Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
this is not true at all. I'm sure this strawman is just one of several that gets used alot, but the 5th Amendment provides for the suspension of inalienable rights through due process of law, so NO, prisoners would not have firearms in their cell. It's a very stupid argument. At least try to make a valid one.
|
It's completely true, and the argument is valid. It proves that rights aren't absolute. The suspension of inalienable rights? Say it out loud: "The suspension of inalienable rights."
Suspension: The temporary prevention of something from continuing or being in force or effect. The interruption of, cessation of, stoppage of—the dissolution, disbandment, termination....
Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. Inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, indefeasible....
The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Emphasis mine)
No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The law, therefore, allows for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The United States Constitution itself states that rights aren't absolute.
Absolute: not subject to any limitation; unconditional. Unrestricted, unrestrained, unbounded, boundless, infinite, ultimate, total, supreme, unconditional....
Rights are not absolute. The Constitution outlines that quite clearly, and that is my argument. This is why prisoners do not have the right to bear arms. This is why Manning has a weak defense if he claims a right to free speech.
You are right, however, and I agree with you that it's about the law. If a law is deemed just and is passed and enacted, and then subsequently enforced, it has the power to limit rights to those who violate the law.
If someone burns a Quran and it directly is a cause of violence, there are likely laws in place that apply. This is where you get a conflict between a right to free speech/expression and being beholden to the law.
Rights are not absolute, and there is a reason for it.