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.
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will worst ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Originally posted by blind.face
reply to post by slimpickens93
just like anyone else, you've completely overlooked what I posted.
If you would look back instead of twisting- you would realize that you and I have the exact same belief. Try reading the full context of all of my previous posts before you try to suggest to me what I should read.
Originally posted by blind.face
reply to post by slimpickens93
Also, I never said the Bill of Rights were rules for us to go by.. I said it is what we can do. And no... my inherent rights cannot be taken from me without infringing upon them.
Constitutions are laws for government. My Bill of Rights is a proclamation of my rights. I do not NEED a piece of paper to tell me what I already know I can do. That is the difference.
Originally posted by slimpickens93
reply to post by Xtinguish
I'd just like to say that not everyone of us believe that our rights are given to us by our "creator".
I believe my rights are "inherent". That means they are a part of me. I exist, therefore I have rights. I've had them since the very first breath I took. Nobody gave them to me. Nobody can take them away.
The source of rights is not that relevant so long as we all understand that we have them and what they are. And also that rights once realized, cannot be taken away... ever. Only one's liberty to exercise said rights can be taken/lost.
These rights aren't unalienable because the Constitution says so, the Constitution says so because the authors understood that rights are unalienable.
Once again, just because someone took away my RIGHTS does not make them privileges. They are rights that have been taken away. They've never been privileges, they've always been rights. The definition does not change just because some a-wad took my right away.
A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.
The question I ask is this; What makes us think we have a right to freedom?
The individuals self-proclaimed adhesiveness to their individual's rights is the problem of today's free world. I think a common example is the mis-representation of sexual intercourse and the perversion of the human body in today's popular culture. People say it's your own right to expose yourself and its another one's right to access these materials, but really, who gave people the right to pervert sex and mass-introduce it to popular culture?
There are tons of examples in the Bible where God sees one group of people as precious and the other groups as only worthy for destruction.
To prove it, how long would it take a dictator to destroy the Constitution and then your "inherent" or "God given" rights would be no more.
Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by nunya13
The point is not that someone gave us rights or took away our rights, it is that there is no such thing as inherent rights. You can say you have them, you can think you have them, someone else can say they gave them to you or took them away from you, but nobody is born with an inherent right to anything. Calling something an inherent or God given right is just some touchy feely thing to make people feel better.
You did not come out of your mothers womb with any rights whatsoever. In fact, if she decided she wanted a better job instead of you she could have killed you before you were even born. This could all be done with no more guilt than a few pings of sadness on her part on a dark, quiet night.
So where did your inherent, God given rights go in that scenario?
[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]
If you believe that no one, including yourself, is born with rights or a reasonable expectation of being a free person, I really think you should back it up with logic.
My logic that we ARE born with rights and freedoms is that someone has to come and take them away from me in order for me not to have them anymore. Until those rights are taken away (which I am really only forbidden from exercising them), I AM A FREE PERSON.
Either way, according to you, there is no such thing as an inherent or even God given right so who cares if my mother had aborted me? I didn't have the right to live.
Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by Zerbst
The question I ask is this; What makes us think we have a right to freedom?