29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiA right does not have to be put in the Constitution to exist; your rights predate and are superior to the Constitution which is a limited grant of power to the government. Please read Locke or Paine some time or at least look at the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Technically, the DI does not carry the weight of law. Only the Constitution has that authority.
The FDA can could not stop people from smoking, but it could stop the manufacture of tobacco products under it's normal criteria.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes, again, Americans simply asserted this right a couple hundred years ago. In practice, it is weighed against others' liberty rights and regulated accordingly. But if no American found his rights to be violated by pollution, then yes, by declaration, Americans have the absolute right to pollute the air.
That explains Bush's stance on the Kyoto-protocols then .....
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderUnless it codified into the law, the right is not necessary recognized by the courts. You are failing to distinguish between a philosophical position and a legal one.
A right does not have to be put in the Constitution to exist; your rights predate and are superior to the Constitution which is a limited grant of power to the government. Please read Locke or Paine some time or at least look at the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I may consider Biblical Law to be greater than Civil Law, but the Courts do not have that prerogative. They must go by the Constitution - the codified law.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou are grossly mistaken. Read the Ninth Amendment please as you are showing a profound ignorance of your own country's basic law. Fundamental, individual rights existed before the Constitution and are superior to it. If you can't understand that, then you will never understand the system of government that the Framers (all Lockean, fundamental rights proponents) set up: the Constitution constituted a limited government, your basic and inalienable rights are superior to any government.
Unless it codified into the law, the right is not necessary recognized by the courts. You are failing to distinguish between a philosophical position and a legal one.
I may consider Biblical Law to be greater than Civil Law, but the Courts do not have that prerogative. They must go by the Constitution - the codified law.
29 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand fully well. It's a wonderful concept, but in reality, it does not happen. The only rights you have are the ones that everyone agrees on - and the government allows. The Declaration of Independence spoke of inalienable rights, as if they were a given. We both know that powerful governments do not really recognize them.
You are grossly mistaken. Read the Ninth Amendment please as you are showing a profound ignorance of your own country's basic law. Fundamental, individual rights existed before the Constitution and are superior to it. If you ca ...[text shortened]... our basic and inalienable rights are superior to any government.
In an ideal world, we'd have all those "rights," but we don't live in an ideal world. The only rights we have are those that are clearly mandated and preserved in the law. Otherwise there would be no IRA, FDA, Department of Education. These are areas where the Federal Government ignored undefined rights the States and ultimatly the people had.
Now it's a struggle in this county to maintain the rights we do have.
29 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiGovernments were set up to protect our inalienable rights, not discard them. If a government fails to fulfill its duty to protect our rights, it is a tyranny and should be done away with. The law doesn't "give" us rights; just laws can only recognize our rights. I do not concede that the Framers were wrong and that we should simply shrug away basic freedoms our forefathers shed blood for. Struggle to "maintain the rights" the government feels it has to hand you like crumbs to a beggar; I'll insist the present, temporary occupants of places of power recognize the rights which are our birthright.
I understand fully well. It's a wonderful concept, but in reality, it does not happen. The only rights you have are the ones that everyone agrees on - and the government allows. The Declaration of Independence spoke of inalienable right ...[text shortened]... a struggle in this county to maintain the rights we do have.
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
You people seem to have a problem distinguishing between things that are not precisely defined and those that are arbitrary.
Are these legal distinctions? If they are, could you define them and give a few examples
from historical cases (I am assuming that latter is considered undesirable and the former is
permissible)?
Since having a certain BAC is no assurance that you are intoxicated AND having a lower BAC is no insurance you are not intoxicated, the law is what we call "under" and "over" inclusive. Therefore, in my view, it should be abolished.
Two questions (off-topic, but if you are inclined...):
1) It seems that many laws are going to have a sort of bell-curve effect, where there will be
some under- and over-inclusion. I'm guessing that there is a certain range that is generally
acceptable and that, in this case, the range for BAC is too poorly defined. Could you elaborate
some?
2) Why do you suppose it isn't abolished if it is fairly clear its standards are poorly defined/arbitrary?
Nemesio
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, as I understand it, there are two considerations:
Lines have to be drawn somewhere in a society; the danger that a truly drunk driver poses is immediate and life-threatening to others. He is performing his dangerous act in public, not in the privacy of his own home. This is a far different standard of governmental intrusiveness than dictating what activities parents can do in their own home that merely raises the risk of harm to other members of their family.
1) The potential for the act to cause immediate harm; and
2) Committing the act in public.
Is at least one a necessary conditions before governmental intrusiveness?
If my house is in a state of filth and neglect and my child is walking around in
it (even though he is in no immediate danger), he can be removed from my
possession. Do you feel that this is wrong?
Nemesio
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by Nemesio(2) only comes into play after (1) is established, and then only to the extent that it pertains to balancing rights, because as partial owners of public property, people are entitled to a say about standards for their use.
So, as I understand it, there are two considerations:
1) The potential for the act to cause immediate harm; and
2) Committing the act in public.
Is at least one a necessary conditions before governmental intrusiveness?
If my house is in a state of filth and neglect and my child is walking around in
it (even though he is in no immediate danger), he can be removed from my
possession. Do you feel that this is wrong?
Nemesio
A woman has the right to not be raped regardless of where she is, on public or private property. There are no rights to balance here.
You have the right to drive 150 miles per hour on your own property.
The public as owners of the public roads have a right to establish standards
of use for them like speed limits. Here we have a balancing of rights.
Your filthy house is more like rape than like speeding on your private property if it is the evironment that a child must live in.