| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
 |
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
But this isn't answering my question -- what is an absolute right?
This isn't rocket science.
The Constitution establishes rights (free speech, right to bear arms,
etc.). The Constitution is typically vague, leaving it to the judiciary
to interpret the scope of these rights. A right is absolute when the
judiciary rules that *any* law or action which limits the scope of the
right is unconstitutional.
What part of this do you not understand?
The part that is wrong.
Disagreeing with an argument is not the same as not understanding the
argument.
Can you understand what an absolute right is under the assumption
(whether you agree or disagree with the assumption) that the
Constitution establishes rights?
|
No, I don't agree that the Constitution establishes rights.
However, for the sake of argument, if the Constitution did establish
rights, then NO right would be absolute.
| Quote: |
Elsewhere you argue that such a right isn't absolute because it is
subject to the whims of the majority. That's not so. It takes a
super majority to change the Constitution.
|
Majority is majority, super or otherwise. It is a PC way of saying 'mob
rules'. But ignoring the derogatories on social contract, it is simply
the (liberal?) point of view that laws reign supreme over rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:44:12 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
But this isn't answering my question -- what is an absolute right?
There are no absolute rights as you're trying to troll.
Being able to enjoy "rights" is dependent on behavior
God (supposedly) grants you everlasting life---only if
you fulfil a set of regulations and requirements.
Society has determined that natural rights do not come
from men---but from a "higher power"----which you still
must fulfill by behavior on your part to enjoy
Government, given power to help you achieve "rights"
(that aren't natural) by the governed, requires you to
act in a specific manner to get them
|
So, what you are saying is that laws reign supreme over rights -- correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:537j649r9vojujktjp15dfqd5n3ukmnjrm@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:38:43 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:uilh64l3kncolfdqjrsams4i9m4b7pd864@4ax.com...
The right to own a gun is not a god-given
right---therefore doesn't fall under natural rights
Apparently the United States Supreme Court thinks differently.
Apparantly, you're going to give up the notion of
activist judges?
|
It is not "activist" to uphold an explicitly granted right. It is "activist"
to create a right where none exists and has never been recognized before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:44:12 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
But this isn't answering my question -- what is an absolute right
There are no "Absolute rights" as the definition
trolled by you
Trolling is nonsense.
The "rights" of natural law are subject to
conditions---dependent on metaphysical beliefs.
|
I don't follow most of what you wrote. Ignoring your irrelevant
trolling references, what are some examples of "conditions" on natural
rights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:ib7j64lv537aitteca0ncukbp8tgs168kd@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:41:35 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I agree with that.
The problem with the DC law is that it restricted a basic Constitutional
right from everybody,
No, it did not
|
It absolutely did. The law in DC banned gun ownership within the District,
and for no other reason that because one lived there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jun 30, 11:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
\
But even accepting your (and Peter's view), an absolute right would be
on where the Constitutional court would strike down *any* law which
infringed upon one of these inalienable rights (which would of course
mean that no right is absolute).
Ok, so there is no such thing as an absolute right?
In practice no, because SCOTUS has never struck down *every* law which
infringes on rights. However in theory, they could do so.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm now of the persuasion that "absolute" is a
qualifier that means something to a conservative and nothing to a
liberal -- it is an ideological term.
So then, in practice, the supreme Court is practicing liberalism (laws
reign supreme over rights), which I would appear to be the case when
considering decisions generally.
|
I'm sure that Scalia and Thomas would be surprised to be labeled as
liberals. *All* Supreme Court justices agree that in practice no
right is beyond the reach of the majority.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jun 30, 11:37 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
But this isn't answering my question -- what is an absolute right?
This isn't rocket science.
The Constitution establishes rights (free speech, right to bear arms,
etc.). The Constitution is typically vague, leaving it to the judiciary
to interpret the scope of these rights. A right is absolute when the
judiciary rules that *any* law or action which limits the scope of the
right is unconstitutional.
What part of this do you not understand?
The part that is wrong.
Disagreeing with an argument is not the same as not understanding the
argument.
Can you understand what an absolute right is under the assumption
(whether you agree or disagree with the assumption) that the
Constitution establishes rights?
No, I don't agree that the Constitution establishes rights.
However, for the sake of argument, if the Constitution did establish
rights, then NO right would be absolute.
Elsewhere you argue that such a right isn't absolute because it is
subject to the whims of the majority. That's not so. It takes a
super majority to change the Constitution.
Majority is majority, super or otherwise. It is a PC way of saying 'mob
rules'.
|
Amending the Constitution is very difficult. It's not mob rule.
| Quote: |
But ignoring the derogatories on social contract, it is simply
the (liberal?) point of view that laws reign supreme over rights.
|
As that "liberal lion" Scalia said in Heller. "[l]ike most rights, the
Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
You started this thread by asking what is the meaning of "the 'right
to bear arms is
unlimited'?" In the context that Scalia used the phrase, it means
that no ordinary law can abridge the right (but the Constitution can
be changed to alter the right).
We all know you disagree with Scalia's "liberalism", but please stop
faking it that you do not undertsand what he meant.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jun 30, 11:34 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Yet we see the term "absolute" used in reference to rights and laws all
the time. I'm just trying to understand the meaning of the term. I've
now concluded that there isn't a specific meaning because of the
ideological differences between rights and the law.
|
The specific meaning is:
1) The right is established by the Constitution
2) No oridnary law can abridge that right
Your disagreement with this meaning has no impact on the fact that
this meaning is very clear and very specific.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:01:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
How are we supposed to know what the inalienable rights are?
|
This is the philosophical epicenter. I do say philosophical because I
believe it is the stuff of real, healthy and unresolvable political
difference. It is a living topic. An alarm should go off if a claim is
made that it is resolved in absolute, one way or another.
Starting from outside working in... liberty can be read as being
unhindered by government or free from government interference. That's it.
So the beginning is 'we' do not have to know. It is none of 'our'
business. Our only business is our own business. This is a fantasy land
view, of course. This fantasy land view is the not so fanciful as it
serves as consistent check on the very real and necessary laws of an
ordered society. This check presents a constant flux. What is our own
business and what is not? I do not think there ever will be a final
answer to this, or I hope not.
Bottom line as I see it, rights themselves are not accountable to anyone.
They can not be listed or enumerated all inclusively by law. Behavior on
the other hand, under the name of rights or not, can be.
Really, what do you do with a people who seriously give as one reason for
their political being as the 'pursuit of happiness'? Every individual
knows what this means but trying to corral this into law....? Impossible.
I do believe this is the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:39:40 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:537j649r9vojujktjp15dfqd5n3ukmnjrm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:38:43 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:uilh64l3kncolfdqjrsams4i9m4b7pd864@4ax.com...
The right to own a gun is not a god-given
right---therefore doesn't fall under natural rights
Apparently the United States Supreme Court thinks differently.
Apparantly, you're going to give up the notion of
activist judges?
It is not "activist" to uphold an explicitly granted right. It is "activist"
to create a right where none exists and has never been recognized before.
|
It's activist because the "right" to own a weapon is
not a natural right, nor was it accepted for centuries
in law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:ib7j64lv537aitteca0ncukbp8tgs168kd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:41:35 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
I agree with that.
The problem with the DC law is that it restricted a basic Constitutional
right from everybody,
No, it did not
It absolutely did. The law in DC banned gun ownership within the District,
and for no other reason that because one lived there.
|
As was their right to do
THere is no natural right to own a weapon (higherpower
given)
Enacted law (federal, state and local) ALL determined
that "no right" existed.
Scalia "found" that "non-right" by merely reading it
and deciding different
That is activism at it's worst |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:34:50 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:30:12 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
The term "absolute" isn't descriptive of the right, but rather the
ideology surround the concept of rights
The term "absolute" as you use it is a dictionary
defined concept
It is not totally applicable to a discussion of law or
religious doctrine
It's the same principle of a dictionary definition of
"perjury"---applied to law.
Yet we see the term "absolute" used in reference to rights and laws all
the time.
|
Only when someone (like the perjury/lying example) is
used by those who don't understand the difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:9lfk64hb3mpltvb2km9r7m67dglud1m9eb@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:39:40 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:537j649r9vojujktjp15dfqd5n3ukmnjrm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:38:43 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:uilh64l3kncolfdqjrsams4i9m4b7pd864@4ax.com...
The right to own a gun is not a god-given
right---therefore doesn't fall under natural rights
Apparently the United States Supreme Court thinks differently.
Apparantly, you're going to give up the notion of
activist judges?
It is not "activist" to uphold an explicitly granted right. It is
"activist"
to create a right where none exists and has never been recognized before.
It's activist because the "right" to own a weapon is
not a natural right, nor was it accepted for centuries
in law.
|
What part of, "keep and bear arms, confuses you?
I'm not arguing that the right is absolute, and that it can never be
regulated or even restricted. I am arguing that any regulation or
restriction that has the actual effect of banning ownership for all citizens
is unconstitutional. Any regulation or restriction that is centric on the
weapon itself is probably unconstitutional -- if the weapon is considered to
be a "small arm" as oppposed to major armament -- because the impact of such
regulatioin is to prevent legal ownership by lawful citizens.
A restriction or regulation that prevents ownership by a convicted criminal
or a mentally challenged individual, or a few other well defined classes, is
probably legal under the constitution. Washington DC's total ban is
unconstitutional. Get over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:5nfk64t31ihr701rj0c4d7tgo5mb5g4mbu@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
It absolutely did. The law in DC banned gun ownership within the District,
and for no other reason that because one lived there.
As was their right to do
|
Not according to the highest court in the land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:16:22 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:5nfk64t31ihr701rj0c4d7tgo5mb5g4mbu@4ax.com...
It absolutely did. The law in DC banned gun ownership within the District,
and for no other reason that because one lived there.
As was their right to do
Not according to the highest court in the land.
Then you're agreeing that A womens right to terminate a |
pregnancy is constitutionaly sound---by virtue of the
USSC saying it is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
