You're muddying the waters. Are we talking about the courts (law) or Congress (lawmakers)?
I think we'd be on the same page and agree the unjust laws are undesirable, especially if they infringe, unjustly, on rights. However, to say that rights are absolute is plain false. Would the founders be okay with allowing prisoners the right to bear arms? No. Did they have capital punishment back then? What about the right to life and liberty? Were the framers against prisons too? The framers weren't idiots. They didn't want to assume it would be okay to afford lawbreakers the exact same (supposedly inalienable) rights. We strip people of rights. Is that unconstitutional? No. Because it's right in there in the Fifth Amendment. So long as the due process of the law is carried out, rights can be limited and indeed are.
I don't want to make it appear we're disagreeing if we're talking about two separate things. If you're concerned about the courts misinterpreting the Constitution or about Congress making unjust laws, then so be it. Talk about that. But you can't just drop in and say something to effect of "Oh, hey, rights are absolute and no one can put limits on them—tell me where it says the government can limit rights" when it's right there in the Constitution: rights are limited by law.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but point out to me where it says rights cannot be taken away under any circumstances. Because that's what absolute means. It means that rights cannot be limited or taken away. What was the purpose of the Fifth Amendment but to state how this should be done?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 04-21-2011 at 12:20 PM..
|