| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
 |
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:21:15 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
If rights aren't supreme in all cases, then rights aren't supreme.
Of course they are.
The degree with which one enjoys those rights depends
on the amount of law and protection they get.
|
Legal protection of rights is an aspect that I'm not discussing at the
moment.
I'm contemplating laws that specifically abridge rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:05:06 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
Rights are supreme.
A law that violates a right is unconstitutional.
Even rights which are "supreme" are not guaranteed to
be fulfilled 100%---only protected as to the
willingness of the society to apply the rule of law (
constitution) to achieve that goal.
|
You are mixing legal protection and legal infringement. Protection
wasn't my intended topic of this thread.
| Quote: |
You do not have an "absolute" right not to be killed
under ALL situations.
The state may do it for a specific set of reasons,
|
Such as?
| Quote: |
individuals may kill you under a specific set of
reasons
|
Such as?
| Quote: |
you may be killed by individuals or
corporations carelessness.
|
?
Accidents and carelessness is not an aspect of rights v. laws.
| Quote: |
You do not have an absolute right to 'Freedom", or
"pursuit of happiness"---because there are limitations
on what, how and why you can attempt to achieve it.
|
Other than the bounds of the right, what are examples of some of those
limitations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:32:50 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:21:15 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
If rights aren't supreme in all cases, then rights aren't supreme.
Of course they are.
The degree with which one enjoys those rights depends
on the amount of law and protection they get.
Legal protection of rights is an aspect that I'm not discussing at the
moment.
|
Trolling is what you're doing at any given moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:36:22 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You are mixing legal protection and legal infringement. Protection
wasn't my intended topic of this thread.
|
Well, there ya go again
Setting up false dichotomies and fallacies---then
demanding they be accepted as argumentable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 10:30 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:06 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
You made a claim about liberalism, and
continue to repeat it - all without evidence.
The name of the ideology is largely irrelevant. In a majority of my
posts, I use the 'term' followed by (?) to indicate that it is my
presumptive opinion.
Since you can't support your use of liberal and conservative, even
with quotes, how about stop using those terms.
The core issue remains unchallenged:
I've challenged that in another post.
Could you be more specific? I read and write a lot.
|
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win. All justices of the
Court agree with this formulation, liberal and conservative alike.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 7, 11:13 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win.
My opinion would be that rights rarely win, but no need to argue that.
What are some examples of where laws win?
|
Licensing of people who want to carry hand guns (Heller).
| Quote: |
Why should there be "narrow circumstances" where laws can win?
|
Because a state's compelling interest (in the above example, public
safety).
| Quote: |
What keeps these "narrow circumstances" narrow? Are there any checks
and balances against the natural widening of these circumstances?
|
The standard set of checks and balances on the judiciary (appointment,
confirmation, impeachment, amendment).
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:36:22 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
You are mixing legal protection and legal infringement. Protection
wasn't my intended topic of this thread.
Well, there ya go again
Setting up false dichotomies and fallacies---then
demanding they be accepted as argumentable.
|
Wow. You really have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Buckeye should be spamming again shortly, perhaps that is more your
style/speed.
Have a nice day.
-pf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win.
|
My opinion would be that rights rarely win, but no need to argue that.
What are some examples of where laws win?
Why should there be "narrow circumstances" where laws can win?
What keeps these "narrow circumstances" narrow? Are there any checks
and balances against the natural widening of these circumstances? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Hifck.17657$%q.6422@newsfe24.lga...
Come on Peter, you know the answers to your own questions.
If you come at me in a dark alley with a knife in your hand and are
demanding my wallet, yoiu have forfeited your right to not be killed.
The vast majority of your questions can be answered through simple logic,
these are among them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:08:18 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
The vast majority of your questions can be answered through simple logic,
these are among them
|
Score another for Jeffy----Whom I rarely agree with
Most of his "questions" are fallacy
warrants---gibberish at best |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Hifck.17657$%q.6422@newsfe24.lga...
Come on Peter, you know the answers to your own questions.
|
Yes, that is true, I do know the answer to some of my questions. But a
complete understanding of anything requires an understand of opposing
viewpoints, something that most do not undertake in my experience.
| Quote: |
If you come at me in a dark alley with a knife in your hand and are
demanding my wallet, yoiu have forfeited your right to not be killed.
|
Yes, someone that deliberately and substantially infringes upon the
rights of another forfeits claim to ALL of their rights. But this has
nothing to do w/ laws & rights.
| Quote: |
The vast majority of your questions can be answered through simple
logic, these are among them.
|
The answer is dependent on your viewpoint. I tend to value the
discussion more than the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:05 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 7, 11:13 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win.
My opinion would be that rights rarely win, but no need to argue that.
What are some examples of where laws win?
Licensing of people who want to carry hand guns (Heller).
Why should there be "narrow circumstances" where laws can win?
Because a state's compelling interest (in the above example, public
safety).
|
Well, in this specific case, /presumed/ compelling interest.
I'd argue, and probably be correct, that the licensing of guns has
little effect on the consequences of the actions of violent behavior.
So, again, with this specific example, the action in interest is based
on failed logic and reasoning, and actually is contrary to the
compelling interests of the state.
If we were to rationally act on compelling interests, we'd abridge the
rights of those that have a tendency toward violence. And in fact,
those that have a tendency toward violence and have acted on it don't
HAVE rights to be abridged. The compelling interest of the state should
then to be the affecting of the forfeiture of those rights -- something
that has a tendency to NOT happen.
So, in this case, there is little or no justification for the law
abridging the rights of the law abiding.
| Quote: |
What keeps these "narrow circumstances" narrow? Are there any checks
and balances against the natural widening of these circumstances?
The standard set of checks and balances on the judiciary (appointment,
confirmation, impeachment, amendment).
|
Yes, and we see how well that works. Case in point: the Commerce
Clause, but we don't need to rehash that here, again, now.
Obviously the judiciary is NOT a check or balance against the widening
of narrow circumstances, any more than water is for a crack in a dam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:l7tck.13482$Fj5.9749@newsfe23.lga...
| Quote: |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Hifck.17657$%q.6422@newsfe24.lga...
Come on Peter, you know the answers to your own questions.
Yes, that is true, I do know the answer to some of my questions. But a
complete understanding of anything requires an understand of opposing
viewpoints, something that most do not undertake in my experience.
If you come at me in a dark alley with a knife in your hand and are
demanding my wallet, yoiu have forfeited your right to not be killed.
Yes, someone that deliberately and substantially infringes upon the rights
of another forfeits claim to ALL of their rights. But this has nothing to
do w/ laws & rights.
The vast majority of your questions can be answered through simple logic,
these are among them.
The answer is dependent on your viewpoint. I tend to value the discussion
more than the answer.
|
That may be, which is the classic definition of a rhetorical question. The
answer is not nearly as important as the discussion it evokes.
I used the dark alley example because your question had no logical
constraints; and without constraints, any answer is correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 7, 4:05 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:13 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win.
My opinion would be that rights rarely win, but no need to argue that.
What are some examples of where laws win?
Licensing of people who want to carry hand guns (Heller).
Why should there be "narrow circumstances" where laws can win?
Because a state's compelling interest (in the above example, public
safety).
Well, in this specific case, /presumed/ compelling interest.
I'd argue, and probably be correct, that the licensing of guns has
little effect on the consequences of the actions of violent behavior.
So, again, with this specific example, the action in interest is based
on failed logic and reasoning, and actually is contrary to the
compelling interests of the state.
|
Regardless of any specific case (for which the judiciary decides who
has the better argument), the general principle of compelling interest
applies in the USA.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 7, 4:05 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:13 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win.
My opinion would be that rights rarely win, but no need to argue that.
What are some examples of where laws win?
Licensing of people who want to carry hand guns (Heller).
Why should there be "narrow circumstances" where laws can win?
Because a state's compelling interest (in the above example, public
safety).
Well, in this specific case, /presumed/ compelling interest.
I'd argue, and probably be correct, that the licensing of guns has
little effect on the consequences of the actions of violent behavior.
So, again, with this specific example, the action in interest is based
on failed logic and reasoning, and actually is contrary to the
compelling interests of the state.
Regardless of any specific case (for which the judiciary decides who
has the better argument), the general principle of compelling interest
applies in the USA.
|
The principle may be compelling interest, but as we can see in practice,
it simply isn't a valid reason to legislatively limit a right.
Any other suggestions for "narrow circumstances"? |
|
| 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
