'The Constitution Grants Rights' vs 'The Constitution Protects Rights' Argument

[poptab]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

 

[jamil]

I don't look at rights as freedoms endowewd by a creator. I define natural rights as those freedoms we would naturally have if no one could take them away.

 

[88GT]

I wouldn't say that it grants or protects rights.

The way I put it is that it is a LIMITATION on the powers of government.

It is an agreement of the citizens that some amount of government is necessary.
To do that, the government (federal) is authorized to do "these" things, AND NOTHING ELSE.
All other powers are to the STATES.

But it seems no one else believes that, cause the feds sure seem to be doing a lot of things I can't find in the rules.

LOL, to include a few INGOers.

I don't look at rights as freedoms endowewd by a creator. I define natural rights as those freedoms we would naturally have if no one could take them away.

So murder is a right?

 

[buford t justice]

I would say the litmus test for "rights ' would be those "rights which haven't been stripped of an American citizen by the federal government in history going back to their inception in 1791.

Any that have been denied a law abiding American citizen would then have to be classified as privilages.

 

[jamil]

So murder is a right?

are you saying that you have no natural right to live?

 

[88GT]

are you saying that you have no natural right to live?

That's exactly what I'm saying....in the natural world. There is no morality in the natural world. No one else has to respect your right to act in your own best interest....in the natural world. So you'd better be ready to defend yourself.

 

[MikeDVB]

That's exactly what I'm saying....in the natural world. There is no morality in the natural world. No one else has to respect your right to act in your own best interest....in the natural world. So you'd better be ready to defend yourself.

Murder is a right, as is the right to live. Fortunately only the government can infringe rights. If I were to **hypothetically for the point of discussion** kill you - you would be dead but I couldn't have infringed upon your right to live.

Murder is a right that is infringed upon by our government but I think most would agree for good reason.

There are situations where it's not infringed upon [limited] such as 'justified homicide' AKA self defense.

It's a whole can of worms - so I was going to try to avoid murder - but it can easily be argued that it's a right that's infringed .

 

[88GT]

Murder is a right, as is the right to live. Fortunately only the government can infringe rights. If I were to **hypothetically for the point of discussion** kill you - you would be dead but I couldn't have infringed upon your right to live.

Murder is a right that is infringed upon by our government but I think most would agree for good reason.

There are situations where it's not infringed upon [limited] such as 'justified homicide' AKA self defense.

It's a whole can of worms - so I was going to try to avoid murder - but it can easily be argued that it's a right that's infringed .

Yep. I was trying to highlight the chasmic divide between the justification of rights based on natural "law" and the concept that natural beings operating within that natural "law" are honor-bound to respect them and not infringe on them.

I'm good with both, but people need to understand there's a couple of assumptions that have to take place before you can get to the end if you start with the pure natural law justification for rights.

 

[jamil]

So murder is a right?

are you saying that you have no natural right to live?

That's exactly what I'm saying....in the natural world. There is no morality in the natural world. No one else has to respect your right to act in your own best interest....in the natural world. So you'd better be ready to defend yourself.

Then I think we may agree more than we don't. My question was more of a compressed answer than a question because I hate thumbing in more than a sentence on my phone.

So here's where I'm going with this. I wouldn't say that we have any "rights" outside of a moral system. But I would say that whether within a moral system or not, we are always free to live so far as we are able to preserve our own lives. When operating within a moral system, that should not be prohibitively difficult since most of us mutually agree that we should not kill each other.

Murder is a right, as is the right to live. Fortunately only the government can infringe rights. If I were to **hypothetically for the point of discussion** kill you - you would be dead but I couldn't have infringed upon your right to live.

Murder is a right that is infringed upon by our government but I think most would agree for good reason.

There are situations where it's not infringed upon [limited] such as 'justified homicide' AKA self defense.

It's a whole can of worms - so I was going to try to avoid murder - but it can easily be argued that it's a right that's infringed .

Murder is not a natural "right". As I said, we don't have "rights" natural or otherwise outside of a moral system. We have natural freedoms. Every being who operates with cognitive reason is free to choose to do anything within the possible. The only thing that limits the exercise of a given choice is consequence. This is true if you're the only cognitive being existing, or you're just one individual in a huge society of individuals repressed by an evil dictator. Consequences may be natural or artificial--codified as punitive, or preemptive, or just guilt from violating a moral precept or principle.

However, the words in the DOI clearly presume a commonly understood system of morals that predates the documentation. It's unreasonable to conclude that the intent was anything else than to establish a constitution that 1) recognizes preexisting rights of individuals, based upon a mutual understanding of an underlying system of morals, and 2) limits the federal government's ability to infringe upon those. The only rights created by the constitution, are specifically those to permit the government to infringe on preexisting rights of its citizens in limited circumstances.

To figure out what inalienable rights were endowed by "our creator", whatever you believe that means, we need to look at the context of the system of morals understood by the authors. They clearly believed the people already had those rights as moral, honorable, human beings, and that the document they were writing establishes the rules that protect those rights.

I think it doesn't matter if you believe they are "natural rights" or not, or that there is even a "Creator" or not. It matters what the framers believed they were establishing--they wrote it after all.

Yep. I was trying to highlight the chasmic divide between the justification of rights based on natural "law" and the concept that natural beings operating within that natural "law" are honor-bound to respect them and not infringe on them.

I'm good with both, but people need to understand there's a couple of assumptions that have to take place before you can get to the end if you start with the pure natural law justification for rights.

The "chasmic divide" is that "rights" don't necessarily emanate from natural law. On which I think we both agree but perhaps not for the same reason.

Natural law is this: sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. You don't have a natural right to be either without some preexisting moral belief. **** happens.

Natural rights, rights that one might assume should exist, are necessarily derived from an underlying moral system. They may be thought to have been discovered, or completely contrived. Either way, "natural rights" have little to do with the existence of a windshield or bug. Add some morals, and you might then assume a natural right to be the windshield. In a different culture, the moral standing may be the bug's.

The intellect to conceptualize morals and assume rights natural to those morals and contrive codes of honor and ethics, is perhaps what separates us most from animals. Humans are generally moral minded critters. We can choose to do anything within our abilities, and we are prone to self-preservation like any other critter. Yet we can also choose to honor and respect other critters and we can devise laws within our social structure to require at least that kind of behavior.