| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
 |
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:28:09 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
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.
|
Then feel free to ignore my posts.
The fact that you insist on calling me a troll, yet continue to
participate shows much about your constitution, or lack thereof.
Regardless, have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
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?
|
No. While rights are not unlimited, they cannot be abridged willy-nilly
by the majority. The bar has been set very high for when and how the
majority can abridge rights.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Franks wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
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?
No. While rights are not unlimited, they cannot be abridged willy-nilly
by the majority. The bar has been set very high for when and how the
majority can abridge rights.
|
The bar may be high in your mind, but the principle remains: rights can
be abridged in your viewpoint.
Therefore, under your viewpoint, no right is absolute, and therefore the
term has no meaning in this context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
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?
No. While rights are not unlimited, they cannot be abridged willy-nilly
by the majority. The bar has been set very high for when and how the
majority can abridge rights.
The bar may be high in your mind, but the principle remains: rights can
be abridged in your viewpoint.
Therefore, under your viewpoint, no right is absolute
|
So, far so good.
| Quote: |
and therefore the term has no meaning in this context.
|
No. The meaning (once again) is that every law which abridges the
right would be unconstitutional. The fact that in practice no right
is absolute does not have any relevance to the meaning of the phrase
"absolute right".
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| 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
