Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 116

Thread: CNN AnchorChris Cuomo: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    CNN AnchorChris Cuomo: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

    “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
    [ ... ]
    It may be more convenient to Cuomo’s political philosophy that a select few are empowered to grant rights to the masses, but it certainly is not part of this country’s foundation.

    What’s worse is Cuomo is advocating “collective” rights. He speaks as if every American right can simply be overturned at a whim simply because "times change." “Sure, freedom of speech was great in 1789, but we've evolved beyond that as a collective society.” This is a very dangerous slope on which to tread.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-k...o-not-come-god
    “I would suggest that your refusal [to support federal order] goes to what you believe marriage is about and not just to the law,” Mr. Cuomo said, Raw Story reported. “This is just like the Ten Commandments situation. You were told by the federal courts, remove the Ten Commandments from the public square. You didn’t want to and you wound up losing your job because of it.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-rights-do-no/
    “It’s not about my feelings, it’s about the law,” Moore insisted. “And my law, Alabama law, states that I’m chief administrative officer of the judicial system and I must act when the jurisdiction of the probate courts is interfered with by one lone judge who has no power or authority to tell them how to interpret the federal Constitution.”
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/c...you-know-that/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-12-2015 at 12:58 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I detect an implicit false dilemma.

    Rights indeed exist prior to, independent of, and outside the framework of "collective agreement". This is easily demonstrable by reductio ad absurdum: did the Jews lack a right to life because the Nazi state "collectively agreed" they should be exterminated? (Of course not.)

    On the other hand, appeal to God is useless simply because the respect for rights is (or ought to be) broader than any faith, or even mode of faith. This is also easily demonstrable via a simple rhetorical observation: atheists should, and generally do, respect and value rights.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    Rights granted by men, by the rule of men, are infringed and rescinded by men in the rule of men.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Seems to me that RIGHTS are innately and naturally accorded to humanity regardless of who they are and where they live.

    LAWS are inventions of men* who seek to codify things to either perfect or denigrate those rights.

    *the masculine pronoun includes the feminine in my statement.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    “And my law, Alabama law, states that I’m chief administrative officer of the judicial system and I must act when the jurisdiction of the probate courts is interfered with by one lone judge who has no power or authority to tell them how to interpret the federal Constitution.”
    Almost correct, kinda-sorta.

    Right now the argument in Alabama seems to be confined to the issue that the word "marriage" does not appear in the US Constitution. I have not heard or read anything about the 1st Amendment right of free association, or about the equal application of the literally hundereds of feet of federal tax code, or about the status quo ante issue of relatives by blood or marriage being able to override the expressed written directive of one individual to designate an alternate to make medical care decisions in narrowly defined circumstances.

    To get this on track with Open Carrying, at the moment the issue seems to be similar to the finding that so long as there is some process whereby a person may keep and bear arms the restriction to Concealed Carry only is not an infringement of the right named in the 2nd Amendment. In other words, at the moment the claim seems to be that civil unions should suffice even if they do not extend the same privileges in all regards as does marriage.

    The federal judge is scheduled at 2 PM 2/12/15 to issue an order to Alabama Probate Judges to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I presume that would carry with it the implied or implicit threat of a charge of contempt of court if the order is not followed. AFAIK Alabama Chief Justice Al Moore has not made the same threat to Probate Judges who do not do as he says.

    I'm heading to the snackbar for soe popcorn and a diet soda. Does anybody want me to get them something?

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 02-12-2015 at 05:45 PM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I detect an implicit false dilemma.

    Rights indeed exist prior to, independent of, and outside the framework of "collective agreement". This is easily demonstrable by reductio ad absurdum: did the Jews lack a right to life because the Nazi state "collectively agreed" they should be exterminated? (Of course not.)

    On the other hand, appeal to God is useless simply because the respect for rights is (or ought to be) broader than any faith, or even mode of faith. This is also easily demonstrable via a simple rhetorical observation: atheists should, and generally do, respect and value rights.
    The Declaration of Independence begins by invoking "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" It then asserts that all men were "created" equal and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    It goes on to explain that the purpose men form governments is to secure these preexisting rights; that governments should not changed for light or passing problems since such changes are more likely to create more problems than they solve.

    It then charges King George with violation of these rights. This is notable because a monarch, ruling by Divine Right, might be viewed as the source of rights. Yet the authors and signers of the DoI made clear that even such a monarch cannot justly abridge these pre-existing rights. If a monarch rules by Divine Right, he does so with a Divine Responsibility to secure the rights and welfare of his subjects.

    In conclusion, the DoI appeals to the "Supreme Judge of the world" and to "divine Providence" for the rightness of the appeals.

    In total, the language of the DoI makes clear that individual rights pre-exist any government, exist outside of government, and that government is neither the granter nor proper infringer of any such individual rights. The DoI appeals to a power higher than government or even man himself. It does so in a way that men of faith can point to their God and atheists can rest on something other than God, "their Creator" (whomever or whatever that might be).

    The point is, any debate over God or not God is peripheral to and distracting from the real subject which is whether rights are granted by government, or pre-exist government. It terrifies statists (especially of the liberal bent) to consider that there is a power higher than government. They are still befuddled that after 40 years the Roe decision hasn't settled the question of abortion for society. There are major chunks of society who look to a power much higher than the courts to decide what is right and wrong. It is ironic the liberals take this view because prior generations of liberals did not let the Dred Scott decision settle the morality of slavery for them. Of course, prior generations of liberals were, largely, men of faith. Note how frequently the Reverend Dr. MLK is referred to by the media without any mention of his religious credentials. He wasn't an MD or even a scientist. His doctorate is in theological studies. It was theology that bolstered his views of equality and the need for civil rights, that convinced him prior court rulings were wrong. He appealed to people not from a legal or scientific perspective, but in the language of the pulpit that spoke to their souls and consciences about right and wrong.

    That all said, in practical reality, if government--meaning really society--declines to recognize something as a right, then it isn't going to be fully respected. This is the challenge we are working to overcome in the RKBA community.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Right now the argument in Alabama seems to be confined to the issue that the word "marriage" does not appear in the US Constitution. I have not heard or read anything about the 1st Amendment right of free association, or about the equal application of the literally hundereds of feet of federal tax code, or about the status quo ante issue of relatives by blood or marriage being able to override the expressed written directive of one individual to designate an alternate to make medical care decisions in narrowly defined circumstances.

    To get this on track with Open Carrying, at the moment the issue seems to be similar to the finding that so long as there is some process whereby a person may keep and bear arms the restriction to Concealed Carry only is not an infringement of the right named in the 2nd Amendment. In other words, at the moment the claim seems to be that civil unions should suffice even if they do not extend the same privileges in all regards as does marriage.
    Of course the major difference is that the individual RsKBA are enumerated in the federal constitution and most State constitutions. There simply can be no doubt among honest men that there is an individual right to defend oneself. Indeed, self-preservation can be argued as the first law of nature. It is the very basis for natural selection.

    On the flip side, no where is there any explicit enumeration of any right to have government or society grant any recognition whatsoever of your particular relationship, whether intimate/sexual or otherwise. Indeed, many a libertarian has argued that government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

    From a purely objective point of view, why should government (ie, all of my neighbors) care in the least about my relationships? They take no legal or special social interest in my social relationships. There is no recognition of nor benefits extended to the 5 of us who like to get together and go camping and hiking a few times a year. Society and government don't take any particular interest if a couple of us want to go grab lunch on a regular basis. So what is it, objectively, about a marital relationship that causes government and/or society to take an interest?

    Ironic isn't it? The most intimate, private part of my life (my sexuality and my sexual conduct with my chosen partner(s)) seems to be what triggers society's and government's interest in one type of relationship over all others.

    Ignoring the question of why government takes an interest, we then move on to whether taking an interest in one sub-set of such relations requires government to take an equal interest in all other sub-sets of such relations.

    Government gives tax breaks for installing solar panels or extra insulation, for the stated purpose of saving energy. Yet government doesn't give a tax break for building a smaller home or setting the thermostat to a different level. These also save energy. Is government required to give a tax break for them if it gives a tax break for solar or insulation? Likewise, government gives tax benefits to buying a home, but not to buying a car. Solar and wind are given tax breaks as "renewable" or non-carbon energy sources while hydro-electric or nuclear do not get similar benefits.

    Government has long taken an interest in marriages. Marriages have always (with the rarest of exceptions) been understood to be a relationship between a man and woman. Even in polygamous marriages, the relationship is between the man and a woman, it is just that one many is allowed to have a relationship with more than a single woman; but there is no special relationship from one woman to another. Anyway, government takes an interest in marriages. In our nation, that interest has extended to State and Federal laws and SCOTUS decisions banning polygamy. Then along comes some folks who say they have something that they think deserves the same recognition and benefits as does marriage. The question is, does it? Or rather, is government required to grant those benefits as a matter of equal rights, or is the question one for majority rule as to desired social policy? I think the core of this question is really rooted in why government takes an interest in and grants benefits to marriage in the first place.

    Those opposed to social recognition and legal benefits for homosexual unions argue that the reason for marriage benefits is to encourage couples (and especially men) to take responsibility for their children and to raise the next generation of citizens. They argue that marriage benefits are designed specifically to encourage conduct that benefits society.

    Those who want legal benefits for homosexual unions argue that children are an ancillary part of marriage, not core to it, and that marriage is about mutual support between two adults. They argue mostly that this is a matter of "fairness" and bigotry. We give benefits to conjugal unions, why shouldn't we give the same benefits to homosexual unions? There can be no reason not to except bigotry, usually based on prudish religions beliefs.

    It is fairly obvious that the Supreme Court is going to decide this question without any serious consideration of original intent. Even those who strongly support marriage benefits for homosexual couples have to concede that had anyone stood up in 1865 and said the 14th amendment would require legal recognition for homosexual relationships, the amendment as written would never have passed. What will be interesting is to see whether the Supreme Court majority goes through the gymnastics of extending benefits to today's politically favored group (under the guise of constitutional requirements) while maintaining States' ability to ban polygamous and incestuous marriages, or whether they throw the door wide open for marriage benefits for any 2 or 10 consenting adults who want to form a mutually beneficial relationship or relationships, without regard to whether that relationship is sexual or platonic, long term or very obviously, very temporary.

    I also believe that like abortion--and unlike inter-racial marriages--this issue will not be settled by a Supreme Court decision. There are large segments of society who look to a higher power to determine what is or isn't moral when it comes to human sexuality. The legalities may be settled since we are talking about consenting adults (rather than having an innocent victim as in abortion cases). But the social questions won't go away.

    Now, you said something about popcorn?

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 02-12-2015 at 03:41 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    The major problem is the term marriage and its definition.

    A religious solemnization of marriage is the ceremony between one man and one woman with God's blessing versus a secular union between one man, one woman and the state.

    The state definition of marriage is what is in dispute as to what it encompasses.

    State marriages are nothing more than contract law. And the state regulates all aspects of said agreements.

    In most states it is illegal for a minister/priest to perform a “marriage” without being licensed by the state. In other words, as much as people think they are married under God the state will control the marriage.

    As I have said many time, the three most important things in law is definition, definition and definition.

    Just saying.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Charles, for once I agree with most everything you said.

    I would only comment that I'm perfectly fine with a legal resolution when there can never be a social one.

    For instance, I myself tend to view abortion as at least, shall we say, "distasteful", often perilously close to ethical lines, and potentially downright aggressive. I would, at this point in my life, advise individuals to avoid finding themselves in a situation where they desire abortion. That said, my strong preference is for government to take a "hands off" approach, especially so long as society remains so divided over basic semantics surrounding the issue (and whatnot). So, I consider the issue more or less legally resolved (and satisfactorily so, at least in most states), but I completely agree that social tension over the issue is unlikely to evaporate.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Charles, for once I agree with most everything you said.
    Another strange weather report coming in from Purgatory.

    Notably this year, that seems to be New England. I'm dying for some snow here in Utah.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I would only comment that I'm perfectly fine with a legal resolution when there can never be a social one.

    For instance, I myself tend to view abortion as at least, shall we say, "distasteful", often perilously close to ethical lines, and potentially downright aggressive. I would, at this point in my life, advise individuals to avoid finding themselves in a situation where they desire abortion. That said, my strong preference is for government to take a "hands off" approach, especially so long as society remains so divided over basic semantics surrounding the issue (and whatnot). So, I consider the issue more or less legally resolved (and satisfactorily so, at least in most states), but I completely agree that social tension over the issue is unlikely to evaporate.
    I would suggest that when there can't be a social resolution, the legal resolution should be left to as small a political subdivision as possible so as to facilitate voting with our feet most easily.

    By constitutional mandate (21st amendment), alcohol is subject to State level controls.

    Prostitution has always been a State level matter and the one State not to ban it at the State level, has left it mostly to counties to decide, if I'm not mistaken.

    Elective abortion is either something akin to a medical procedure to remove a mole, or something closer to murder of a human being. Both of these are solidly within the realm of State, rather than federal law and so I believe the matter should be left to the States.

    In the very rare cases where an abortion is required to save the life of the mother (tubal pregnancy, diabetes, etc), or even in cases where the pregnancy was non-voluntary (rape), a woman may very well have an appeal to federal protections of her life and liberty.

    But for elective abortions I believe the federal constitution is mute and State law should prevail. At the pragmatic level, this would remove this issue from national political races.

    And for the record, I find the libertarian argument of "Whatever I may think of abortion, I don't want government powerful enough to intervene in such matters" to be among the most compelling against anti-abortion laws. I find the moral issues so compelling that ultimately, I have to disagree with it. But I find it the most intellectually and morally honest and compelling.

    I specifically say "libertarian argument" even though some liberals use the same argument because the liberals are more than happy to have government powerful enough to dictate what toilet I can buy, what dishwasher and washing machine I can use, what light bulbs are available, and otherwise put government solidly into every room of my home other than my bedroom it seems.


    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I detect an implicit false dilemma.

    Rights indeed exist prior to, independent of, and outside the framework of "collective agreement". This is easily demonstrable by reductio ad absurdum: did the Jews lack a right to life because the Nazi state "collectively agreed" they should be exterminated? (Of course not.)

    On the other hand, appeal to God is useless simply because the respect for rights is (or ought to be) broader than any faith, or even mode of faith. This is also easily demonstrable via a simple rhetorical observation: atheists should, and generally do, respect and value rights.
    The Nazis simply classified the Jews as not being human at all .... nice huh?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Oops. Wrong thread.

    Nevermind.
    Last edited by skidmark; 02-12-2015 at 05:46 PM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I would suggest that when there can't be a social resolution, the legal resolution should be left to as small a political subdivision as possible so as to facilitate voting with our feet most easily.
    I'm OK with this in a sort of one-directional sense. I've said before that – assuming the givens – I'm 100% OK with the Federal government creating nationwide standards for what the state governments cannot do. But in the other direction, I am not OK with the Federal government creating nationwide standards for what citizens cannot do. To put it another way, I think it's appropriate for the Federal government to establish a sort of "minimum standard of freedom" by preventing states from infringing on what (at least as a practical matter) have been in the past and are at present valued as necessary rights. But, the prohibition of individual misconduct should be left to as local as level as is feasible, if for no other reason than to minimize the potential for widespread injustice.

    I think this is in accord with the founding principles – at least, so far as the anti-Federalists were concerned . After all, the Commerce Clause was originally intended to ensure free interstate trade (rather than allow for the nationwide prohibition of, say, marijuana), and the Bill of Rights was intended to set the standard for rights, rather than to completely articulate its precise extent and, in so doing, implicitly set national limits on individual freedom – as is demonstrated by the 9th Amendment. (And, by the way, I'm ignoring the fact that the BoR has only been "incorporated" against the states in a piecemeal fashion, because the justification for not doing so has always been in error.)

    Of course, that doesn't advance the discussion apropos the OP. Since the debate is over essentially what constitutes the maximization of liberty, clearly the Federal government should impose whatever we decide on all the states.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-12-2015 at 05:51 PM.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    breastfeeding which is a matter of convenience
    Edit to note that breastfeeding is being discussed in the thread about a breastfeeding law. You may have conflated two threads and now I've followed you down that road.

    As opposed to any other method of feeding the young? Far less likely to make a mess than is a bottle.

    Indeed, your characterization of breastfeeding as a "convenience" is entirely backwards.

    Breastfeeding is not a convenience. It is the natural method of nourishing the young. Every other method of feeding human (and other mammalian) babies is a substitute for nursing. Sometimes these substitutes are necessitated out of some condition that makes nursing impossible. Most often, the substitutes are done for convenience including the convenience of mom not having to be around to feed the baby herself.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Catholics (a truely puzzling bias of the nazis),
    Not all that puzzling if we remember that Hitler was raised by an observant Catholic mother and anti-clerical father. He was baptized as an infant and confirmed at 15, and later ceased participation. It is not uncommon for apostates to be even more hostile to their former church than even those critics who never belonged at all.

    Furthermore, as a strictly hierarchical church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church has always presented a certain problem for nations and rulers who fear outside influence. Congregational churches may be brought entirely under the control of the state as all leadership is local and subject to "persuasion" from the local government. But the Holy Roman Catholic Church has a strict hierarchy whose head is his own state and not subject to local norms. History is replete with examples of the Catholic Church / Pope exerting influence in nations where the church has a strong presence. Post Hitler, the Catholic Church and Pope certainly helped support challenges to the Soviets with the Solidarity uprisings in Poland. (And for that, may God bless Pope John II.)

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 02-12-2015 at 06:01 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Rights, wherever they come from , are not subject to a vote. Once a behavior/action is recognized as a right...the voting stops. Do I have a right to distill booze, yes, as long as I harm no other citizen. Do I have a right to not be taxed if i sell my booze, no.

    Then again, I wonder what atheists say about this novel proclamation.
    "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
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I'm OK with this in a sort of one-directional sense. I've said before that – assuming the givens – I'm 100% OK with the Federal government creating nationwide standards for what the state governments cannot do. But in the other direction, I am not OK with the Federal government creating nationwide standards for what citizens cannot do. To put it another way, I think it's appropriate for the Federal government to establish a sort of "minimum standard of freedom" by preventing states from infringing on what (at least as a practical matter) have been in the past and are at present valued as necessary rights. But, the prohibition of individual misconduct should be left to as local as level as is feasible, if for no other reason than to minimize the potential for widespread injustice.

    I think this is in accord with the founding principles – at least, so far as the anti-Federalists were concerned . After all, the Commerce Clause was originally intended to ensure free interstate trade (rather than allow for the nationwide prohibition of, say, marijuana), and the Bill of Rights was intended to set the standard for rights, rather than to completely articulate its precise extent and, in so doing, implicitly set national limits on individual freedom – as is demonstrated by the 9th Amendment. (And, by the way, I'm ignoring the fact that the BoR has only been "incorporated" against the states in a piecemeal fashion, because the justification for not doing so has always been in error.)
    On these we are agreed.

    We should have some minimum standard for personal freedom protected by the feds. For that, I'd go with the rights enumerated in the constitution and enumerated limits on State authority. States would be free to recognize additional liberties above and beyond these, but would be required to respect at least this minimum set.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Rights, wherever they come from , are not subject to a vote. Once a behavior/action is recognized as a right...the voting stops. Do I have a right to distill booze, yes, as long as I harm no other citizen. Do I have a right to not be taxed if i sell my booze, no.

    Then again, I wonder what atheists say about this novel proclamation.
    This begs the question of how we determine what rights are rights. Some have put forth the non-initiation of force/fraud/harm principle as an objective means of determining what is or is not a right. We've beat that horse a few times, but I believe it is less objective that some claim simply because it still requires us to determine what is a "harm" or what is "fraud" as opposed to debating what is "morally offensive to the conscience of the community". Turns out that what folks find morally offensive or shocking to their conscience, they will also consider a "harm" in some way while those who don't really find it morally offensive will argue it isn't a harm.

    Turns out you don't have a recognized right to distill booze in this nation per the 21st amendment. Your State may choose to recognize such a right, or to grant liberal privileges to do so. But no recognized right.

    Similarly, per the "unlimited taxing authority" delegated to congress via the 16th amendment, none of us has any right not to be taxed at 100% of our incomes, property, etc. Probably not what the masses had in mind when the foolishly voted for that amendment back in the early 20th century upon promises it would only apply against rich people. But a fine illustration of how tying a noose for others can other result in having to wear an uncomfortable necktie ourselves. And hence, the appeal of libertarianism.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Rights, wherever they come from , are not subject to a vote. Once a behavior/action is recognized as a right...the voting stops. Do I have a right to distill booze, yes, as long as I harm no other citizen. Do I have a right to not be taxed if i sell my booze, no.

    Then again, I wonder what atheists say about this novel proclamation.
    Correct, what does the declaration of indepence say "endowed with certain unalienable rights" ... something like that.

    Does not matter who endowed us with the rights, God, whatever ...

    Just more commie smoke and mirrors ...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Rights, wherever they come from , are not subject to a vote. Once a behavior/action is recognized as a right...the voting stops. Do I have a right to distill booze, yes, as long as I harm no other citizen. Do I have a right to not be taxed if i sell my booze, no.

    Then again, I wonder what atheists say about this novel proclamation.
    I disagree. My right to my property means I have a right to sell said property. If I ask the state to create some entity (corporation etc) that sells booze, then the state can tax that entity.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I disagree. My right to my property means I have a right to sell said property. If I ask the state to create some entity (corporation etc) that sells booze, then the state can tax that entity.
    +1
    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)

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    ...
    Turns out you don't have a recognized right to distill booze in this nation per the 21st amendment. Your State may choose to recognize such a right, or to grant liberal privileges to do so. But no recognized right.
    ...
    Charles
    Amendment XXI
    Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
    Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
    Please enlighten me, I read no such thing in the above. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but I can read and the 21A does not address the "making" of booze.

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I disagree. My right to my property means I have a right to sell said property. If I ask the state to create some entity (corporation etc) that sells booze, then the state can tax that entity.
    ]Of course you may sell your property, the 16A, as previously cited, simply means that you can be taxed under the taxing powers of congress.
    "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

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    When a state grants itself the power to steal your property, the rights inherent in that property still don't magically disappear.
    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)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Please enlighten me, I read no such thing in the above. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but I can read and the 21A does not address the "making" of booze.

    ]Of course you may sell your property, the 16A, as previously cited, simply means that you can be taxed under the taxing powers of congress.
    Of course the 16th (if intrrpreted and applied that way) is a violation of my right to privacy and my right to property. The Constitution is not a sourse of rights, it's supposed to guarantee rights. That's why it's so difficult to amend. It's certainly not a perfect process.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Of course the 16th (if intrrpreted and applied that way) is a violation of my right to privacy and my right to property. The Constitution is not a sourse of rights, it's supposed to guarantee rights. That's why it's so difficult to amend. It's certainly not a perfect process.
    No arguments from me, I'd see the 16A repealed w/o a replacement. Fed.gov needs to derive its cash from doing business from other countries, as was originally intended, not fund its dealings with other countries/We The People from the cash taken out of my pocket. That cash is my private property...by the way.
    "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

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Please enlighten me, I read no such thing in the above. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but I can read and the 21A does not address the "making" of booze.
    In repealing the 18th amendment ban on alcohol production, importation, sales, and transportation within the nation, the 21st amendment returned to the States the power to regulate alcohol they had previously possessed under the 10th amendment. It specifically over-rides what would otherwise be the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

    Thus, States which generally cannot prohibit the importation of anything into their boundaries from another State, are given specific power to regulate or even ban the importation of alcohol.

    But the 21st in connection with the 10th, returns to the States the power to regulate or ban alcohol production as the States see fit.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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