| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
 |
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:15:17 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
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?
|
What part of the prepatory clause confuses you?
It defines WHY |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 11:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
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.
|
If a right is subject to a majority, then it is a 'law reigns supreme
over rights' viewpoint, which I'm presuming is the liberal perspective.
Do you disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:28 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 11:34 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
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.
|
Yet, for the purposes of this discussion, still remains undefined! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:34:50 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
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.
|
How are we to understand the difference if the definition is indefinite
(for lack of a better word)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:31 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 30, 11:37 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
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.
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).
|
So, in paring out the obfuscation, you are saying that extraordinary law
can alter the right.
So, you are of the persuasion that laws reign supreme over rights, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| 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.
|
Is there a natural right to 'self defense', or as more appropriately
detailed, the self-preservation of the right to life?
This being predicated on the assumption that there is a natural right to
life. So, for completeness, do you agree or disagree that there is a
natural right to life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
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.
If a right is subject to a majority, then it is a 'law reigns supreme
over rights' viewpoint, which I'm presuming is the liberal perspective.
Do you disagree?
|
I disagree that is a liberal perspective. It is shared by every justice
on the Court.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:34 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
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.
Yet, for the purposes of this discussion, still remains undefined!
|
I just defined it above. Are you dense?
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:indl64lrmb39efnmqn0c2qh6s4mcu3c002@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:16:22 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
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?
|
Yes.
But I see the right as one that should have regulations and restrictions --
an abortion should not be done after the first trimester. In a perfect
world, an abortion should not be done at all, but until we actually have a
perfect world, we have to deal with the imperfections that life throws at
us. Some women will get an abortion no matter how I feel on the matter, but
I think it is reasonable that an abortion in the second trimester or later
is too late.
And, when an abortion is performed on a girl of 14, then a crime against
that girl has been committed, and we should warm up the execution machine,
or at least be ready to cut somebody's nuts off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:26:48 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
If a right is subject to a majority, then it is a 'law reigns supreme
|
Yes, it's called the "Rule of law" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:28:09 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Yet, for the purposes of this discussion, still remains undefined!
|
Trolling for fun and pleasure isn't a legitimate
discussion.
Everyone knows you're setting up nonsense situations,
then demanding absolute answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:31:17 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
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
|
I am going to be be real pain about this.
The existence of a right is by way of principle, a civil morality, if you
will. The principle, or belief that a right exists is made absolute. A
court can not strike down it's existence as a court could not strike down
the existence of honor, truth or beauty.
And, once again, I am going to define inalienable right as how a person
chooses to live their life, their 'pursuit of happiness' and not just
those in the Bill Of Rights, unless the 9th and 10th are opened to near
infinity. What these rights exactly are, are hopefully as ambiguous as
'the pursuit of happiness'.
The issue here is specific behavior or, if you want, the right to do some
specific thing. I argue that this is separate from the right itself. One
is tangible the other is not.
Once government lays claim to determining the existence of rights outside
of specific behavior, it can lay claim to the existence of the principle
itself. This is not the business of government hirelings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Franks wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
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.
If a right is subject to a majority, then it is a 'law reigns supreme
over rights' viewpoint, which I'm presuming is the liberal perspective.
Do you disagree?
I disagree that is a liberal perspective. It is shared by every justice
on the Court.
|
The term "liberal perspective" is largely irrelevant to the point. The
point being argued is "If a right is subject to a majority, then it is a
'law reigns supreme over rights' viewpoint". Do _you_ disagree with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:26:48 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
If a right is subject to a majority, then it is a 'law reigns supreme
Yes, it's called the "Rule of law"
|
Not according to the definition that I'm familiar with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:55 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:31:17 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
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
I am going to be be real pain about this.
The existence of a right is by way of principle, a civil morality, if you
will. The principle, or belief that a right exists is made absolute. A
court can not strike down it's existence as a court could not strike down
the existence of honor, truth or beauty.
And, once again, I am going to define inalienable right as how a person
chooses to live their life, their 'pursuit of happiness' and not just
those in the Bill Of Rights, unless the 9th and 10th are opened to near
infinity. What these rights exactly are, are hopefully as ambiguous as
'the pursuit of happiness'.
The issue here is specific behavior or, if you want, the right to do some
specific thing. I argue that this is separate from the right itself. One
is tangible the other is not.
Once government lays claim to determining the existence of rights outside
of specific behavior, it can lay claim to the existence of the principle
itself. This is not the business of government hirelings.
|
I'd argue that the role of government isn't to determine rights, per se,
but to protect them -- secure them so that the law abiding can enjoy
them to their fullest. Those that willingly infringe upon the rights of
others should be expunged from society. The affecting of that
expungement should be the domain of government in an organized society. |
|
| 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
