Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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?
|
strawman, again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
fallacious argument. either you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, or you refuse to see the forest. rights ARE absolute, up until a person has had DUE PROCESS OF LAW. due process of law doesn't mean that congress can outlaw an otherwise inalienable right, president can sign off on it, and the courts can say 'we agree'. due process of law is a person committing a crime, being tried, then maybe convicted, and if convicted, has his rights supsended to serve whatever sentence he/she is given. once released, rights are restored. that is what i mean by absolute.
QUOTE=Baraka_Guru;2894422]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?[/QUOTE]
I've pointed it out, the 5th Amendment allows a persons rights to be suspended while under sentence of the courts, then once released has their rights restored, fully.
---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
criminy. here we are again back at the circular origin of natural-law style claims.
the natural law position seems to involve mysticism now, as it is possible to claim what the magickal Founders would and would not have tolerated quite apart from any documentary evidence. it's a kind of channeling. i'm always impressed to see people who channel. the problem is that this stuff is best at a seance. it's meaningless political argument, even in paranoia.
natural law is a style of claim made to justify breaking with the previous legal framework. it relies on an imaginary state prior to that arrangement the precepts or rights of which that previous system violated.
in sociological terms, it's a version of the style of arguments "heretics" used against the existing christian system. all the features are in place.
that's the level at which natural law exists. there is no other.
|
derp derp derp. natural law derp, heretics only derp.
your argument relies on an ideology that are rights are granted by the state and can be modified by the state, that we live and die at the states whims or not. it's all a pile of crap.
now, i'm not saying we're given our rights by God or any other supernatural being. I'm saying that we have rights simply because we're human beings, in other words 'natural law'. I can see you don't think natural law exists, that we must be governed (read that as controlled) by people we choose to be our betters in life, probably because your opinion of humanity is that we suck ass and can't be counted on to know right from wrong, therefore we must have elected babysitters. I discount and discredit that theory out of hand.