There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

protias · May 6, 2013

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

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.

eye95 · May 6, 2013

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.

x1wildone · May 6, 2013

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.

davidmcbeth · May 6, 2013

eye95 said:
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".

eye95 · May 6, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
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.

Citizen · May 6, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

Citizen · May 6, 2013

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 [STRIKE]author[/STRIKE] 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.

WalkingWolf · May 6, 2013

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.

Citizen · May 6, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
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)

sudden valley gunner · May 6, 2013

Citizen said:
*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).

davidmcbeth · May 6, 2013

eye95 said:
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

Citizen · May 6, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
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[SUP].1 [/SUP] 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?

sudden valley gunner · May 6, 2013

Citizen said:
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[SUP].1 [/SUP] 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.

sharkey · May 7, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

OC for ME · May 8, 2013

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.

eye95 · May 8, 2013

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.

sharkey · May 8, 2013

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.

sharkey · May 8, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

Here's the non sound bite quote from Douglas with no unidentified author's opinion on what he was trying to say.

Justice Douglas said:
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.

Citizen · May 9, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · May 9, 2013

Citizen said:
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.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Banned

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member