The Constitution gives us our rights???

[SonsofLiberty]

This should be troubling to all. At what point did our constitution transform from a document specifically delineating the powers of our federal government to one that gives the people their rights?

senator Mark Warner, D-Va apparently believes that this is the purpose of the Constitution: "...there is no place in the Constitution,” he said, “that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53580

For all those that want to believe the constitution is a living breathing document, well here you go this is what you get.

[johnrocks]

He's dead wrong there!

[jbthe20th]

The Bill of Rights sorta gives us, you know, rights. There are other rights which are not in the constitution, but still have been upheld, such as the right to travel interstate.

[johnrocks]

The Bill of Rights sorta gives us, you know, rights. There are other rights which are not in the constitution, but still have been upheld, such as the right to travel interstate.

I was born with my rights, call it from my Creator or whatever but government did not give me a single right.

[F9thRet]

He's dead wrong there!

John, you sir are 100% correct. But I would like to add one thing.

The constitution is among many thing, a document telling the government what rights cannot be taken from the people.

Sadly this is becoming less and less the case.

BTW, I have read a lot of your posts, and there reference, and you good sir, have gained my respect.

<joke>This will be very important in the future when I take over the world by melting the ice caps with wall heaters, and flooding the planet.

Just waiting on cordless extension cords right now.

Stephen

[SonsofLiberty]

The Bill of Rights sorta gives us, you know, rights. There are other rights which are not in the constitution, but still have been upheld, such as the right to travel interstate.

The Bill of Rights does not give you any rights. Seriously. Go back and read them and you will see that they are in fact further restrictions upon government. The Framers believed our rights were inalienable (God given if you will). The Bill of Rights was nothing more than a compromise to the Anti-federalists who viewed certain rights as so important that they wanted it clearly stated that the government could not forbid them. The argument by the Federalists were that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary since the federal government did not have any authority to legislate in those areas.

I do not follow what you are stating in your second sentence since that are is covered in both the 9th & 10th A.

[johnrocks]

John, you sir are 100% correct. But I would like to add one thing.

The constitution is among many thing, a document telling the government what rights cannot be taken from the people.

Sadly this is becoming less and less the case.

BTW, I have read a lot of your posts, and there reference, and you good sir, have gained my respect.

<joke>This will be very important in the future when I take over the world by melting the ice caps with wall heaters, and flooding the planet.

Just waiting on cordless extension cords right now.

Stephen
Thanks! I too have read yours, the respect is mutual.

[F9thRet]

Thanks man, I do appreciate that, as some times the crap that comes out of my own mouth makes me wonder. :D

Stephen

[texashusker34]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not grant us rights. It simply defines limits on Government.

As to the "Bill of Rights", it was a clear definition on things that no level of Government in the US can touch.

[captusa]

I was born with my rights, call it from my Creator or whatever but government did not give me a single right.

The Constitution prevents the governmment from impeding the exercising of your rights.
If you were born in China, Russia or Cuba the you would not be able to exercise your rights no matter who gave them to you.

[johnrocks]

Thanks man, I do appreciate that, as some times the crap that comes out of my own mouth makes me wonder. :D

Stephen

lol, my foot seems to love my mouth at times but I try to practice civility.:lol:

[SonsofLiberty]

Thanks! I too have read yours, the respect is mutual.

Are you two done gushing over each other? ;)

[cshoff]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights only codify and PROTECT certain rights. Neither of them in any way grant rights or are an all-inclusive list of all of our rights.

[cshoff]

Are you two done gushing over each other? ;)

I was about to suggest they go get a room. :D

[johnrocks]

Are you two done gushing over each other? ;)

lol, I knew that was coming, cshoff, shush!lol

[SonsofLiberty]

lol, I knew that was coming, cshoff, shush!lol

JR I think Cshoff is just jealous lol

[SonsofLiberty]

ok dang it, now stop derailing my thread this is important stuff here.

[johnrocks]

JR I think Cshoff is just jealous lol

:lol:There is enough "love" here to go around...in a non contact kind of way:shifty:

[sgdp]

We're supposed to expect more? Barack "Constitutional Scholar" Obama doesn't even get it.

[F9thRet]

Are you two done gushing over each other? ;)


Sheesh, just for that you go the back of the list for Beers man. :D

Stephen

[johnrocks]

ok dang it, now stop derailing my thread this is important stuff here.

OK, back to the important stuff, the Senator is ****ing crazy, the Constitution limits government's powers,not ours, or supposed to work that way,imho. Now, the sad part is, most people probably agree with him, as you know, we are the "kooks".

[F9thRet]

ok dang it, now stop derailing my thread this is important stuff here.


Seriously man, I do believe we are of two people when it comes to rights.

We are the person who is born with rights,
And we are the person who must fight to have rights.

The constitution limits the powers of those who would impede us in keeping our rights.

Stephen

[SonsofLiberty]

:lol:There is enough "love" here to go around...in a non contact kind of way:shifty:

so you're a voyeur? :shifty:

[johnrocks]

so you're a voyeur?

Politically speaking and only among my "own kind" like libertarians:lol:

[SonsofLiberty]

OK, back to the important stuff, the Senator is ****ing crazy, the Constitution limits government's powers,not ours, or supposed to work that way,imho. Now, the sad part is, most people probably agree with him, as you know, we are the "kooks".

that is a fact, not your opinion. You should edit your post. Saying IMHO weakens your argument (I don't say this to be offensive, just helping)

[SonsofLiberty]

Seriously man, I do believe we are of two people when it comes to rights.

We are the person who is born with rights,
And we are the person who must fight to have rights.

The constitution limits the powers of those who would impede us in keeping our rights.

Stephen

I agree, but as long as people are fed the notion that we get rights from the Constitution, then by implication, we must get our rights from government. And if the Constitution gives us our rights then we can ammend it to remove them as well.


Oh heck who am I kidding, no one amends the constitution anymore, they just pass legislation doing so.

[cshoff]

The Constitution is, indeed, a limiting document. But does anyone care to take a guess as to who the "chains of the Constitution" were put in place to "bind down from mischief"?

[johnrocks]

that is a fact, not your opinion. You should edit your post. Saying IMHO weakens your argument (I don't say this to be offensive, just helping)

I have gotten in the habit of putting "imho" in my posts, some posts just seem so "pompus ass" to me; like their opinion is fact; so I started that, of course that's ....err...just my opinion.:lol: Besides, the part where I stated "was supposed to work like that" was the opinion part, it no longer works that way,it seems to me,SoL.

[SonsofLiberty]

The Constitution is, indeed, a limiting document. But does anyone care to take a guess as to who the "chains of the Constitution" were put in place to "bind down from mischief"?

Would you like the original party or the contemporary one?

[SonsofLiberty]

I have gotten in the habit of putting "imho" in my posts, some posts just seem so "pompus ass" to me; like their opinion is fact; so I started that, of course that's ....err...just my opinion.:lol: Besides, the part where I stated "was supposed to work like that" was the opinion part, it no longer works that way,it seems to me,SoL.

Sorry, just call it a work related habit.

[johnrocks]

Sorry, just call it a work related habit.

lol, it's all good brother.

[SonsofLiberty]

lol, it's all good brother.

I would jump all over someone who said in my opinion in my profession. (unless they were an expert lol)

[johnrocks]

I would jump all over someone who said in my opinion in my profession. (unless they were an expert lol)

lol, I pay people in your profession good money to be firm and direct;even a "tad" on the "pompus ass" side to deliver, I don't want a meek lawyer to whisper "johnrocks is right your greatness..in my opinion":shhh::lol:

[jbthe20th]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights only codify and PROTECT certain rights. Neither of them in any way grant rights or are an all-inclusive list of all of our rights.

You are right and put it better than I tried to. I misspoke and apologize.

[SonsofLiberty]

lol, I pay people in your profession good money to be firm and direct;even a "tad" on the "pompus ass" side to deliver, I don't want a meek lawyer to whisper "johnrocks is right your greatness..in my opinion":shhh::lol:

"People of the jury, my client is an innocent, hard working, church going man, that could not possibly have committed such an atrocity.....in my opinion" lol

(actually you can get in trouble for giving "your opinion" to the jury, although in this instance I cannot imagine a prosecutor who would object"

[Rurudyne]

The Bill of Rights sorta gives us, you know, rights. There are other rights which are not in the constitution, but still have been upheld, such as the right to travel interstate.
Incorrect.

The BoR, 1st to 8th, expounds on some of the Privileges and Immunities of the people under our rightful common laws as they were known at the founding of this country. The 9th requires the federal to respect the rest of those. These rights did not come into existence because of the BoR.

[Samm]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights only codify and PROTECT certain rights. Neither of them in any way grant rights or are an all-inclusive list of all of our rights.

I got here a little late, but that is absolutely correct. The Constitution grants no rights; it protects rights.

[Darkblade]

The Bill of Rights sorta gives us, you know, rights. There are other rights which are not in the constitution, but still have been upheld, such as the right to travel interstate.
The guys who wrote it disagree with you. they say we were endowed with rights by our creator. James Madison in fact did not want a constitution at all because he knew the ignorant and tyrants would come to proclaim that rights came from government documents and not our inheritance as human beings. see natural rights or inalienable rights.

[Mobulis]

Nothing gives us our rights.

[Samm]

Nothing gives us our rights.

Might makes right.

[fava]

Isn't this the distilled difference between conservative and liberal? Cons believe that man's rights are given by their Creator while libs believe that any right must be bestowed by Government.
The conservatives won in the wording of our Constitution. Libs have won ever since in the usurpation of those rights through the misinterpretation of the Constitution.
The basic problem with rights being bestowed by the Government is that the Government has the authority to also take away those rights.

[Mobulis]

Isn't this the distilled difference between conservative and liberal? Cons believe that man's rights are given by their Creator while libs believe that any right must be bestowed by Government.
The conservatives won in the wording of our Constitution. Libs have won ever since in the usurpation of those rights through the misinterpretation of the Constitution.
The basic problem with rights being bestowed by the Government is that the Government has the authority to also take away those rights.

Which can still be taken away by man.

[Rurudyne]

Which can still be taken away by man.
Thus the word "tyranny".

[fava]

Which can still be taken away by man.

Of course. Any right can be taken away by someone with superior firepower. We are talking about law, though. If the society is based on the law and the law interprets the Constitution a certain way, then law will side with the rights of the individual rather than the power of the collective.
This is no longer the case in the US because of the misinterpretation of our Constitution.

[Cletus Wilbury]

... Cons believe that man's rights are given by their Creator while libs believe that any right must be bestowed by Government.
The conservatives won in the wording of our Constitution. ....

Huh? Have you seen that part called the "Bill of Rights", amendments to the Constitution?

[fava]

Huh? Have you seen that part called the "Bill of Rights", amendments to the Constitution?

Huh? Have you read any of the other posts regarding the Bill of Rights? Or, more importantly, have you actually read the Bill of Rights with the understanding that it does not bestow rights but further restricts the action of the Government?

[Cletus Wilbury]

Huh? Have you read any of the other posts regarding the Bill of Rights? Or, more importantly, have you actually read the Bill of Rights with the understanding that it does not bestow rights but further restricts the action of the Government?

It's true it restricts government from interfering with the rights of the people, but it's called a 'Bill of Rights'.

I have my copy right here.....

Amend IV - "The right of the people to be secure ... shall not be violated"

Reads like a 'right' to me, the right not to have the government break into your house for no good reason.

[fava]

It's true it restricts government from interfering with the rights of the people, but it's called a 'Bill of Rights'.

I have my copy right here.....

Amend IV - "The right of the people to be secure ... shall not be violated"

Reads like a 'right' to me, the right not to have the government break into your house for no good reason.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.
Further restrictions on Government do not convey the right. The right existed before the Government.

[Cletus Wilbury]

... The right existed before the Government.

Ok, so women always had the right to vote before the 19th amendment?

[fava]

Ok, so women always had the right to vote before the 19th amendment?

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

Misinterpretation of the Constitution has been the downfall of this Country because of the first 10 amendments as Hamilton argued. The people retain all the rights given by their Creator. These were called natural rights. The insertion of a list of rights only confuses the rights of man because it leads to more amendments that actually give no rights, ie prohibition.
Your example confuses natural rights with procedural or social rights. Why aren't children allowed the right to vote?

[Cletus Wilbury]

...
Your example confuses natural rights with procedural or social rights. ...

procedural rights are still rights in my book.

[Darkblade]

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

“I’m saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied.”

“You should be writing fiction,” Bill said.

“Well, it’s a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government,” Mac said. “Let me ask you this,” he said to Bill. “In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them?”

Bill didn’t answer.

“Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?” His voice trailed off.

Bill still wouldn’t answer.

“In other words,” Dave said, “it’s a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn’t let them exercise them?”

“Yes. All I want to know is if that’s hard for you to see.” He looked at Bill who was still silent.

“Then I see what you’re saying,” Dave said, “But I’m not sure how it relates to the 2nd Amendment.” Samuel Adams

Bill still said nothing—but neither did I.

“Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?”

“What’s the answer?” Dave asked Mac.

“The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We’re just being denied them. Because of that, it’s the way we have to look at the Constitution.”

Bill rubbed his nose.

Dave said, “Okay, I never thought of it that way, but I’ll buy into it for a moment.”

“It may be,” Mac said, “that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there.”

Why a Bill of Rights?

“Then why have a Bill of Rights?” Bill asked. The question was posed as a challenge.

“You’re not the first person to ask that. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought having a Bill of rights was dangerous.” “Dangerous,” Bill laughed. “How could it be dangerous?”

“They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that’s exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion.”

“Then how do we know what our rights are in court?” Bill asked.

“Have you ever read the Bill of Rights?” Mac asked. I think he was tired; there was no humor in his voice. “Specifically, have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments?”

Bill smiled and shook his head. “I never thought it was important to memorize them.”

“It’s important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights and how they expected us to view them.

“They were put there to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government. The 9th says:

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

“This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people. “The 10th says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

“So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.

“So it’s enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn’t even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights. Thomas Jefferson

Bill rolled his eyes.

“Then why do we have a Bill of Rights?” I asked.

“Because even though Hamilton and others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without one the government would eventually take all of our rights.”

“Just getting off the gun issue for the moment,” Dave quickly asked, “are there actually rights not mentioned in the Constitution that you’d say we’ve been denied?”

“Sure. The Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver’s licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment.

"And,” he continued, “if the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don’t believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures.”

[fava]

procedural rights are still rights in my book.

Try registering your 14 year old to vote and see how much rights you have.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Try registering your 14 year old to vote and see how much rights you have.


I can't follow your argument, sorry.

[Cletus Wilbury]

I understand the whole 'inalienable rights' discussion. Indeed, we have many implied rights that aren't in the Bill of Rights.

But the posts in this thread remind me of the old 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' debate.

I include this for comic relief:

The Question of a Bill of Rights

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788 (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.htm) - James Madison


...
One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews Turks & infidels. ...

[fava]

I can't follow your argument, sorry.

The argument is the limits of natural and procedural rights.

[Mike88]

The Bill of Rights does not give you any rights. Seriously. Go back and read them and you will see that they are in fact further restrictions upon government. The Framers believed our rights were inalienable (God given if you will). The Bill of Rights was nothing more than a compromise to the Anti-federalists who viewed certain rights as so important that they wanted it clearly stated that the government could not forbid them. The argument by the Federalists were that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary since the federal government did not have any authority to legislate in those areas.

I do not follow what you are stating in your second sentence since that are is covered in both the 9th & 10th A.

Correct. The one truthful statement Obama did make about the constitution is that it is a negative list of things that the government is NOT permitted to do. Although Obama does not like that, and wants to get around that for tyranny's sake. The fact that it is a negative list is what is brilliant about it.

[LJ14]

Amend IV - "The right of the people to be secure ... shall not be violated"

Reads like a 'right' to me, the right not to have the government break into your house for no good reason.

But it's okay to break into your medical records? :eh:

Obama and his Democrats in Congress, with the help of three Republican turncoats, have ALREADY upended the fourth in their seizure of our medical records. Whether one argues that a medical history is the property (or papers) of the patient or of the doctor, what it damn sure is NOT... is the property of the U.S. government.

[snagswolf]

Which can still be taken away by man.
Nope. Man can prevent you from exercising your rights, but they can't take them away.

They're called unalienable for a reason.