Why do liberal Americans want more and more and more rights too?

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by MarAzul, Sep 16, 2014.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 3 of 3
  1. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    That's not what I'm suggesting. What I suggest is have social services take their children away and force them into a drug rehab.
     
    magnifier661, Sep 17, 2014
    #41
  2. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Social services showing up to take away someone's kids. Those who don't care about the constitution would be proud!

    [​IMG]
     
    Denny Crane, Sep 17, 2014
    #42
  3. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    LOL
     
    magnifier661, Sep 17, 2014
    #43
  4. maxiep

    maxiep RIP Dr. Jack

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,303
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Merchant Banker
    Location:
    Denver, CO & Lake Oswego, OR
    The fundamental difference between modern Liberals and Constitutional originalists is their view of "rights". To the Constitutional originalist, rights are negative, i.e., what the Government can't do to you. To a modern Liberal, rights are positive, i.e., what the Government is obligated to do for you.
     
    maxiep, Sep 17, 2014
    #44
  5. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    I like scenario one, since my tax dollars are paying their salaries
     
    magnifier661, Sep 18, 2014
    #45
  6. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,060
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    I whole heartedly agree with this statement.
     
    Eastoff, Sep 18, 2014
    #46
  7. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    As I see it, the constitution lays out a very limited set of rights for the government. Back then, there was a debate about even having a bill of rights because it shouldn't be needed - if the government not granted some ability by the constitution, it can't violate the types of things in the bill of rights. They gave us the bill of rights anyhow.

    For most of the first 150 years, the elections were all about constitutional type issues. Slavery allowed in new states? That sort of thing.

    Then progressives got the idea the constitution was too rigid to allow them to turn government into something not envisioned. The constitution needed to become a "living" document and they would pick and choose what bits they like. Our government was not designed to have lots of unelected committees of "experts" headed by unelected leaders running everything.

    I don't see the constitution declared negative rights in the sense Maxiep suggests. It declared mostly positive rights on behalf of the government. It must raise a military. It must create a post office. It must print/mint the money. It must implement a patent office. And so on. Those are by definition positive rights.

    Unfortunately, it's not what the government is obligated to do FOR you, it's what it is doing TO you. When it does something TO you, it's pretty much violating the spirit of the constitution.
     
    Denny Crane, Sep 18, 2014
    #47
  8. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    I think the Constitution was implemented to support the concepts laid out in the Declaration of Independence fairly well in that our rights are, self-evident and unalienable. We need not petition the government for rights we already have. The business of the branches of government are specified in the Constitution, including the protection of our rights, probably foremost in the list. The bill of rights, added later to satisfy the need of many to enumerate some of these unalienable rights is interesting but not quite complete in my view. It had been long understood that people do have the right of self defense, of their person and their rights. This is well documented in the Law of Nations by Vattel, written several years before the Declaration of Independence. The work by Vattel influenced the writing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So it is surprising that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution on the right to bear arms is so unclear to many. People have the unalienable right to self defense of their person and right and therefore the undeniable right to bear arms. It seems to me the idea for this amendment come right out of the Law of Nations.

    "In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to
    employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights. This
    principle is generally acknowledged: reason demonstrates it; and nature herself has engraved it on the
    heart of man."

    However imperfect, it has been working quite well. I for one can't not see why so many of my countrymen can not see the beauty of this work and the prescription for sustaining liberty that it holds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2014
    MarAzul, Sep 18, 2014
    #48
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page