I told you so.

[Joe Steel]

The people "have the raw power to define rights," he told the court while arguing in favor of invalidating over 18,000 marriages.

"The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process," said Starr. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle."

Arguing for Prop. 8, Ken Starr says any right can be taken (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ken_Starr_argues_for_Prop_8_0305.html)

Rights are created.

They are not given by God. The are not preexistent. They are not natural.

[Yurt]

Rights are created.

They are not given by God. The are not preexistent. They are not natural.



so ken starr is now someone you will accept authoritative citation on??? please say yes.

[Joe Steel]

so ken starr is now someone you will accept authoritative citation on??? please say yes.

He's right on this especially because it's a contrary position. Being a partisan, we'd expect him to to spew about natural rights, etc. When he doesn't, we have to assume the contrary position is so strong he can't oppose it.

[Yurt]

He's right on this especially because it's a contrary position. Being a partisan, we'd expect him to to spew about natural rights, etc. When he doesn't, we have to assume the contrary position is so strong he can't oppose it.

does cherry picking feed you well?

[Classact]

Rights are created.

They are not given by God. The are not preexistent. They are not natural.Here is a quote of a portion of the Declaration of Indepndence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Rights are given by god, as explained above and governments are created among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... the key word is "certain"... and the spirit and intent of "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" means just that... the concent was not given by "the people" for this right.

[avatar4321]

Certain rights are given by God. Those are inalienable rights. The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some rights are just a product of good government.

Some "rights" aren't rights at all and shouldnt be considered such.

Learn the difference.

[Silver]

Rights are created.

They are not given by God. The are not preexistent. They are not natural.

That must be why the Democrats are trying to get the Fairness Doctrine passed and continue to erode our Second Amendment Right....

[BoogyMan]

It would appear that it is time for a new declaration of independance based on what the first one said.....


...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security... (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)

[Joe Steel]

Rights are given by god, as explained above and governments are created among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... the key word is "certain"... and the spirit and intent of "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" means just that... the concent was not given by "the people" for this right.

The Declaration of Independence is just a hack manifesto intended to foment revolution in a mostly passive populace. It's not a solid foundation for a political establishment.

[Joe Steel]

Certain rights are given by God. Those are inalienable rights. The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



How do you know?

Did God tell you?

[avatar4321]

How do you know?

Did God tell you?

Yes. Of course He did. How else would you know the things of God if you don't go to the source?

Its amazing how many people make presumptions about God and dont bother to ever talk to Him on the matter.

[Classact]

The Declaration of Independence is just a hack manifesto intended to foment revolution in a mostly passive populace. It's not a solid foundation for a political establishment.What do you define as a solid foundation for a political establishment?

[Kathianne]

The Declaration of Independence is just a hack manifesto intended to foment revolution in a mostly passive populace. It's not a solid foundation for a political establishment.

Nor was that the purpose, notice to the "world" of why a people had a right to, and was throwing off the chains of an unjust rule by a country. Seems like time for another.

[Joe Steel]

Yes. Of course He did. How else would you know the things of God if you don't go to the source?

Its amazing how many people make presumptions about God and dont bother to ever talk to Him on the matter.

What was it like? Did you hear His voice in your ears or in your head?

[DannyR]

Yes. Of course He did. How else would you know the things of God if you don't go to the source?

Its amazing how many people make presumptions about God and dont bother to ever talk to Him on the matter.Problem is, God tends to tell different people different things depending on what they want to hear.

Thats the problem with believing in a magical deity that can't be proven or corroborated.

[Joe Steel]

What do you define as a solid foundation for a political establishment?

For its time, the US Constitution was a solid foundation. Time has proven it to be lacking but it was solid foundation.

[DannyR]

For its time, the US Constitution was a solid foundation. Time has proven it to be lacking but it was solid foundation.How is it lacking?

[Joe Steel]

Problem is, God tends to tell different people different things depending on what they want to hear.

Thats the problem with believing in a magical deity that can't be proven or corroborated.

Exactly.

God says one thing to one and the opposite to another.

[5stringJeff]

Rights are created.

They are not given by God. The are not preexistent. They are not natural.

So might makes right?

[manu1959]

take away god and the government and i have the a fundemental core of rights that all humans have.....

if you want to let others define what is right and wrong for you and let others decide for you so be it .....

[Joe Steel]

How is it lacking?

For one thing, the electoral college. Another is the manner of choosing Senators. Another is the manner of choosing judges. All of these ill serve the People.

[Joe Steel]

So might makes right?

In a democratic sense, yes. The will of the People should be the sole determining factor in the declaration of rights.

[Joe Steel]

take away god and the government and i have the a fundemental core of rights that all humans have.....

if you want to let others define what is right and wrong for you and let others decide for you so be it .....

Your rights are no more than the community respects. In the absence of the community's respect, you have no more than you can defend by violent means. Your world would be a jungle.

[5stringJeff]

In a democratic sense, yes. The will of the People should be the sole determining factor in the declaration of rights.

So when "the will of the people," as divined by the majority vote, determines that we should commence genocide on a minority, that's their right?

[bullypulpit]

In a democratic sense, yes. The will of the People should be the sole determining factor in the declaration of rights.

It's called the "Tyranny of the Majority"...Sorry, but it doesn't work. It's why the US is a Republic.

[Joe Steel]

So when "the will of the people," as divined by the majority vote, determines that we should commence genocide on a minority, that's their right?

Yes. The will of the majority is the ultimate determinant of public policy.

[Joe Steel]

It's called the "Tyranny of the Majority"...Sorry, but it doesn't work. It's why the US is a Republic.

It works. It's just slower in a republic.

[avatar4321]

Yes. The will of the majority is the ultimate determinant of public policy.

Unless of course, the majority ignores Joe's viewpoints. Then the majority needs to be killed.

John Adams was right. The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. You cant be governed by it.

[Kathianne]

It's called the "Tyranny of the Majority"...Sorry, but it doesn't work. It's why the US is a Republic.

Now a banana republic.

[manu1959]

Your rights are no more than the community respects. In the absence of the community's respect, you have no more than you can defend by violent means. Your world would be a jungle.

so your claim is a community is inherently violent.....and i would be better off alone....but how does that alter any of my inherent rights….

[5stringJeff]

Yes. The will of the majority is the ultimate determinant of public policy.

Glad to see that you support genocide. Tell us again why aren't you running for public office?

[Joe Steel]

so your claim is a community is inherently violent.....and i would be better off alone....but how does that alter any of my inherent rights….

That's not what I said.

[Joe Steel]

Glad to see that you support genocide. Tell us again why aren't you running for public office?

I don't support genocide.

[Kathianne]

I don't support genocide.

The implications of above beg to differ.

[Classact]

For one thing, the electoral college. Another is the manner of choosing Senators. Another is the manner of choosing judges. All of these ill serve the People.Do we exist in a social Darwinist culture, do we address the President Mr. President or a judge Your Honor, do people of learning gender respect like doctors or a scientist higher than that of a homeless wino on the street?

The founders lived in a very strict social Darwinist culture and placed a person’s value much as we do in the wealth, knowledge and power they have. The reason they believed America could survive as a democratic republic was based on the Christian morals and shared beliefs to offer the stabilizing compassion which wasn't included in the constitution. I challenge you to find compassion in the constitution outside of "cruel and unusual punishment". Compassion was left to the church, family and community that functioned within a social Darwinist culture. The constitution clearly pointed out representation based on living bodies and segregated the value on slaves and indentured servants... all living bodies were to be represented but what isn't apparent to today's reality is the only people who could vote were property owners at that time. People were grouped into two classes of assets and debits and assets were those who produced more than they consumed and debits were those who produced less than they consumed. Assets deserved voting rights and debits deserved representation by assets of their volume within a voting district. The church, family and community sorted out how debits were to be given compassion.

In a rule of the majority, if the majority of the debits outnumbered the assets the government would crumble because it would debase the social Darwinist system of value of the culture. Thus a democratic republic, a republic will make choices that are in the best interest of the nation and not necessarily popular but the decisions are made by the assets, the producers and not the common man.

America is at a crossroads these days struggling between social Darwinist pasts and power of the mob to steal from the assets and give to the debits. If the debits over reach and break down the social Darwinist plan the nation was founded on it will not be worth defending as a nation and the nation will crumble and be overthrown by a people holding higher asset values or a people of a higher god... a people that manage compassion through our former social Darwinist system and separation of compassion from government.

As the founders said all people are created with certain unalienable rights but only assets can sort out the rights regulated by compassion branch of our system. To put it plainly you cannot legislate or litigate love and understanding, it comes from compassion and compassion is a business of the joint feelings of assets and debits as managed by the assets.

[5stringJeff]

I don't support genocide.

But you would if 50% + 1 did. Like in Sudan, for instance.