Happy U.S. Independence Day

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Try and figure it out!

Perhaps you should try not jumping to conclusions! 😀

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you should try not jumping to conclusions! 😀

Nor you.

I was replying to r99pawn77 who said
It is almost as if we realized the goals of the French Revolution ...

therefore identifying himself as American, I know I'm British so I can't see any problem using "you" "we" or "ours"

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I was replying to r99pawn77 ...

No you weren't. You were replying to me. Bottom of page 1. Look. But it is of no consequence.

Originally posted by FMF
No you weren't. You were replying to me. Bottom of page 1. Look. But it is of no consequence.

OK your correct ... it was straight after my reply to r99pawn77. I think my meaning was clear though ...

Originally posted by wolfgang59
OK your correct ... it was straight after my reply to r99pawn77. I think my meaning was clear though ...

Indeed it was. The slip is of no consequence. On reflection, I have probably been rolling 1776 and 1787 (and a bit of 1791) together and attributing more to the 4th July 1776 than one should, although the principles laid out in the Declaration formed a basis for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The US governmental system of; a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, and a separate head of state has been copied yes.
But I think maybe Britain got their first.

And OK - you wrote your constitution down - we have to remember ours! 😀

**************** HAPPY 4th JULY EVERYONE ********************

The US was the first nation to base its governmental philosophy on the idea that the very purpose of government was to protect the Natural Rights of the People.

Too bad that some people like sh76 think it's more important to allow political subdivisions to violate their People's rights than adhere to this principle but the Framers couldn't anticipate such stubborn ignorance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The US was the first nation to base its governmental philosophy on the idea that the very purpose of government was to protect the Natural Rights of the People.

Too bad that some people like sh76 think it's more important to allow political subdivisions to violate their People's rights than adhere to this principle but the Framers couldn't anticipate such stubborn ignorance.

By the way, just so that no one thinks you're blowing enormous quantities of hot air over nothing, name a right that is not expressed or implied in the US Constitution that has or should be enforced under a natural rights theory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Too bad that some people like sh76 think it's more important to allow political subdivisions to violate their People's rights than adhere to this principle but the Framers couldn't anticipate such stubborn ignorance.

It's also too bad that most justices in US Supreme Court history share such "stubborn ignorance," right?

Originally posted by sh76
By the way, just so that no one thinks you're blowing enormous quantities of hot air over nothing, name a right that is not expressed or implied in the US Constitution that has or should be enforced under a natural rights theory.

"Implied" was not your earlier position; are you backpedaling?

sh76: Right A isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights; therefore it it not within the authority of the federal government to force states to guarantee it to its citizens.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Implied" was not your earlier position; are you backpedaling?

I don't think so; but let's assume for the moment that I am. what's the difference?

I have no inherent problem with the Griswold rationale ("penumbras and emanations" of the other rights BOR to infer a right to privacy). At least the Court sought to find a textual basis for their decision. Whether "penumbras and emanations" is an honest way to read the Constitution is another matter; but that's a far cry from holding states to rules not at all implied in the Constitution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Implied" was not your earlier position; are you backpedaling?

sh76: Right A isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights; therefore it it not within the authority of the federal government to force states to guarantee it to its citizens.

The Constitution is necessarily vague. Implied by text could be considered the same as enumerated by text.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think so; but let's assume for the moment that I am. what's the difference?

I have no inherent problem with the Griswold rationale ("penumbras and emanations" of the other rights BOR to infer a right to privacy). At least the Court sought to find a textual basis for their decision. Whether "penumbras and emanations" is an honest way to read the Const ...[text shortened]... ut that's a far cry from holding states to rules not at all implied in the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment states, not implies, that there are other rights besides those enumerated.

Originally posted by sh76
The Constitution is necessarily vague. Implied by text could be considered the same as enumerated by text.

In an Orwell novel.

Originally posted by sh76
It's also too bad that most justices in US Supreme Court history share such "stubborn ignorance," right?

In the last 50 years, they've generally gotten to the correct result even though they are using reasoning that the Framers would have rejected.

I know of no present Supreme Court justice who shares your view that the "original intent" of the Framers is utterly irrelevant.