PDA

View Full Version : Right Granted By Whom?



revelarts
10-22-2014, 10:39 AM
As a spin off of another thread.

There are natural rights given by God and then there are rights in the Constitution given by man. The right to marriage isn't in there. Right of Association is in there though. Contract "rights" are granted by States UCCs.


Uh NO.
there are no rights "given by man".
Man can recognize rights but not give rights.
man can protect rights
but sadly often man takes rights away.... or assume they can give them to others which is the same thing really.

FJ if you make biz deal you may AGREE to an arbitrator for ALL disputes, COMPLETELY without ANY gov't.

the gov't does not privilege you to create a contract. period.
you can make one and be subject to U.S. law if you like. but if not you don't have to.

look the CLEAR thing is human relations and agreements, are a God given human right.
the Constitution tells the gov't WHAT authority it has, not what rights the people have FJ.
that's the basic understanding to the constitution and freedom.


I might have to give a nod to Gunny but I think it boils down to a semantic argument. Natural Rights are God given, anything listed in the Constitution is granted by man. God doesn't give you the right to bear arms. :poke:

But I'm not sure what to make of the rest of the post. Legislation determines who can engage in a contract and the courts resolve disputes when arbitration is not a factor.


Ok since I must be brief

Let look at the wording of the 2nd amendment, other amendments are worded similarly.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Notice it Does Not say we GRANT the right.
it says THE RIGHT OF THE THE PEOPLE.... shall not be Infringed.
It's ASSUMED that the right is already there.
Infringed by whom? the Gov't.


It's A$$ backwards and just the opposite of revolutionary thinking to assert that the Gov't grants rights.
It's the Exact opposite of what the founders were going for.
they where REJECTING the divine right of Kings and gov'ts over the people and placing the PEOPLE'S Natural rights at the top of the pyramid.

today many have a hard time REALLY believing THEY are the real BOSSES, KINGS, SOVEREIGNS.
and that the gov't is the one GRANTED rights

revelarts
10-22-2014, 10:40 AM
the Constitution was written as a Limit to gov't Authority not to Grant people any rights.
the people were granting the gov't LIMITED authority.
and as mentioned in the 9th and 10th was not to be construed to have ANY authority over the people's other rights not mentioned in the constitution.
They weren't mentioned because it's was ASSUMED as a basic fact,
that the people had ALL rights inherent in their persons as a gift of God.


We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
the Whole of the Bill of rights are LIMITING features on the Gov't. not a GRANT of rights to the people.

Congress shall make no law..
the People telling congress what it CAN"T do

The right of the people to be secure in their persons..
People rights are ASSUMED here not "Granted"

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If you read the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist papers.It's EXTREMELY clear that rights are to be understood as inherent.
And the Gov't is LIMITED by the will of the people. IT is Granted it's limited powers by the people.

But As far As God Granting the right to bear arms goes.
There's a long argument I could make that ends showing that God gives people the right to defend themselves.
but 1 terse quote from Jesus gives the gist of the Idea.
luke11:21“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

red state
10-22-2014, 11:00 AM
the Constitution was written as a Limit to gov't Authority not to Grant people any rights.
the people were granting the gov't LIMITED authority.
and as mentioned in the 9th and 10th was not to be construed to have ANY authority over the people's other rights not mentioned in the constitution.
They weren't mentioned because it's was ASSUMED as a basic fact,
that the people had ALL rights inherent in their persons as a gift of God.


We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
the Whole of the Bill of rights are LIMITING features on the Gov't. not a GRANT of rights to the people.

Congress shall make no law..
the People telling congress what it CAN"T do

The right of the people to be secure in their persons..
People rights are ASSUMED here not "Granted"

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If you read the Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist papers.It's EXTREMELY clear that rights are to be understood as inherent.
And the Gov't is LIMITED by the will of the people. IT is Granted it's limited powers by the people.

But As far As God Granting the right to bear arms goes.
There's a long argument I could make that ends showing that God gives people the right to defend themselves.
but 1 terse quote from Jesus gives the gist of the Idea.
21“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Without doubt, AGREE or DISAGREE, Rev is one of the VERY BEST posters here at DP......or anywhere else.
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::c lap::clap::clap::clap:

fj1200
10-22-2014, 11:06 AM
As a spin off of another thread.

I didn't think I said that there was much to disagree with. Natural Rights, life, liberty, property, are granted by God; do you disagree? I'll assume no which leaves the remainder in say the Bill of Rights. One can argue that they spin off from the NR which I won't dispute really but in essence they are granted by the people and protected by the Constitution. As proof the Constitution starts out with "We the people..." That it was determined that a Bill of Rights was necessary it only reinforces my point. :)

revelarts
10-22-2014, 11:15 AM
I didn't think I said that there was much to disagree with. Natural Rights, life, liberty, property, are granted by God; do you disagree? I'll assume no which leaves the remainder in say the Bill of Rights. One can argue that they spin off from the NR which I won't dispute really but in essence they are granted by the people and protected by the Constitution. As proof the Constitution starts out with "We the people..." That it was determined that a Bill of Rights was necessary it only reinforces my point. :)

Well Ok Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
What i picked up was the idea that GOV'T gives rights to people.
My point is that Gov't Protect RIGHTS they don't give them.

the Declaration of Independence makes it Clear the purpose of Gov't. as understood by the founders.

"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...."

That's sums up the concept of where rights come from and the U.S. gov't's position concerning them.
At least where it's understanding is suppose to be.

Gunny
10-22-2014, 12:39 PM
As a spin off of another thread.






Ok since I must be brief

Let look at the wording of the 2nd amendment, other amendments are worded similarly.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Notice it Does Not say we GRANT the right.
it says THE RIGHT OF THE THE PEOPLE.... shall not be Infringed.
It's ASSUMED that the right is already there.
Infringed by whom? the Gov't.


It's A$$ backwards and just the opposite of revolutionary thinking to assert that the Gov't grants rights.
It's the Exact opposite of what the founders were going for.
they where REJECTING the divine right of Kings and gov'ts over the people and placing the PEOPLE'S Natural rights at the top of the pyramid.

today many have a hard time REALLY believing THEY are the real BOSSES, KINGS, SOVEREIGNS.
and that the gov't is the one GRANTED rights

And you call THAT brief? :laugh:

revelarts
10-22-2014, 12:43 PM
And you call THAT brief? :laugh:

Yep.

Gunny
10-22-2014, 01:04 PM
I didn't think I said that there was much to disagree with. Natural Rights, life, liberty, property, are granted by God; do you disagree? I'll assume no which leaves the remainder in say the Bill of Rights. One can argue that they spin off from the NR which I won't dispute really but in essence they are granted by the people and protected by the Constitution. As proof the Constitution starts out with "We the people..." That it was determined that a Bill of Rights was necessary it only reinforces my point. :)

There are no God-given rights. There are rights enforced by force of arms. That's about it.

I've noticed that tose who think these "Rights" are inalienable are more than willing to get ME killed so they can live their couch potato, armchair warrior lives.

fj1200
10-22-2014, 01:06 PM
There are no God-given rights. There are rights enforced by force of arms. That's about it.

I've noticed that tose who think these "Rights" are inalienable are more than willing to get ME killed so they can live their couch potato, armchair warrior lives.

Don't make go all semantic on ya. :martian: But yes, I agree... practically speaking.

Gunny
10-22-2014, 01:08 PM
Don't make go all semantic on ya. :martian: But yes, I agree... practically speaking.

Don't make me bust out my e-balls and kick your e-ass. Wait ... I have to get my gang up ....:laugh:

fj1200
10-22-2014, 01:12 PM
E-fight, e-fight

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0906/cat-fight-demotivational-poster-1244321372.jpg

revelarts
10-22-2014, 01:16 PM
There are no God-given rights. There are rights enforced by force of arms. That's about it.

I've noticed that tose who think these "Rights" are inalienable are more than willing to get ME killed so they can live their couch potato, armchair warrior lives.

It's one reason why the founders never wanted a standing army. But a citizen militia.
Generals and soldiers in standing armies get the big head. think they create the rights and freedoms they say they joined the army to protect.

I hope your hip surgery goes well. and your recovery on the couch works out for ya.

Gunny
10-22-2014, 01:24 PM
It's one reason why the founders never wanted a standing army. But a citizen militia.
Generals and soldiers in standing armies get the big head. think they create the rights and freedoms they say they joined the army to protect.

I hope you hip surgery goes well. and your recovery on the couch works out for ya.

You just can't help yourself, huh? I ain't getting no damned hip surgery unless I have to crawl.

Problem is, we no longer as a people have the will. We created a bureaucracy Hitler would be proud of.

indago
12-11-2014, 12:07 AM
Professor Edward S. Corwin, a historian of the Constitution of the United States, wrote an essay entitled The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law. It was reprinted in 42 Harvard Law Review (1928-1929). In this work he recalled the names of the great thinkers of their time: Demosthenes, Sophocles, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Ulpian, Gaius, John of Salisbury, Isidore of Seville, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bracton, Fortescue, Coke, Grotius, Newton, Hooker, Pufendorf, Locke, Blackstone. Clinton Rossiter, who wrote a prefatory note to the essay, noted: "It should do us good to remember at the height of our power and self-esteem that our political tradition and constitutional law are late blooms on a sturdy growth more than two thousand years old and still vigorous."

It is recorded: "There are certain principles of right and justice which are entitled to prevail of their own intrinsic excellence, altogether regardless of the attitude of those who wield the physical resources of the community. Such principles were made by no human hands; indeed, if they did not antedate deity itself, they still so express its nature as to bind and control it. They are external to all Will as such and interpenetrate all Reason as such. They are eternal and immutable. In relation to such principles, human laws are, when entitled to obedience save as to matters indifferent, merely a record or transcript, and their enactment an act not of will or power but one of discovery and declaration." Professor Corwin noted that this concept was translated into our Ninth Article of our Bill of Rights, which declares: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The "Higher Law", or "Natural Law", is founded upon the principle: "Men do not make laws. They do but discover them"; from which follows: "An unjust law is not law". Cicero was quoted on his conception of the Natural Law: "True law is right reason, harmonious with nature, diffused among all, constant, eternal; a law which calls to duty by its commands and restrains from evil by its prohibitions... It is a sacred obligation not to attempt to legislate in contradiction to this law; nor may it be derogated from nor abrogated. Indeed by neither the Senate nor the people can we be released from this law; nor does it require any but ourself to be its expositor or interpreter. Nor is it one law at Rome and another at Athens; one now and another at a late time; but one eternal and unchangeable law binding all nations through all time..." It is later noted: "We are born for justice, and right is not the mere arbitrary construction of opinion, but an institution of nature"; from which follows: "...that which is established on account of utility may for utility's sake be overturned"; and: "...unconstitutional statutes are unconstitutional per se, and not because of any authority attaching to the court that so pronounces them."

Professor Corwin wrote of the Roman practice of incorporating into their statutes a saving clause "to the effect that it was no purpose of the enactment to abrogate what was sacrosanct". Legal maxims were developed, some of which governed the legislative process; one such maxim "prohibited the proposal of any law containing two or more matters not germane."

The term "sovereignty" has been defined by some as declaring that: "The King can do no wrong", meaning that the King can do whatever he wishes and the subject must obey. Often, in the course of a hearing in a federal court, a prosecutor is heard to say that the government is "sovereign" and cannot be touched by the people. The "Higher Law", or "Natural Law", dictates that this popular phrase is analyzed to read that the King can no more do a wrong than any one of his subjects.

John Adams had written that in his observation of the systems of the laws, ancient and modern, "the liberty, the unalienable, indefeasible rights of men, the honor and dignity of human nature, the grandeur and glory of the public, and the universal happiness of individuals, were never so skillfully and successfully consulted as in that most excellent monument of human art, the common law of England." He wrote that these laws were confirmed by successive administrations of power, and confirmed also by Magna Charta. The Common Law of England was based upon the customs of the people, and what was reasonable.

Confirmation of the law is hardly a new concept. It is written in the book of Nehemiah, in the Bible, that Ezra, the scribe, had assembled the Israelites in the square in front of the Water Gate and read to them from the Book of the Law of Moses; and they wept at how far they had strayed from this.

Edward I, in his Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297, ordered the justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers of the law to acknowledge the Great Charter as the Common Law of the Land; and that any judgment contrary to this was to be "holden for nought". Archbishops and bishops were to pronounce the sentence of the Great Excommunication against all those who by deed, aid, or counsel, proceeded contrary to the Charter, or in any point transgressed it. Persons who were illegally imprisoned by sheriffs were given complete recovery as if the authors of the wrong had no official capacity whatever.