Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by SpectreDC

YES, WE WOULD, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF NATURAL LAW!

No we wouldn't because the USA would not freaking exists. Natural Law is a theory that is all it is. Nothing more nothing less. does it work, yes it does, could something work better yes it could.

Get it through your head Natural Law is a theory, nothing more and nothing less.

Originally posted by Light of Night
Here is the proof that the Constitution does grant us rights.

I see excerpts from the Constitution in which you put the words "rights" in bold. No where was there the phrase "this document grants such and such right" or "we the people grant ourselves to do X". In fact, all it says it what I said it says, it tells the government what it can not do. It doesn't grant us rights, it essentially grants what the governments purpose is.

How about going further to common sense???

Stop appeasment... Just common sense???

I got into a huge thing with this guy who was American living in America. He hated this country with a passion. I offered him a real deal to buy him a one way ticket to any country he chose as long as he would never come back. He chose to stay here..... end of story. Point is, people who hate America sure love living here. I find the people who love this country most are people who were not born here, people who experienced life in another country.

reply to post by Light of Night

That doesn't make a lot of sense does it? When you are born you have no background.

Obviously I meant natural born citizen.

The fact is, freedom is an indivisible whole. To say that someone should not be aloud to cross an ambiguous geographical border, is denying that person the freedom based upon race, ethnicity, culture, or nation of birth. You are denying one human being the same opportunities you have because he or she was born somewhere else. This actually seems worse, and more pathetic, than racism.

Its bigotry. Race aside, you are denying people opportunity based upon the region of the world they are from. People like you should feel proud to let others in your country. You should feel proud to be coveted by others, and you should do all you can to stop holding these people back as they will do the same for you.

The whole race card thing getting played is getting very old, and no matter how much you try to deny it the facts speak for themselves.

Here is a fact, you discriminate against people based upon their country of origin. You wish these people to remain in their squalor until they can meet some ridiculous terms you set.

reply to post by Light of Night


With the last post you made, and claim will be last post you will make in this thread, all you accomplished doing was proving the O.P.'s point. You undermined your own argument, and did so by showing the clear language within The Bill of Rights. What your agenda might be is less relevant than your inability to present reasonable arguments, and if your agenda be that of a sycophantic worshiper of tyranny, thank God you rely upon fallacy to make your points.

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Get it through your head Natural Law is a theory, nothing more and nothing less.

A theory that acts as the foundation of the beliefs of the founding fathers who fought to create this nation, wrote the constitution and wrote the declaration of independence.

reply to post by Light of Night


Those rights would exist as they predate Government and the Constitution. They were rights that were held to be self-evident and true. The term "Bill of Rights" is by no means an implication or defining statement such as you have proclaimed it to be. If we get down to it, a Bill is merely a list. It is a list that the Federalist James Madison mainly authored. The amendments were pushed for to show that the People were not just creating another servitude based Government, but rather a Government that was truly by the People.

So I do not believe anyone here was lied to, just led in a different direction. The right to speak freely, associate freely, worship (or not) freely, self preservation/protection, secure in your own belongings, face your accuser, judged by your peers, etc where evident and recognized as basics to a self-governing society that needed to be protected from Government, not granted by Government.

Outside of the self-governing society, each of us are individuals and must hold true some form of self-evident rights, may it be from Natural Law, Divine Law, or Chaos, those rights exist regardless of the protections afforded by the Constitution.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by ownbestenemy]

I see people on here have a really hard time understanding reading comprehension. I guess I should go back and edit my post where in those amendments it says, "the right of the people".

Also if the Bill of Rights had to be added to the constitution to stop the government from taking away rights, then did the rights even exist in the first place? No they didn't.

It doesn't matter if you want to accept it or not, but the US Constitution grants the Citizens of America Rights. It's written in the document point blank period. If you can't secede to this point when the proof is right there in front of your face then it is hopeless to even continue this debate.

It doesn't matter what you "think" it says, or what you have been "told" what it says, all that matters is what it says. It's that simple.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As stated in my above post, the Constitution does not afford us with any rights. It protects rights that we, as humans find self-evident. Nor does it specifically and implicitly states that the rights are only limited to Citizens.

You seem to be confusing several things here. Unalienable rights and self-evident truths are found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution on the other hand very clearly states that it is for the US and not for, say, Egypt or Chile.

Preamble - US Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If it was meant to be for every human being in the entire world, it wouldn't say "Constitution for the United States of America". The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution, as are the other amendments, and as such pertain to the US. The amendments, as I'm sure you know, were added to specify certain rights we have in the US. The Constitution is the main source of law for our country. (Well, it's supposed to be anyway.) As the main source for our laws it can only apply to those subject to it. The only people subject to our laws are our citizens.

Originally posted by Light of Night
Okay, lets just let everybody into the country without any background checks or anything. Or better yet lets call everybody in the world American's and they are entitled to everything that we have. I'm sure we can figure out a way to send welfare checks and food stamps to all the poverty stricken people all over the world.

So I guess basically what you are trying to say is that, illegal immigrants should be allowed the same rights as American citizens? That what this rant screams to me.

The ideacy of most people quite trully astounds me. I have never posted anything on ATS before and created this account just so I could reply to this post.
First of all welfare checks and food stamps are not rights. They are not listed in the declaration of independents list of "inalienable rights", nor do they appear in the bill of rights. They are Privilages of American citizens (existing largely to keep the public dosile and subdued, much like the free bread given to all romans).
And yes, I am saying illegal immigrants, as well as all people of the world should be given certain inalienable rights. I'm not saying they should even get all the rights listed in the constitution, but there are certain rights which no one can take, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Think of it this way. You have the right to controll your body. No one can tell you whether or not you can breath. You should be able to create settlements and seek nourishmant regardless of where you are. If you don't think they deserve jobs here don't hire them, and don't support the businesses of those who do. But they have a right to fight for they're survival, to be free to live as they wish, and to try to be happy for the simple fact that they are alive. They will do these things regardless of whether or not you allow them to and nothing you can ever do will trully strip them of this right.

Originally posted by tac109
I got into a huge thing with this guy who was American living in America. He hated this country with a passion. I offered him a real deal to buy him a one way ticket to any country he chose as long as he would never come back. He chose to stay here..... end of story. Point is, people who hate America sure love living here. I find the people who love this country most are people who were not born here, people who experienced life in another country.

I would say that he didn't have the courage to make that kind of change in his life. I'm sure there are more than a few countries on this planet that would be nice to live in. Even poorer countries if you had that inclination. Many US citizens have chosen to live in places outside of the US.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

They were rights that were held to be self-evident and true

No, those rights were held to be self-evident and true to the founders of the Nation. Not to everybody.

You guys are really trying to twist this around to make your point and you're failing horribly.

reply to post by SpectreDC

I'm actually a left-libertarian/anarchist/minarchist/that ball park over yonder.

Congratulations... now you need to work on getting rid of the minarchist part.

Get some more Murray Rothbard in your life.


I knew I wasn't too far from your position, but the use of several terms bother me. unAmerican, American Principles, etc. When I see these in context of freedom I have to respond as I did.
It's like when Cartman has to finish Come Sail Away when he hears the first part.

reply to post by Jenna


I know I have intertwined the statements but was not implying that they were in one document or another. Its the product of a free mind being able to not be bound by the edges of a piece of paper and be able to understand that we, as Americans hold our Declaration of Independence in high regard, then we must still hold true to the words penned upon it. If I have at some point declared that that statement comes from the Constitution, I will fix it and that is my mistake for not proofreading.

My point was to show, as others have the progression at which the People came to the Constitution. The proclamation of self-evident and unalienable rights are declared upon in the Declaration of Independence, but is that where they stop? Do they not carry forward as still held self-evident and being held unalienable?

reply to post by Light of Night

I see people on here have a really hard time understanding reading comprehension.

I don't think many here had a hard time comprehending this statement you made:

I'm not going to post anymore but I really hope people get the point by this point.

And yet, here you are still posting. A lie? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when clearly you don't even take yourself seriously?

If you can't secede to this point when the proof is right there in front of your face then it is hopeless to even continue this debate.

One can only presume you mean to say "concede" and not "secede", but that would be one who has no problem in comprehension that would make such a presumption on your behalf. You have not offered any proof, and you can keep pointing to gray skies and declare them blue, sane people will eventually begin to look at your wild rantings for what they are.

It doesn't matter what you "think" it says, or what you have been "told" what it says, all that matters is what it says. It's that simple.

Which is precisely why your arguments will never hold muster, the language of the Bill of Rights is that clear, and it is that simple.

Originally posted by renegadeloser
The ideacy of most people quite trully astounds me. I have never posted anything on ATS before and created this account just so I could reply to this post.
First of all welfare checks and food stamps are not rights. They are not listed in the declaration of independents list of "inalienable rights", nor do they appear in the bill of rights. They are Privilages of American citizens (existing largely to keep the public dosile and subdued, much like the free bread given to all romans).
And yes, I am saying illegal immigrants, as well as all people of the world should be given certain inalienable rights. I'm not saying they should even get all the rights listed in the constitution, but there are certain rights which no one can take, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Think of it this way. You have the right to controll your body. No one can tell you whether or not you can breath. You should be able to create settlements and seek nourishmant regardless of where you are. If you don't think they deserve jobs here don't hire them, and don't support the businesses of those who do. But they have a right to fight for they're survival, to be free to live as they wish, and to try to be happy for the simple fact that they are alive. They will do these things regardless of whether or not you allow them to and nothing you can ever do will trully strip them of this right.

I never claimed that welfare was a right, I correctly stated it as an entitlement.

Anyway I'm glad you perceived my post to be ignorant and you created an account. Welcome to ATS!

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

They were rights that were held to be self-evident and true

No, those rights were held to be self-evident and true to the founders of the Nation. Not to everybody.

You guys are really trying to twist this around to make your point and you're failing horribly.

The founders used this ideal on which to build this nation. They called it the American Ideal. If you agree with it you can consider yourself an American. If you don't you could still call yourself American but not because you embrace the American Ideal. Those that do embrace it can/will think of you as unamerican.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by daskakik]

The saying goes, we are never satisfied, we always want more.
1/those below poverty level struggle to get the basics of food to survive , they want more.
2/those at poverty level (have) the basics of food , but they also want more.

3/those that have a good quality of life ,but rent accomodation ,want more.

4/those that have the car ,house ,food, clothes, holidays, want more

5/those that have 2 houses,2 cars ,private schools ,want more.

6/those that have IT ALL , EVERYTHING THEY COULD WISH FOR, WANT MORE.
no.6/With what you waste in one week could help SO MANY from no.1 that have very little.
those from no.5/ what you waste in 6 months could help so many from no.2.
WHAT DO YOU, YEP YOU THE PERSON READING THIS,WHAT DO YOU WANT?
ARE YOU SURE?
which level are you in? 2? 3? 4? 5?.
the strange thing is, those that have very little, share with others that are poor.

i,m not critisizing anyone,just making you think.




[edit on 4-5-2010 by stmichael]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ahh yes, lets attack the poster now.

Read the Bill of Rights, it clearly states in several amendments with the clear language of "the right of the people".

So you can dissect my post because I used the wrong words and also want to attack my credibility because I said I wasn't going to post anymore but decided to keep posting. Doesn't really matter to me. It's just the internet.

Edit -

Still doesn't make you right.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Light of Night]