It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I clearly made a very similar argument in the fact that the Freedom of speech ( 1st amendment ), allowed for these church nuts to voice their opinion.
Reverting back to my opening comments, Im pretty sure you can see that for yourself scooter.
Instead of acknowledging my statement in regards to the rights of the church nuts, you deemed it necessary to try to present yourself as a " all mighty and knowing " individual.
The fact still remains, you brought up the 9th Amendment. In my rebuttal, and the post before that, you will see I was identifying the Limits of Congress, which falls under the Section 9. No where in any of my posts did I mention the 9th Amendment.
Either there was a miscommunication, or, you were hoping to instigate an argument to illicit a response? I have to chose the latter.
Originally posted by Secularist
As utterly contemptible as I find WBC I give them credit. What they preach is what Christianity preaches - its disgusting, right? Read the bible, check it out.
Originally posted by Ratisch
I can't stand this group of so called Christian believers. They and people like them give all believers a bad name.edit on 2-3-2011 by Secularist because: (no reason given)
I admire your argument, but you're trying to take an ideological position and stand it up as an absolute law of the universe.
There are no natural rights.
If someone wants to silence another human being and they have the power, it would simply be a matter of performing the job.
Inalienable rights are abstract concepts that I and many others wish were inviolable, but in fact are only granted to us by the peaceable agreement of other men.
The drafters of the Constitution had the foresight to realize others would try to erode the concept of unalienable rights. So I praise them for their wording standing in defense against it. But, in truth, I realize that my liberties are a function of others affording me the privilege to be free.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Presumably the judgement also defends the right to protest of anyone would hold a demonstration outside the church itself blaming everything in the world on them because they are a bunch of pig ignorant fascists who would actualy rateehr crush everyone else's rights under their own jack-booted bible, preferably all dressed in pink?
I firmly believe that Constitutional rights should only be allowed to go so far. Once they start to infringe on someone else's rights (ie, the right to have a funeral in peace and quiet) then the discussion should become moot.
I would say they're self evident only in retrospect. Meaning evidence supports the need for rights of all peoples.
A declaration of "self evidence" is to try to afford the concept a place of being a truism that requires no thought.
Your description of standing on the precipice of a cliff and flapping ones arms mightily is highly amusing. It also nicely illustrates how a mob on a rampage cares about as much about the "self evident" articles of the United States as a bull does the porcelain in a china shop.
I understand you addressed this point by arguing that "the self evidence of the nature of criminality ... [does] not preexist unalienable rights." However I think we only truly establish natural rights by looking at the aftermath of a situation gone bad.
It's sad that it work this way, but like trying to build a bridge (or anything else for that matter) trial and error allows for perfection of design.
Put another way the rose only wears its thorns because evolution encouraged it to find a defense against those who pluck it.
So I would say "unalienable rights" are a vehicle for representing rights which should have preexisted the self evident nature of criminality.