Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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. |
Negative. The 5th Amendment is not the Constitution, it was ratified afterwards. That's what makes it an Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
A better question would be, would the founders be OK with a full restoration of rights upon walking out the doors of a prison?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
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.
|
They actually wrote a few documents saying what they would and would not tolerate. Then they acted on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
|
A very good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Do you want parents not giving the children they're legally responsible for necessary medical care, putting them in mortal danger because of their religious beliefs?
|
What's interesting to this discussion is the death of George Washington, who had some strong views on these rights. Bloodletting was a common practice, and widely accepted at the time. Nowadays we know a lot more about the body, and get a good laugh at the intelligence of doctors back then. If you were a parent in the 1800's with a medical understanding based in 2011, would you allow a doctor to drain your child's blood to reduce a fever? Obvious violence against a child is clearly abuse, but where do we draw the line between medical "fact" and religious/personal medical "belief"? If your child had an infection and you wished to provide them with mold to fight it, how sane would you appear to the learned medical community of that day? They would have thought you were out of your mind. Ever read about Ignaz Semmelweis?
What drives the assumption that the parent is crazier than the dirty handed, penicillin ignorant drainer of blood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I believe that there are no circumstances where it is just or moral to take another's life;
|
Not even self defense? Or are you referring to the government & death penalty here?