I'm having an interesting discussion on another forum with a conservative and could use some input.
According to Judge Napolitano, the Constitution does not grant us our rights. Our rights come from our humanity. No government or piece of paper can take or give us the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, doesn't the constitution protect all people living in the U.S. and not just citizens?
The other guy's position is:
"The US Constitution only pertains to the USA. The concepts incorporated should apply around the world but they do not because too much of the world is under the control of tyrants whose citizens are more concerned with security than with freedom.
The first responsibility of the US government is to protect the US Constitution, the borders and the citizens of the US.
“…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
While the Founding Fathers took steps to prevent a standing army, which could be used against the people, they also provided for maintaining a Navy because of the threat of the Barbary Pirates (I suggest you look up who the Barbary Pirates were at the time)
“To declare War…make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
(I don't know why he got into all that other stuff) but this whole discussion stems from our disagreement over the building of the NYC Mosque. I don't care for the idea of it being built so close to ground zero, but I always side with the Constitution. He feels that the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment. (which I agree with, but I think he feels ALL Muslims practice this sort of radical Islam) Any thoughts?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us