants to monitor body fat? What next?
Liberty is individual, unless we want the protectionist government to control it! It is the argument the 'abortionist rights' people want to have it.
"They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."
~ Barry Goldwater ~
I subscribe to that.
Except that requires the acceptance of the concept that abortion is murder before considering the issue as to whether or not medical treatment is private.
It also deliberately mixes it up with the parent-child custodial relationship.
Since I reject the first assumption, I will not engage debate predicated on it. There is no reason to.
The second, while having a particular relevance, does not invalidate the underlying right to privacy. It is however subject to the same considerations as those regarding parents refusing other medical treatments for their children, including everything from innoculations to blood transfusions.
As I understand it, the 14th amendment grants us "privileges and immunities", and confers a new "American citizen" status unto us… kinda negates the preceding Bill of Rights by fiat, doesn't it?
Voluntary indentured servants to a corporation chartered by "Congress", called;
"THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
Look on your dollar bill, the one you pay interest on from the moment it is "printed".
Man, have we been sold a bill of goods…
Not my rights.
I am no Christian, and acknowledge no external being as the source of my rights. They attain to me solely and exclusively on my existence as a human being.
For an interesting take on rights seehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
Well said Erik, thank you………….that last paragraph is golden.
It's less the right than it is the concept of "abortion on demand" and "abortion as contraception" that disturb me most.
Bill Clinton even stated back in the 90's that abortion "should not be used as a contraceptive but it should remain legal, safe and rare…", I tend to agree with that statement but we have left that idea completely behind.
Sure keep it legal, safe and rare but how do we get back to that concept rather than the norm of "some" women using it as their main "morning after pill", this is where the morality in this issue is lost to depravity.
Strike a "balance" but don't allow it to be used as a way of "avoiding the cost" of one's inability understand the consequences of their actions.
The "science" (lol) is settled on this fact, "when two people screw babies tend to be created" but people need to exercise self restraint to avoid those so-called "little mistakes", this is the heart of the argument.
Should the congress or the courts attempt to "legislate morality"…? NO!
I do believe they have the ability to "encourage" people to use self restraint but not force morality upon them.
A constructive balance must be struck at some point.
Good Call!!
"damaging decisions they have handed down over the years tend to pit one right against another"
Exactly, Missy–and this is the intent, to 'divide and conquer' by way of distorting and 'redefining.'
In short, "creating chaos" is the weapon of the Liberal Left.
Wow, saving to browser as all my free time has been exhausted. Looks interesting.
AMEN!!
As it happens, I agree with that.
Abortion as contraception is a disturbing concept, and there should be a change in the cultural standards regarding it.
The problems remain the technology and the deeper religious based social conflict. If those could somehow be solved, perhaps there could be a real constructive balance reached.
Balance is good and I believe that IS what most people want but this "abortion on demand" thing has completely exploded out of control and is abused.
Look at the case in Washington State recently when a "school counselor" not only encouraged a child to get an abortion, she drove her to the clinic, that's what I'm talking about, this is where the line is crossed.
[...] What is a Right? [...]
Unfortunately what is happening here is that our immigrants and leftists are looking to Europe for the definition of a right, rather than to our constitution. This is another reason why immigrants should assimilate and not just form their own community and live in it and then bash the US while living here. Europe gives away education, they give away cars, money and vacations. This is why we are getting to watch the failure of the European Union. No one should have a 'right' to free education or 'right' to free money or a 'right' to anything they cannot provide for themselves (mentioned by another poster above). I was watching protests of students demanding that free education is a right. Well in Europe it is a 'right' here in the US it's a hand out at the cost of the American people.
It can be balanced.
Personally I believe that if you are getting more than one abortion per year that is an abuse and that is where the line is crossed most frequently between medicine and moral behavior.
The two must be balanced otherwise we end up forsaking all morality in the name of "economic convenience" and as a nation we must consider morality in order to avoid becoming what we abhor.
There must be a way.
All illegals return to your HOME — Mexico! You love it so much, Go Home! You wave its flag — Go Home! No one is stopping you — Go Home to Mexico!
Calm yourself, JA.
What's happening in this country didn't happen overnight. Half a century of degeneration (and degenerates) have brought us to this regime. These liberals are spawns of the last generation–the 'sixties' freaks. We were sired by that generation who kept their heads and their hearts intact and didn't follow the crowd. Don't expect for fifty years of deterioration to be repaired in two or three–things just don't work that way.
Tea Party members MUST NOT resort to violence and YOU, as a member, are responsible for helping other members to keep their heads, too.
We are simply paying the price for half a century of doing wrong–just continue to follow the right path in speech and in action–no matter how hard that may be–and the tide will turn.
Just have courage and faith, friend.
Right!
And if one choses, one has the right to recognize religion and conclude that ones rights come from God or gods or Jesus. Equally valid is your point and it is very important to point out and consider. Simply by being human you have the same right that someone believes come from religion. It is equally sacred and special. I wish this argument wasn't such a big deal. Does it really matter where the rights come from as long as we treat them the same?
NOTICE TO LIBERAL TROLLS;
IF YOU'VE COME TO ARGUE AND/OR TO COMMENT WITHOUT A FACT OR A VALID POINT, DO NOT WASTE OUR TIME OR OUR POSTING SPACE. YOU WILL BE STUDIOUSLY IGNORED.
NOTICE TO POSTERS:
PLEASE, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
Where have you been, Cowboy? Welcome back.
If we treat the same.
If we do not, then yes it matters very much.
Look at how the Islamists view rights.
The word "ghetto" comes from Italian for a foundry. The Jews in Venice were restricted to living in an area around an old foundry, and so a "ghetto" came to refer to any general place Jews were restricted to living in.
People should therefore understand why not everyone will be particularly thrilled with an assertion that rights derive from a specific religious source. Been there, done that, got the record of pogroms, expulsions, forced conversions, forced financial extractions, and various and sundry other oppressions to prove it.
If my rights do not derive to me solely and exclusively because of my humanity but only because of your particular faith, then my rights are subject to the whims of that faith, and thus are far from unalienable, effectively being denied.
"And if one choses, one has the right to recognize religion and conclude that ones rights come from God or gods or Jesus."
"Recognize" is correct. Our rights, in reality, do come from God. There are those who choose to recognize that fact, and there are those who choose not to recognize that fact.
Nonetheless, that fact is the truth.
At this time, I didn't post to argue the supposed 'concepts' of abortion; only to clarify any misunderstanding regarding Missy's use of 'privacy' in her post.
That doctrine is an opinion.
About abortion, I seldom see anyone mention that some women go on a hell-ride hormonal rollercoaster. A friend of a friend "Had A Lot To Say" about not being warned about that. One thing to know it might happen, another to get blindsided.
Hey Guy!
Where you been? I don't always agree with ya, but like that you 'stir the pot'!
Welcome back!
"A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him."
Huh?
What have they been teaching in school?
A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, he already has XYZ and society must not take it from him.
Right On!!!
Well spoken, and said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI&fe...
And the Right To Bear Arms comes next. A man must have the means to defend his life AND property from those who would take it from him. Be it another individual or the government!
Sometimes think one more voice in the choir will make them listen
As long as we keep singing the same SONG
The Constitution of United States
Damn Right
FAITH
The phrase is referring to personal 'manufactured' rights, Desert, not Constitutional rights.
That's not hormones….it's guilt.
It's an right, not a right. Learn to English!
Jesus told him so while he was tripping balls.
Do you feel the same way about St. Patrick's day and those waving the Irish flag?
You don't know her.
Archaic usage.
This from a proglodyte with a racist screen name…?
Puh…lease!
More lefty do as I say BS.
i.e., "cuz I said so"
Try again…it's way to easy to put the gooey center of faith inside of every argument. But after awhile, it looses its appeal. And you you get mental cavities.
I believe that modern English dictates the use of "an" when followed by a word beginning with a vowel or vowel sound such as "an erector set is a nice present for Christmas" or "it was an honest mistake" of course there are exceptions but I believe I digress…….
I have the right to pursue excellence in my life or not as I see fit, that is all part and parcel of the intangibles granted by the Creator when given the awesome resonsibility of free will. The tangibles – houses, food, clothing – are merely the by-product. TINSTAAFL (my Heinlein is a litle rusty by I believe I got that right).
Would it be correct to summarize by saying that one cannot obtain rights, that each person already has their rights simply by existing?
I'm surprised you've never seen me write that yet, I own 100% credit, please use and share freely!
okaaaaaaaaaaaay you realize we're talking about rights and not immigration? I am in no way supporting illegal immigration but an angry denouncement of "go home" does nothing to examine why they left in the first place. In other words it does no good apart from letting you vent in a way that assures nothing will happen but to give you more cause to get angry in the future.
DON'T feed the trolls, Lucky. Seriously.
Or, you can just get lost.
"a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened" – fact
may I ask what your verification is sir?
Using 'a' right is correct, Miser.
eloquent but he has a point. Faith is a matter that rarely demands verification. Lets not confuse faith with hard evidence. But regardless, many people regard one of these rights to be "left alone" if they choose – i.e. a minimum of interfereance from governing bodies like the federal government. I will assume this is popular to the ideology here as those comments have gotten good reviews, yet what I do not understand is how this right to be left alone coincides with the belief that rights extend from jesus. If someone doesn't adhere to a belief in jesus then aren't you in that assertion consigning them to only those rights that are not in alignment with his faith?
Whereas, if you believe that rights in a society transcend religion (as I believe is intended by the seperation of church and state), then that person is still able to live with rights that are a consequence of living, not a consequence of a specific doctrine. Since all people have that spark of life rights then become something that isn't "bestowed" or "forced upon" the masses, but rather something a person is instilled with.
[...] » What is a Right? – Big Government [...]
The dogma you're wishing to throw into the conversation aside, he raises a valid point. Excessive hormones do cause people to think in an irrational manner. If you have doubt of that, which you must since you are so eager to consign a decision to guilt, perhaps you should talk to an athelete in a roid rage.
now what I would ask, since I am not familiar with the process, is, in the abortion process, is anyone checking to see that a person is not being excessively affected by those hormonal swings?
oh but it's such a great sport! I mean you get the whole range here, those who have no faith, those who want big government, those who want no government, those we praise barry and those we coddle moooslims – it's so ripe for the pickin'!! oh, and those who hate Israel!!
[...] » What is a Right? – Big Government [...]
(I never implied there was no point. But you made the argument–he didn't.)
Hence, the name, "faith," Aaron. Faith never demands verification. One has faith or one doesn't, and one receives faith by sincere and genuine request. Yes, it's that simple.
Our natural rights, however, are given us from above–ALL of our rights–regardless of who we are. Whether or not we choose to recognize the Giver is our personal prerogative (yes, that's a right too), but the Source is the same, nevertheless.
Natural rights, are, as a matter of fact, in line with the Church and with religion. Many of the Articles of the Constitution are based on natural law–they do not 'transcend' religion, no matter how fervently the non-religious would like for them to transcend religion. Our Founders, not all of whom considered themselves 'religious' men, still recognized that Source. Faith and rights are not one and the same. The faithful and the unfaithful are all 'bestowed' with 'that spark of life.'
(In truth, those who are the most enthusiastic about the separation of church and state are, more often than not, up to no good. To say there is no God because there is no 'proof' equates to saying you don't sleep because you've never seen yourself sleeping.)
Now it took a wee while for people to work out that e.g. those rights apply if you are white, black or whatever. I don't think it was the 'liberals' who were the tardy ones. They didn't bludgeon black people who claimed those rights to be theirs also, burn their churches, murder their leaders for daring to claim those rights for their people. From all this, you would think that it was not the right-wing who were mainly responsible for the constitutional outrages and breaches of the rights of men and women in the US over such a long period. Indeed, we still seem to read about their palpable regret they can't do these things now.
I know it is, OCG, but too much time is spent indulging in 'troll-wacking' rather than discussion. And yes, I know their arguments aren't the most engaging and many of them post just to be obnoxious but too many posters are growing tired of them and once one starts up, then they accumulate like roaches, and folks have to leave their discussions to hook up with other troll-trashers in order to close down some trolls that get out of hand. It's a waste of time.
Word is out that if they just post some inane insult or one-liner for 'shock' effect, then ignore them. That's reasonable enough.
I had to reread that before I understood it, too, photon.
She's referring to irregular hormonal episodes AFTER having an abortion, Aaron. An athelete's 'roid' rage isn't comparable.
Actually my whole argument was not predicated upon whether rights come from a greater source, its the specific citing of jesus that I contest. because of that premise you should reargue from the premise that I am not trying to transcend ALL religion but just specific religion.
Well I would say both before and after are relevant and should be part of the process. And you can say a roid rage isn't comparable but by the process of natural variation alone, some women are bound to be effected in a more extreme measure that would impair judgement.
As a left of center democrat, but an enjoyer of good discourse, I am going to go ahead and tell you the argument you are awaiting.
The more reasoned debaters are going to remind you that lincoln was a republican. They are also going to remind you that most of the civil rights movements were carried out by republicans. Of course these were more progressive republicans. In my own humble opinion, and just in my opinion, I feel that when the republican party decided to co-opt god the democrats co-opted progressiveness and politics as a whole has suffered ever since.
The less reasoned debaters are going to say that you're employing a typical "insert derogatory name about liberals" tactic by playing the racism card ~ and if they are feeling very boisterous they are going to throw in the random insult about obama or use the word alinsky a few times.
Now what I would encourage, if you were to try this post again, is to instead, establish a historical trend to prove point, keeping in mind that modern republicans are not what republicans used to be.
The unfortunate part however, is that even if you do this it will not work because of the fundemental difference in ideologies that says democrats believe large institutional powers can protect rights where as republicans think that large institutional powers should be limited so as to protect our rights. These are massive generalizations but also tend to lead to the often overlooked point that neither side is as evil as you suggest, just fundamentally different.
In truth, that doctrine is fact. Your comment is 'opinion,' Bronx.
I would first like for you to provide verification to prove that my assertion is not fact, Sir.
challenging me to prove a negative does not work. The logic behind that is all kinds of faulty. But regardless, I dont have to prove that you are wrong because so long as there is doubt it is not a fact. My assertion only requires an unknown unsure state. Yours on the otherhand, to call it fact, requires actual verification.
In Christianity, Aaron, Jesus and God are one and the same. If you belief that rights come from a greater source, than you must accept that Jesus can be that source.
I don't have to argue at all, Aaron, so, to save time, just which 'specific' religion do you have a problem with?
The truth of the matter is that, in spite of all of our rights, is there any particular right which defends us against the overspending and increasing taxation which have only increased under Democratic and Republican governance, until this ever increasing burden become, as far as the eye can see, ever increasing. Could not such a right against massive misgovernance and corruption be declared under the 9th Amendment , (Amendment IX), to the Constitution?
An abortion, I would think, would cause far greater fluctuation in hormones because of the obvious physical trauma to the body as well as to the psyche.
I'm not liking the smugness in your attitude, not here or in a few other posts I've read of yours. If people begin to pass over your comments, that will probably be the reason why (just in case you're tempted to think your arguments are air-tight)
Aw, the beauty of pathetic troll failure.
You, NiggardlyMiser, have earned the Picard Seal of Approval.
I have a problem with the concept that rights come from any religion specificly. Jesus can be that source and our rights come from jesus are two different statements with very different implications.
I don't think my arguments are air tight, I come here for discussions not for ego. And for all your concerns about my smugness, given the things I have been called in these blogs when I do challenge any point, you'll forgive me if I am not overly concerned.
No on that point, I would say theres a certain smugness in writing off the decision of a person that you don't know as guilt. My challenge was to that comment because I think it contains a great deal of ego. I don't know that person or understand their motivations, but the key difference is, i will not pretend to.
You must be logged in to post a comment.