It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitution Fail - Why you keep doing it and how to prevent it.

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I use civil privilege to separate things that people often call rights that really aren't. They're the things that we only have because we have society - marriage and health care are two good examples.


You can use any moniker you wish for the various civil laws we have, the Constitution is very clear on all of them; what is good for one is good for all and vice versa.




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am talking about rights. You do have a right to be treated equally before the law. That imposes no obligation on anyone.

Just because something is a civil privilege does not necessarily make it a bad thing, but it does differentiate it from a basic, unalienable right.

Another way to separate it is this: If you were marooned on an island by yourself or society fell apart tomorrow, what things would you still have? Those things are your basic unalienable rights.

Or rights are few; privileges are many.


edit on 10-9-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I am talking about rights. You do have a right to be treated equally before the law. That imposes no obligation on anyone.


And vice versa.


Just because something is a civil privilege does not necessarily make it a bad thing, but it does differentiate it from a basic, unalienable right.


They are both clearly covered in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution.


Another way to separate it is this: If you were marooned on an island by yourself or society fell apart tomorrow, what things would you still have? Those things are your basic unalienable rights.

Or rights are few; privileges are many.


Except that hypothetical has not occured and until if and when it occurs the Constitution is quite clear on a citizen's civil rights.




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are covered, but at the same time, you don't want to confuse them.

Do you think health care is a right? I don't. I similarly don't believe that people have the right to food, clothing, shelter beyond what they provide as their property. They absolutely have the right to that.

I don't think anyone has the right to be married. If I did, I would demand you married me now and sue you when you refused for violating my basic human right. I would also do the same with George Soros (guy can't live for too many more years and I want his money).



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
They are covered, but at the same time, you don't want to confuse them.


The only person who would be confused is one who either does not understand or what to believe in equal protection under the law.


Do you think health care is a right? I don't.


No, personally I do not, however it is now law and covered under due process.


I similarly don't believe that people have the right to food, clothing, shelter beyond what they provide as their property. They absolutely have the right to that.


If the citizens do not want those to become civil law they should make sure they do not support politicians who do want them.

[quoteI don't think anyone has the right to be married. If I did, I would demand you married me now and sue you when you refused for violating my basic human right. I would also do the same with George Soros (guy can't live for too many more years and I want his money).

Except there are numerous legal anf financial benefits to maariage and they cannot be denied to some. The Constitution is quite clear and people not understanding this simple fact is why the thread is called 'Constitution Fail'.



edit on 10-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm not talking about denying anything to anyone.

Marriage, or at least the state contract, is available to a wider definition than before. What about that poor father/daughter or mother/son coupling though? And why are we still denying the love of the Sister Wives bunch?

But you'll note, there are lots of people involved in that group. You cannot marry yourself, so marriage is not a basic, unalienable right, only a privilege society has decided to extend. What society gives, it can also take. Do you deny that?

We need only look at the 18th and 21st Amendments to see that in action. So it's important to be able to divide what you should and should not understand as basic and unalienable. Does the government have the right to take your property? Should the income tax amendment exist? I don't think it should myself even though Congress does have the power to lay taxes, but the income tax amendment is granting permanent authority to permanently dip into my earned property.


edit on 10-9-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm not talking about denying anything to anyone.


Good, because to do so is un-Constitutional.


Marriage, or at least the state contract, is available to a wider definition than before.


Yeah, so? Not the first time that has happened.


What about that poor father/daughter or mother/son coupling though? And why are we still denying the love of the Sister Wives bunch?


As a Libertarian I frankly do not care who you want to marry, if 10 people want to get married due to the financial or legal benefits then so be it. Let consenting adults do what they want.


But you'll note, there are lots of people involved in that group. You cannot marry yourself, so marriage is not a basic, unalienable right, only a privilege society has decided to extend. What society gives, it can also take. Do you deny that?


If laws were passed that made it a benefit to 'marry yourself' and I were denied those rights then have no doubt, there would be an issue.

If Congress passed laws that made ALL marriage financially and legally un-beneficial, and it was found to be Constitutional, I would have no issue. Until then what is good for some is good fro all.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Excellent thread, AugustusMasonicus! I love reading your posts and appreciate the true libertarian views you espouse.



originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The problem with those who are not religious or do not believe in God or gods is that they then start to believe that our rights devolve from government or other agencies of mankind.


SOME people think that. And some of them are religious people. It's not about religious vs nonreligious people, it's about those who understand the founding of this country and the founding documents vs those who don't.

It IS dangerous to think that government gives us our rights, but to incorrectly attribute that idea to the nonreligious is just disingenuous. There are plenty of us who know about this nations founding documents and what they mean.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Excellent thread, AugustusMasonicus! I love reading your posts and appreciate the true libertarian views you espouse.


Frankly that means a lot to me coming from such an esteemed poster such as yourself. I respect you greatly.

Now that we have expressed our undying love should we get married and eat some gake?



SOME people think that. And some of them are religious people. It's not about religious vs nonreligious people, it's about those who understand the founding of this country and the founding documents vs those who don't.

It IS dangerous to think that government gives us our rights, but to incorrectly attribute that idea to the nonreligious is just disingenuous. There are plenty of us who know about this nations founding documents and what they mean.


I really think that hits one of the cruxes of the thread in which it is not a battle between the religious and the non-religious, it is a battle between those who want to infringe on others rights and those who will support them at all costs.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Christianity has had a big part in individuality. Each person has a one to one connection with Jesus and the Master of the Universe, God.

Without God, the collectivist argument is that individual rights are obsolete or quaint, but not a realistic order of nature. Individualism is a sentimental affectation and an obstacle to a collectivist, because everyone should take orders from the Central Planners. Back in the 1970's, during the high school debates about "National Health Care" I heard that opinion from most intelligent college bound people.

Austrian Economics and Lugwig von Mises (who was an atheist) point out that all actions are done by individuals. Invention, scientific discovery, artistic creation, and entrepreneurship are individuals doing idiosyncratic processes that would be impossible to explain or ask permission for.

And of course Austrian Libertarian Economics holds that the free market is the most productive market and derives its genius from each member doing what motivates him the most, i.e. doing what he thinks is best for himself.

So there are more atheist individualists now than there was before. A very slow political evolution towards a free market is possible.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The idea that rights are few directly contradicts the spirit and the letter of the Ninth Amendment. The enumeration of certain rights in the US Constitution SHALL NOT BE USED to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Elegantly simple and almost universally ignored and thus not understood by modern americans.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Excellent point and it highlights that there are no 'levels' to you rights, you have them and they are available to all.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join