Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
And can we stop talking about "rights" this and "rights" that... none of these things are rights. In these kinds of discussions, rights are very specific things, and you do not have a right to smoke tobacco. If you want one, seek a constitutional amendment.
|
Sorry I do HAVE the right to smoke tobacco. It is LEGAL and I am of age. I have that right. I do not have the right to smoke it in public buildings inside the state of Ohio. But it is a "RIGHT".
If we go by the definitions of only rights expressed in the Constitution... as it seems you want to, then we have no "right" to own land, businesses, cars, privacy, etc.
This is when I get fanatical. This is where the far left has gone to fucking far. Smoking, driving, being on the internet and so on are "RIGHTS" not privileges given to us by the state. It is bullshit to argue they are not "RIGHTS", to argue they aren't is to give government far, far too much power.
If I am of legal age and I passed my drivers test and I have my license, I have a RIGHT to drive, not a privilege. Can I lose my RIGHT? Yes, if I do not obey laws, I lose that RIGHT. Same as if I commit a crime, I lose my RIGHT to freedom outside prison walls.
The Constitution states in Amendment 9
Quote:
|
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
John Addams stated:
Quote:
|
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
|
Here is a link to the Libertarian Advocacy Groups argument on the 9th amendment.
The Bill of Rights: Unenumerated Rights
It contains this being one of the best written and IMHO best views of what the founders meant in writing the Constitution:
Quote:
Again, the purpose of the Constitution was not to give people rights but instead to bring a federal government into existence — a government with very limited powers. Therefore, it makes no sense to look for a right in the Constitution, given that the purpose of the Constitution was not to give people rights in the first place. (We’ll leave the issue of the Court’s oftentimes distorted understanding of rights to another day.)
The correct issue with respect to government power, then, is whether the federal government has been authorized by the Constitution to exercise some power, for example, a power to infringe on people’s rights, whether such rights are listed or not.
A good example of this principle involves the right to privacy. While some have argued that privacy is not a fundamental and inherent right, it would be improper to oppose its protection on the ground that it is not expressly protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That is, since the Constitution did not empower the federal government to violate people’s right to privacy, the fact that the right to privacy is not expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights is irrelevant, especially given the language of the Ninth Amendment.
|
---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Great, we agree. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars falls firmly under protecting the rights of workers.
|
I disagree. The workers can be protected as can be the rights but compromise is needed. I stated 1 possible compromise above.... that again, people pick and choose what they want of mine but refuse to address all of what I say.
Quote:
|
My feeling to handle this "worker safety" issue is to have the smoking section either staffed solely with smokers or people who have signed waivers, or nor have service in that area. A room designated for smoking. Thus, the owner still has a right to decide if he wants smoking and the patrons and workers have the right to be around it or not.
|
Last paragraph post #61.
The problem is that certain elements that seek power on both the right and left do not seek compromise and a protection of ALL RIGHTS, but what they deem as acceptable for their power hungry agendas.
If an owner of a private business has the funds and is wanting to build a room as I stated above, he should have that RIGHT. That choice, that RIGHT should NEVER be taken away from that owner, by legislature... by the public vote... I have issues and I would argue the Constitutionality and propose the above compromise to be put up on ballot, but as I have stated, I will abide by what the PEOPLE decide in their votes.