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.

 

The Reasonable Exercise of Rights: A Proposal

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

scholarship.law.berkeley.edu... thats actually a pretty confusing issue that has in the courts mostly sided with your view but occasionally not . had no idea case law on this issue was so extensive and thank you for bringing it up as i learned a bit today

The notion that a state may in a proper case obtain judicial relief against pollution from outside its own boundaries has become firmly established as a principle of federal common law. In Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed that principle, cogently articulated in Texas v. Pankey, and put to rest any contrary implications suggested by Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemical Corp. The state-instituted lawsuit, brought under federal law to obtain relief against extraterritorial pollution which interferes with the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the complaining state, has the potential to be a significant factor in the legal aspect of the struggle for
environmental
conservation.-"7 The state enjoys a special status when it sues as parens patriae to protect the health, safety, and welfare
of its citizens; it is not to be treated as though it were a mere individual seek-ing to protect personal or proprietary
interests. As a result, its pros-pects for securing injunctive relief will ordinarily be better than those of a private
plaintiff. This type of action will not raise the troublesome questions of standing which often bedevil private plaintiffs.
There ex-ists adequate precedent upon which can be built viable doctrines which will regulate conflicting state interests
in pollution control. Although such doctrines will inevitably be based upon equity, rather than abso-lutes, they will provide
an important basis for pollution control which is not presently to be found outside of federal common law. Recog-nition
of such doctrines will enable a state to carry out anti-pollution objectives with less danger that its policies will be bverted
by pol-luters in another state. The state-instituted lawsuit under such doc-trines is a procedure which is essential if
the state is to continue its historic role as protector of the health, safety, and welfare of its citi-zens.




posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator


You're being purposely facetious.

Am I now?


you're comparing apples to watermelons.

Really? So one right is an apple, and another right is a watermelon? Who is deciding this?

How can a right be a right if it is inferior to other rights, and subject to limitations that are deemed unconscionable for other rights? Can we at least get an agreement on what a right is?

BTW, I LOVE watermelons. I want a right to watermelons.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Nope. Let’s not have any restrictions.

Anybody who wants a gun should have a gun. Anyone. Homicidal maniac? Domestic terrorist? Give ‘em 20 guns. Hell, give ‘em 100 guns.

No restrictions.

I can play this game too.

edit on 16-8-2018 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?


No restrictions.

No restrictions on CNN or MSNBC either. They can write whatever they want and pretend like it’s the truth. If they want to tell lies to make Trump look bad, so be it.

No restrictions.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You seem to be, unless you honestly don't understand how some rights carry more weight than others. That doesn't make the latter any less of a right, it just doesn't have as serious of a consequence as some other rights.
I'll piggyback on kaylaluv's point. You have a right to free speech, and a right to own a gun. However, giving a psychopath the right to free speech is infinitely safer than giving them the right to own a semi-automatic rifle.
One carries more weight than the other. Both rights, but not close to the same level.

Who decides it? Society, and common sense.

An amendment with a watermelon right should definitely be added to the constitution.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator




An amendment with a watermelon right should definitely be added to the constitution.
No need. Rights are not limited to only those specified by that document.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator


You seem to be, unless you honestly don't understand how some rights carry more weight than others.

I honestly do not see how that is. The very concept of a right is the inherent ability to exercise it. But you're saying that some rights I have an inherent ability to exercise, and some I don't?

That is confusing. Either it is a right, or it is not.


You have a right to free speech, and a right to own a gun. However, giving a psychopath the right to free speech is infinitely safer than giving them the right to own a semi-automatic rifle.

I'm still waiting on a good definition of "psychopath," but we'll forego that for now.

My OP actually agrees with you. A psychopath should be subject to reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. All I am saying is that if one right is subject to reasonable restrictions, then all rights are. I completely reject your argument that some rights are righter than others out of hand. If something is a right, then it is a right. You seem to want to say that one is a right but the other is not as much of a right.


Who decides it? Society, and common sense.

That's another way of saying that the government does, and is thus an oxymoron itself when used with the oxymoron "common sense." Society exerts control on itself through government. There is no other way. Thus, you are arguing that government should have sole power to decide what rights we have.

I also reject that argument out of hand.


An amendment with a watermelon right should definitely be added to the constitution.

Wouldn't that be glorious?

But Phage makes an excellent point above: the Constitution does not grant a single right, other than possibly the right to vote. It instead recognizes that certain things are rights, and forbids the government from infringing on those rights. SO I can claim the right to a watermelon. Can you, however, claim that you have the right to force me to pay $100,000 for a slice of watermelon, or can you claim the right to limit how much watermelon I can eat in a period of time?

What are the limits to rights? And seriously, I am not just talking about gun control.

We cannot have a discussion about what rights we have or should have until we can agree on what a right really is.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
In addition to the wait period and bond for protesting, I think a good addition would be a thorough background check on each protester involved.

We can't have anyone having access to their rights that doesn't deserve it.

Otherwise, spot on!



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We're already seeing society impose restrictions to rights.


What I call, "book burning" are the statues being torn down, infringing upon rights of free speech in social media outlets.

Now it's not government doing it (per se) but it is a political ideology that is spurring these actions nonetheless.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




We're already seeing society impose restrictions to rights.

Society has always imposed restrictions on rights. Your right to the "pursuit of happiness", for example.

Do What You Like! Right? Until it runs up against mine.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?


No restrictions.

No restrictions on CNN or MSNBC either. They can write whatever they want and pretend like it’s the truth. If they want to tell lies to make Trump look bad, so be it.

No restrictions.


They already have that right.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?


No restrictions.

No restrictions on CNN or MSNBC either. They can write whatever they want and pretend like it’s the truth. If they want to tell lies to make Trump look bad, so be it.

No restrictions.


Well, shucks! Let's not pretend they've been beacons of truth all this time.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Infringing on other peoples rights is not a right.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Then you get my point.

Your rights are restricted by mine. That's nothing new. Society has been "infringing" on rights for quite a while now. Right?

edit on 8/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?


No restrictions.

No restrictions on CNN or MSNBC either. They can write whatever they want and pretend like it’s the truth. If they want to tell lies to make Trump look bad, so be it.

No restrictions.


They already have that right.


Good and let's make sure Trump can't change that, like he's threatened to. Slander and libel should be the media's right.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?


No restrictions.

No restrictions on CNN or MSNBC either. They can write whatever they want and pretend like it’s the truth. If they want to tell lies to make Trump look bad, so be it.

No restrictions.


They already have that right.


Good and let's make sure Trump can't change that, like he's threatened to. Slander and libel should be the media's right.


Good to know you finally admit that's what they're about in their Trump coverage.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That's a reasonable position, as I see it. One person's rights are restricted by another's, as long as both have the same rights. I think the Supreme Court agrees with that. I may have the right to speak my mind, but you have the right to be secure in your home... so if I try to goad people into invading your home, I am beyond my right to free speech.

Would you agree with me that a right is a right, and no rights are more right than others?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv


Nope. Let’s not have any restrictions.

Anybody who wants a gun should have a gun. Anyone. Homicidal maniac? Domestic terrorist? Give ‘em 20 guns. Hell, give ‘em 100 guns.

No restrictions.

So I take it you agree with the OP... all rights are rights and should be treated equally?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Pretty sure Trump doesn't have the power or ability to take anyone's rights away. Just the power to flap his lips.
It's amusing though




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join