reply to post by RestingInPieces
Fool. Have you backed up and looked at the Constitution as a whole lately? It's the reservation for an entire federal union.
When the fool begins calling others a fool, the discourse has gone way beyond any repair. It is you who are not looking at the Constitution as a
whole, and even your cherry picking of that Constitution is nonsensical. The establishment of the federal union is about a delegation of power, you
imbecile. There is no where in that Constitution where you can point to and show that rights have been given to the government itself, only delegated
power. This is why you made the foolish statement I quoted above instead of actually showing the Clause you are referring to, because there is no
clause to back up your assertion, and from the Preamble, down tot the Bill of Rights, all rights belong to the people, not the government.
Two different things entirely. The rights you mention are enumerated in the bill of rights. All unenumerated rights are left up to the people per
democratic process.
Again, since you are the one who keeps insisting people show you in the Constitution where the right to drive has been enumerated, it is only fair to
demand you show us where in that Constitution that it says all unenumerated rights are left up to the people per democratic process, particularly
since each state has been guaranteed a republican form of government. Show us the language that supports your contention that all unenumerated rights
are decided by the whimsy of a democratic process.
The second amendment is certainly a blanket statement.
Are you aware that in this context, the Second Amendment as a "blanket statement" would mean all people, as in "each person" has the right to keep
and bear arms. Is that what you mean by asserting the Second Amendment is "certainly a blanket statement"?
I never said anything of the sorts regarding enumerated rights. The people do not have have the power to to vote on enumerated rights. It's why the
bill of rights was presented in the first place - they were the top few rights that the founding fathers could imagine would stand the test of time.
The people do not have the right to, by democratic process, vote on unenumerated rights either. Are you ignorant of the fact that the right to
privacy has been upheld by the Supreme Court as an undeniable unalienable right of individuals, and this is why the popular legislative acts
prohibiting abortion have been struck down as unlawful? You know what? Obtuse is not a color that goes well with you.
... and they think proper that driving without a license is not the way to go.
Those that do are welcome to enter into a contract with the State of Arkansas and play by those rules, those who do not think it is proper do not have
to, at any point, surrender their unalienable right just because other people think it proper to join an exclusive licensing club.
Wrong. We don't have dictators in America.
This coming from the person who began this post by calling me a fool. It is not wrong that every individual is a holder of the inherent political
power, and you are not just calling me wrong, you are calling the State of Arkansas and every other state who has recognized that the people hold the
inherent political power wrong. So, when I say that it logically follows that every individual holds the inherent political power, this has nothing
to do with dictatorships. It is a foolish statement you've made, perhaps in haste, perhaps because you genuinely have a hard time grasping simple
concepts, who knows? While declaring that we "don't have dictators in America" is correct, in respect to my statement that every individual is a
holder of the inherent political power your declaration is a non sequitur.
Let me break this down as simply as possible. If we are to accept Lord Acton's assertion that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely" as true, then we have a foundation by which to better understand why the U.S. government is set up by Constitution acknowledging that the
inherent political power belongs with the people. This is not to say that "the people" is to be taken in an aggregated sense, because it is
aggregated power that is most corruptible. Thus, the inherent political power is spread out evenly among every individual so as to keep the
aggregation of power kept at a minimum. When the people, as in individuals, understand this as a majority, local, state, and federal government has a
difficult time of aggregating power. When the people, as in individuals such as you, collectively come to believe that they have "surrendered"
their inherent political power to the government in order to have a government, then the aggregation of power becomes much easier for those who've
cast a longing eye on political office and have dubious ambitions. The inherent political power is spread out equally among all people in an effort
to limit the aggregation of power governments tend towards.
... except for the Arkansas constitution that you just mentioned?
Your only saving grace with this last sentence is that it ends with a question mark. In answer to your question, no the Arkansas Constitution is not
granting any rights. They are acknowledging that rights preexist the government established by that Constitution, and while they have enumerated some
rights, they made sure, with Section 29, of which I will post again, to clarify that unemurated rights also exist, and that any legislation denying or
disparaging either enumerated, or unenumerated rights are void!
Section 29: Enumeration of Rights of People Not Exclusive of Other Rights - Protection Against Encroachment This enumeration of rights shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any
transgression of any of the higher powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of the
government; and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the other provisions herein contained, shall be
void.
Sure, as soon as suffrage was voted upon by the people. Historically, you are obviously wrong.
Voting is not an unalienable right. It is a legal right, a civil right, granted by government. The obvious nature of unalienable rights, that they
preexist governments, demonstrates how voting cannot possibly be an unalienable right because it does not preexist government, and the establishment
of a government is first required before the civil right of voting can be granted. Do you understand? There are unalienable natural rights, and
there are legal civil rights. Both are not the same. Unalienable rights belong to all people, regardless of their citizenship, but civil rights
belong only to those who have been granted the right by the government granting those rights. Consider that while you passionately argue against the
reality of unalienable rights and keep insisting all rights are those civil rights granted to people by government.
... Maybe I'll respond to the rest of your dribble if you are lucky (or unlucky). Right now, I'm in the process of decided if my continued
interaction with you is even worth one iota of my time. I've done this with you before, and I'm about to do the same thing I've done before: let
fools be fools.
You are backed into a corner in this thread, and have very limited options. Your best and surest way out of this corner is to admit your errors, and
begin talking sensibly. Your next best bet is to "let fools be fools" and leave this thread for the more reasonable minds and go be a fool
somewhere else. Of course, fools rarely admit their mistakes and most of the time have no control over their emotions. It is fairly predictable that
you will not be able to resist responding and pressing harder and harder into that corner you've backed into.
