Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 106 of 106

Thread: "Rights" do not come from the "Constitution"...

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The problem of course, of only citizens having rights, is who decides who are citizens.
    HINT: It ain't God.
    That's why it's NOT only citizens (whatever that is) who have rights... It's ALL PEOPLE!
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    We have rights because we exist. There is zero need for a creator to give us rights.
    This is why I use "Creator" for the existence of rights. If you believe that "nature" is your creator then you can claim "nature" as the source of your rights. I believe God is my Creator and He is the source of my rights. "Creator" is a neutral term that all people (should) be able to accept and agree on...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  4. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    I agree, there must be a way for people to enter the country, from someplace else. But are you saying the uniform rules for naturalization cannot include the acceptable way in which people from some other place cross the boarder (or enter the country)?


    and i didn't want to get off topic with the second amendment comment, but the term arms is accepted as guns (at least in part), without having to say the term guns. If you're suggesting arms doesn't infer or include guns, we have a whole new debate on our hands.
    "A way to enter"?? You enter by walking in. This is the way it was at the founding and it's the way it should be today (and is for many people). If you read Yick Wo you will see that the "immigrant" filing the appeal was still a subject of the Emperor of China even though he had lived in San Fran for something like 10 years. Don't think he ever intended to become a "citizen" and certainly his rights were not subject to being one...

    (P.S. I doubt that he asked for "permission" to move to San Fran...)
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  5. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    This is why I use "Creator" for the existence of rights. If you believe that "nature" is your creator then you can claim "nature" as the source of your rights. I believe God is my Creator and He is the source of my rights. "Creator" is a neutral term that all people (should) be able to accept and agree on...
    That makes sense. My bad.
    I am the spoon.

  6. #95

    Default

    Rights are man made construct to further human life.

    You could say rights come from a "creator" in the sense that rights should be congruent with human nature. Property rights create incentives to maximize overall well being and happiness. If property rights didn't further humanity, it wouldn't make sense to have them as rights.

  7. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Article 1, Section 9 seems to infer that they had that power, since they had to abrogate that power in text temporarily.
    You mean "imply."

    Nevertheless. No. Such a power is not among those enumerated for the federal government.

    ETA: Here is a great article discussing the clause to which you refer:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-immigration/

    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    The federal government has no rights at all, it has powers.
    Same thing. And if it is true that the federal government does not have the right to exercise any given power, then that means that it is wrong for it to exercise that power.

    You are correct, however, that it has no rights, since, no matter what power it ever exercises, it's always wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    That depends on the means of immigration... the government may permit some to immigrate here, with governmental permission, known as legal immigration.
    Illegal immigration, or doing so without the permission of the fedgoob, is invasion and the United States is compelled to prevent it for the States by Article IV, Section 4.
    No. The federal government has no right to require its permission for anyone to immigrate here. As far as the federal government is concerned, were it to act within the bounds of its constitutional powers, all immigration is legal.

    "Invasion" does not refer to merely crossing a border without certain paperwork that didn't even exist when the Constitution was ratified.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 02-04-2017 at 08:46 PM.

  8. #97

    Default

    No, rights are inherent to people, powers are granted. And Wapo as an authority? I chuckle knowingly.
    One illegal crossing the border may just be a "visit", but crossing en masse is INVASION. The Constitution very plainly gives the fedgoob the power to curb that, and has from the start.

  9. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Total confusion about what "rights" are and where they come from...

    "I am not going to dwell on the legality of Trumpís statement because it is already established. Apart from the fact that the American Constitution does not give any rights to foreigners, according to the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, ďWhenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens.Ē"

    http://archive.is/kn8RB

    This is how people lose sight of the issues and get on the wrong track...
    RIGHTS come from the Creator!! They do not come from the "Constitution" and certainly not from the goonerment!! I guess you can say that the opinion above is correct in that the constitution does not give rights to "foreigners" since it does not give rights to ANYONE.

    So if one realized the truth that rights come from the Creator and not the goonerment then you can see that there's no way to make an argument that an immigrant has LESS rights than a "citizen". You will be in a position of saying that God has granted certain rights to some people but denied that right to others. I don't think God works that way. Even the clowns in the Supreme Court have ruled that everyone has the same rights (but then they inconsistently deny rights to certain people...) See Yick Wo v. Hopkins. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356

    Are certain "foreigners" a problem? Yes they are. Are we supposed to deny any access to God's country because some people are bad?? Better ask God about that - I don't think he agrees...
    The Constitution also does not protect the rights of anyone not in the territories of the United States, nor should it. The implication otherwise is that we Americans are obliged to save the world. In fact, it would perforce imply that all humanity is American. It would also imply a world government.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  10. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The Constitution also does not protect the rights of anyone not in the territories of the United States, nor should it. The implication otherwise is that we Americans are obliged to save the world. In fact, it would perforce imply that all humanity is American. It would also imply a world government.
    The constitution does not protect anyone's rights, unfortunately... I wish it did. Your rights are yours to protect and you can, if you wish, help to protect the rights of others. "People" have to protect rights, a paper document signed over 200 years ago cannot do anything as it's an inanimate object. While the words written on this document are genius, those words are disregarded by TPTB...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  11. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    The constitution does not protect anyone's rights, unfortunately... I wish it did. Your rights are yours to protect and you can, if you wish, help to protect the rights of others. "People" have to protect rights, a paper document signed over 200 years ago cannot do anything as it's an inanimate object. While the words written on this document are genius, those words are disregarded by TPTB...
    A scrap of paper can do nothing. We are the sole agents.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  12. #101
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    7,784
    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Agree-

    This is why many of the states were hesitant about the Constitution and why the BoR was added in the first place. Freedom does NOT come from government.
    Does anyone remember what or why the bill of rights is different than other amendments and can't be repealed? I am looking for the legal stipulation.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  13. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Does anyone remember what or why the bill of rights is different than other amendments and can't be repealed? I am looking for the legal stipulation.
    With one exception anything in the Constitution can be repealed, including the Bill of Rights. The only exception is that no State can be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent (see Article V). In addition, there two other exceptions that have expired: no amendment made before 1808 could have affected the provisions in I.9.1 and I.9.4 that prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade before 1808 and that mandated that direct taxes be apportioned, respectively.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  14. #103
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    7,784
    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    With one exception anything in the Constitution can be repealed, including the Bill of Rights. The only exception is that no State can be deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent (see Article V). In addition, there two other exceptions that have expired: no amendment made before 1808 could have affected the provisions in I.9.1 and I.9.4 that prohibited Congress from banning the slave trade before 1808 and that mandated that direct taxes be apportioned, respectively.
    Thank you for sharing!
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  15. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    ...anything in the Constitution can be repealed...
    Absolutely correct. But that doesn't remove anyone's natural rights. Do we agree?

  16. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Absolutely correct. But that doesn't remove anyone's natural rights. Do we agree?
    Of course.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  17. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Of course.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-19-2013, 08:13 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-15-2011, 12:50 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 11:39 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 09:44 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2007, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •