Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st+Articles%29

    If he wants to limit 2A rights, then we should limit his 1A rights.

    No right is absolute. In fact, the Second Amendment arguably has fewer restrictions on it these days than many of the other first ten, and there is and should be no guarantee that things are going to stay that way.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    All rights are absolute by definition. When an activity interferes with the absolute rights of another, it is, by definition NOT a right.

    Back to the yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is none, duh; I can't believe I had to include this disclaimer). There being consequences for such is not a limitation on the Right; the act is NOT a right; the act is not protected by the enumeration of the Right. The act could interfere with others' rights as a result of the predictable panic and mass exit. Acts which usurp the real rights of others are not themselves rights.

    Rights are absolute.
    Rights can only be removed by due process of law.
    Therefore, acts which infringe on the rights of others cannot have been rights in the first place.

    By not recognizing the absolute nature of rights advocates against the exercise of certain rights can justify infringements on them by means other than noting that a particular act was not really a right because of its infringement on an actual right and other than through due process of law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member x1wildone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eagle, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    55
    This article leads me to question the reading and comprehension skills of the author.
    The 2nd amendment does recognize an absolute right by the last 4 words " shall not be infringed".
    Fourth amendment rights have exceptions authored into them with words such as "unreasonable searches"and "probable cause".
    When a person has an agenda they will write a column such as this,only to qualify a mixed up thought process.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    All rights are absolute by definition. When an activity interferes with the absolute rights of another, it is, by definition NOT a right.

    Back to the yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is none, duh; I can't believe I had to include this disclaimer). There being consequences for such is not a limitation on the Right; the act is NOT a right; the act is not protected by the enumeration of the Right. The act could interfere with others' rights as a result of the predictable panic and mass exit. Acts which usurp the real rights of others are not themselves rights.

    Rights are absolute.
    Rights can only be removed by due process of law.
    Therefore, acts which infringe on the rights of others cannot have been rights in the first place.

    By not recognizing the absolute nature of rights advocates against the exercise of certain rights can justify infringements on them by means other than noting that a particular act was not really a right because of its infringement on an actual right and other than through due process of law.
    This "yelling fire" is a common response by the antis ... they say that owning a semiautomatic rifle is similarly "not a right".

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    This "yelling fire" is a common response by the antis ... they say that owning a semiautomatic rifle is similarly "not a right".
    Again, you demonstrate a failure to be able to read simple words. Antis refer to the "fire" exception. I am saying that it is not an exception. It is not a right. It is not part of the Right. Because that act infringes on the real rights of others.

    RIF.

    Moving on. Debating you ain't worth any more effort at all.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    SNIP Antis refer to the "fire" exception. I am saying that it is not an exception. It is not a right. It is not part of the Right. Because that act infringes on the real rights of others.
    +1

    Government doesn't need to convince people a right doesn't exist. All it needs to do is get it accepted that there are "exceptions", and that government has the authority to figure out those exceptions.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    No right is absolute. In fact, the Second Amendment arguably has fewer restrictions on it these days than many of the other first ten, and there is and should be no guarantee that things are going to stay that way.
    The FAIL positively screams at you from that blog post.

    The Third Amendment (quartering troops) has no restrictions.

    The 1A right to petition has only one or two court cases against it as far as I know.

    The 9th Amendment (rights not enumerated) was a dead letter until the 1960's, when courts started finding rights and expanding it!

    The 10th Amendment (powers not delegated) is but a shadow of itself, and an awfully thin shadow at that, states rights being all but erased.

    The 6A right to counsel was expanded for indigent defendants so they could 1) have an attorney paid for by the state, and 2) have that attorney present even during custodial police interrogation (Miranda v Arizona).

    Then there's the whole history of the 14A and 15A (civil rights). Expansion, expansion, expansion.*

    Fail, fail, fail--on the part of the blog author hack.


    Given that government is willing to expand rights, insisting that they only observe the plain language of the 2A is not an unreasonable demand.



    *And, don't forget the legislative history on the 14A. A senator expressly stated during debate that the 14A was intended to also extend gun rights to blacks.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-06-2013 at 11:38 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,281
    If the first amendment had limitations as the second has had imposed, then people would not be allowed to have a tongue. The fourth you would have to have permission to have a home to be secure in, or be forced to get a permit to wear clothes. Even cars though highly regulated, and their use licensed are not restricted like arms, which IS a right. Anybody can buy a car whether they have a license or not, even if they have used a car to commit a crime. When they are done with their punishment they can go out, without a background check, and buy a car. And more people die from cars than anything else outside natural causes.

    Why are cars not seized from convicted drunk drivers? Why can anyone buy a car without a license? Why are there not background checks to buy a car? Progressives are delusional.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    If the first amendment had limitations as the second has had imposed, then people would not be allowed to have a tongue. The fourth you would have to have permission to have a home to be secure in, or be forced to get a permit to wear clothes. Even cars though highly regulated, and their use licensed are not restricted like arms, which IS a right. Anybody can buy a car whether they have a license or not, even if they have used a car to commit a crime. When they are done with their punishment they can go out, without a background check, and buy a car. And more people die from cars than anything else outside natural causes.

    Why are cars not seized from convicted drunk drivers? Why can anyone buy a car without a license? Why are there not background checks to buy a car? Progressives are delusional.
    Because an awful lot of judges and legislators wouldn't be able to get to work. (only partly sarcastic)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    *And, don't forget the legislative history on the 14A. A senator expressly stated during debate that the 14A was intended to also extend gun rights to blacks.
    Good point.

    I wonder if this was in response to the horrible Dred Scott decision.

    I was able to use that case recently to show what judges used to think our rights were (even if they faultily excluded non whites and said it applied to citizens only).
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Again, you demonstrate a failure to be able to read simple words. Antis refer to the "fire" exception. I am saying that it is not an exception. It is not a right. It is not part of the Right. Because that act infringes on the real rights of others.

    RIF.

    Moving on. Debating you ain't worth any more effort at all.
    Just said what antis say dude ... take your medication daily as directed

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good point.

    I wonder if this was in response to the horrible Dred Scott decision.

    I was able to use that case recently to show what judges used to think our rights were (even if they faultily excluded non whites and said it applied to citizens only).
    Just be careful how you use the judge-ideas angle.

    It was one of the earliest SCOTUS judges who thunk-up judicial review.

    And, later courts (1830's - 40's?) who sided with bankers saying a) your deposit becomes their property, b) they can have bank holidays--temporary closures to avoid being driven out of business by a bank run.1 They may have even helped establish that bankers are not themselves personally liable for over-extending.

    So, its not like they consider human beings have any right to stable money.



    1. The minority report of Regean's Gold Commission, authored by Ron Paul and another. I think the title is The Case for Gold. As an interesting side note, I recently handed a cashier some Federal Reserve Notes at the grocery store to pay for my purchase. She remarked, "Hey! Cash!" I replied, "Yeah, but its just as fake as the debit cards." Now, here comes the really interesting part. She did not think I meant the FRNs were counterfeit. Her first thought, honest to god, was expressed as, "Yeah. I just watched something on that the other week. Have you seen the movie Zeigeist?" If it wasn't for the narrow walls of the check lane, I would have fallen down. For unfamiliar readers, Zeitgeist is a documentary on the banking system--a very interesting documentary. Its on youtube.

    If cashiers don't really take cash anymore, what do we call them? Debiteers?
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-06-2013 at 09:57 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Just be careful how you use the judge-ideas angle.

    It was one of the earliest SCOTUS judges who thunk-up judicial review.

    And, later courts (1830's - 40's?) who sided with bankers saying a) your deposit becomes their property, b) they can have bank holidays--temporary closures to avoid being driven out of business by a bank run.1 They may have even helped establish that bankers are not themselves personally liable for over-extending.

    So, its not like they consider human beings have any right to stable money.



    1. The minority report of Regean's Gold Commission, authored by Ron Paul and another. I think the title is The Case for Gold. As an interesting side note, I recently handed a cashier some Federal Reserve Notes at the grocery store to pay for my purchase. She remarked, "Hey! Cash!" I replied, "Yeah, but its just as fake as the debit cards." Now, here comes the really interesting part. She did not think I meant the FRNs were counterfeit. Her first thought, honest to god, was expressed as, "Yeah. I just watched something on that the other week. Have you seen the movie Zeigeist?" If it wasn't for the narrow walls of the check lane, I would have fallen down. For unfamiliar readers, Zeitgeist is a documentary on the banking system--a very interesting documentary. Its on youtube.

    If cashiers don't really take cash anymore, what do we call them? Debiteers?
    Oh yea you are right, the Dred Scott decision is a perfect example of this, SCOTUS trampling a man's rights overturning a Southern Courts decision that recognized them. I have long ago learned to take case law with a huge grain of skepticism. I am curious though if part of the 14th amendment was Congress response to the false notions of SCOTUS of who constitutes a citizen and what rights they have.

    I watched Zeitgeist I liked some of it and didn't like other parts.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    All rights are absolute by definition. When an activity interferes with the absolute rights of another, it is, by definition NOT a right.

    Back to the yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is none, duh; I can't believe I had to include this disclaimer). There being consequences for such is not a limitation on the Right; the act is NOT a right; the act is not protected by the enumeration of the Right. The act could interfere with others' rights as a result of the predictable panic and mass exit. Acts which usurp the real rights of others are not themselves rights.

    Rights are absolute.
    Rights can only be removed by due process of law.
    Therefore, acts which infringe on the rights of others cannot have been rights in the first place.

    By not recognizing the absolute nature of rights advocates against the exercise of certain rights can justify infringements on them by means other than noting that a particular act was not really a right because of its infringement on an actual right and other than through due process of law.

    Huh? If someone brings up yelling fire in a crowded theater just tell them that was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
    Yelling fire in a movie theater is not considered inciting imminent lawless action. Unless you consider evacuating a movie theater in a chaotic manner a lawless action.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
    Emphasis mine.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights

    A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.
    Brandon Smith http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1...bill-of-rights
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    But I smelled smoke and believed there was a fire.

    So though there was no fire, my conviction is unlikely and my speech will be protected under the First if Brandenburg is applied.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  19. #19
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post

    Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
    Emphasis mine.
    Here's the non sound bite quote from Douglas with no unidentified author's opinion on what he was trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice Douglas
    This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.
    Emphasis mine.
    Last edited by sharkey; 05-08-2013 at 04:02 PM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Oh yea you are right, the Dred Scott decision is a perfect example of this, SCOTUS trampling a man's rights overturning a Southern Courts decision that recognized them. I have long ago learned to take case law with a huge grain of skepticism. I am curious though if part of the 14th amendment was Congress response to the false notions of SCOTUS of who constitutes a citizen and what rights they have.

    I watched Zeitgeist I liked some of it and didn't like other parts.
    Which parts did you not like? I'm fishing for additional knowledge, not criticizing.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Which parts did you not like? I'm fishing for additional knowledge, not criticizing.
    It's been a few years since I viewed it, but when it got into the conspiracy aspects of 9/11 it lost credibility with me. Not that there wasn't a conspiracy there very well could be, just their version. Also the parts that adressed religion.

    Some of the quotes dealing with the Fed and the banks though I found very very compelling and chilling.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-09-2013 at 06:25 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •