CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

I get what you are saying. My objection is that the word is misleading and propagandistic. You have a right or you don't. Calling it inalienable adds nothing. If you are marooned on an island, then you can do whatever you please within your physical limitations, but you have no rights at all. The very concept of a right is dependent upon a society. Without social interaction the word has no meaning.

If we are going to discuss which rights we should and which we should not have, that is fine. If we are going to discuss how we are to insure we keep those rights, that is fine. Clearly we have different ideas on how that should be done. But applying this adjective to the word rights does not change the reality of it. Its only purpose is propaganda, just as Jefferson employed it, and I am not a fan of propaganda.

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights. I would expect that our little hypothetical constitutional convention here would be pretty unanimous in retaining these kinds of procedural rights for citizens. Whether we would want them extended to non citizens would have to be discussed but I'm pretty sure we would also unanimously mandate decent treatment of non citizens as well.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

 

[dblack]

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights. I would expect that our little hypothetical constitutional convention here would be pretty unanimous in retaining these kinds of procedural rights for citizens. Whether we would want them extended to non citizens would have to be discussed but I'm pretty sure we would also unanimously mandate decent treatment of non citizens as well.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Well said. The most distressing trend in our society, despite the lip-service to the contrary, is the move away from diversity and tolerance as fundamental American values.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

If they can't put together a jury within a specified time limit your right to the assumption of innocence means that you must be released.

But you are deflecting from the point here. Your right to the presumption of innocence and to have a jury of your peers does require the services of others. If the government wants to prosecute you it must impose service on others in order to uphold your rights.

To allege that is merely "procedural" when the same argument can be made when it comes to denying you your right to free speech or assembly. In order to that the government would have to invoke "procedural" measures.

For you to express your opinion to anybody or nobody requires no contribution or action by anybody else. It costs nobody else anything in time, talent, energy, or any form of property. Now if you choose to express your opinion in a way that disrupts that court proceeding or interferes with the enjoyment of people who have paid to see a movie or play or opera or violates election rules at a polling place, or are maliciously inciting a panic or riot, or are maliciously slandering somebody, then others are within their right to do what is reasonably necessary to require you to cease and desist. That would be their legal right to do..

But nobody should have the right to impose any law or organize any effort to punish you physically or materially or otherwise interfere with your enjoyment of life or ability to earn a livelihood purely because you express an opinion they disagree with or don't like. To hold an unpopular opinion is our unalienable right to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

Another approach would be whether we want a strong central government, even to the point that state and local governments are dissolved--at least one of us has proposed this--

or whether we want to retain the current system that is regularly overridden by the federal government at will--

or whether we want a federal system as the Founders envisioned it.

Madison explained the difference thusly (paraphrased):

The idea of a national government presumes authority over the individual citizens with authority vested in a national legislature. Any local administrative structures are directed and subject to authority of the central government. This places all power in the hands of a very few.

In a federal system, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated responsibilities only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other matters.

So which system do you want for the American people?

 

[dblack]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

I don't know. I think resolving that issue is key, because it's central to the concept of limited government. Indeed, I suspect the reason why some are so reluctant to even recognize the concept is because they don't want to see government limited in that way.

But perhaps if we move on and show the pros and cons of recognizing or not recognizing unalienable rights as these would pertain to other aspects of our American culture and common existence, some might see the wisdom in including the concept in the Constitution regardless of what word or phrase we use to describe it.

Our enumerated rights will of necessity be limited due to the practical impossibility of listing every single right that people will have. But a close scrutiny of the existing Bill of Rights shows, to me anyway, that each one had in mind the recognition and security of the unalienable rights of the people. It is when we interpret them other than in that way that we start running into conflicts about what the Bill of Rights was and was not intended to protect.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm not tied to the word inalienable. If you have a better word or phrase to use that would say it better, let's hear it. I just personally prefer that word because of its historical context, but I'm not inflexible on that.

Otherwise let's agree on the definition of the word as it relates to the suggested Constitutional rewrite--it can be defined within the body of that Constitution.

I've done that. The word is "rights".

We're looking for a word that characterizes rights that stand on their own, that don't require the service of others. You seem reluctant to admit such a distinction. But let me ask you this. Do you see any fundamental difference between a right that is purely a freedom of action (freedom of speech), and one that makes a claim on goods or services (right to healthcare)? Because that's the distinction that we're after here. That's the importance of "inalienable".

We the People have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That right does require the service of others but does that mean that your right doesn't stand by itself? If a jury cannot be found then is your right being denied?

No. They just can't prosecute you. The right to trial by jury, and the general concept due process, is a procedural stipulation; technically not a 'right', but a limitation on government's power to strip you of your rights.

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights.

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I would expect that our little hypothetical constitutional convention here would be pretty unanimous in retaining these kinds of procedural rights for citizens. Whether we would want them extended to non citizens would have to be discussed but I'm pretty sure we would also unanimously mandate decent treatment of non citizens as well.

Everyone under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution is entitled to the same rights. That includes non citizens and illegal aliens. The only rights reserved exclusively for citizens are voting, jury duty and certain elected offices.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?

How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

 

[dblack]

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights.

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on the concept of unalienable rights for the moment as I think discussion of other issues might have a bearing on the mythical final vote when the 'new and improved' Constitution is ready to be signed and sent out for ratification.

Another approach would be whether we want a strong central government, even to the point that state and local governments are dissolved--at least one of us has proposed this--

or whether we want to retain the current system that is regularly overridden by the federal government at will--

or whether we want a federal system as the Founders envisioned it.

Madison explained the difference thusly (paraphrased):

The idea of a national government presumes authority over the individual citizens with authority vested in a national legislature. Any local administrative structures are directed and subject to authority of the central government. This places all power in the hands of a very few.

In a federal system, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated responsibilities only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other matters.

So which system do you want for the American people?

The question is one of jurisdiction. Where does the law begin and end. If every locality can print their own money and arrest someone in any other location and drag them back to face trial without there being barriers to such enforcement there would be chaos.

And that then translates into how do you regulate interstate traffic and commerce.

What you need to promote is the concept of "multiple citizenship". You are a citizen of your local state and a citizen of the federal state. In addition you are a citizen of every other state too because We the People depend upon each other. Each level of citizenship come with benefits and responsibilities. As a local citizen you must be prepared to negotiate and compromise with your fellow citizens of other states so as to reach a mutual understanding of what you want as a federal citizen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's go to something we can all relate to. Would you or would you not favor a mandatory seat belt law imposed at the federal level? Why or why not?

How would such a law be enforced at the federal level? More importantly if we go to a national form of government and do away with the state and city governments?

A purely national government would have to delegate regional authority to the states anyway because otherwise it would be unworkable. The major difference being that the local state authorities would be appointed by the national government rather than elected locally.

The current system is that the federal government mandated that all vehicles must have seat belts but left it up to local authorities to enforce the wearing of them. If there was no benefit to wearing seat belts it would have been an unenforceable law and ignored locally. However since it saved lives it was adopted voluntarily by most reasonable people. (I recall retrofitting seat belts to my own vehicles that never came with them since they were manufactured before the law came into effect.)

 

[Derideo_Te]

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights.

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

 

[dblack]

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights.

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

You can't conceive of destroying things that are innumerable? We can still cite examples of freedoms, as I've done above, even if there are countless such examples.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A trial by a jury of one's peers is currently a citizen's Constitutional right as is the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself--these are not inalienable rights but, as you said, rather procedural rights.

They are inalienable rights because they belong to We the People and cannot be taken away from us without overthrowing the government of the people.

I understand that's the way you see it. But, again, you're using a different definition of "inalienable" than we are. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it makes it difficult to converse if you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

And yes, such things do require participation by others which is why they are something different from inalienable/unalienable rights that are what we do that requires no contribution or participation from any other person.

Where I am going with this is my intention to reinstate those precious unalienable rights that have been eroded and sometimes essentially destroyed in the name of political correctness. I want us to return to a society in which people can be who and what they are, when this requires no participation or contribution from other people, and that they can be who and what they are without fear that the government will punish them for it and/or that some angry mob will organize to hurt them physically or materially purely because they hold a politically incorrect opinion.

Can you enumerate these "precious rights" that you claim have been "eroded" and "essentially destroyed"?

Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc... Basic freedom, by its very nature, isn't 'enumerable'.

In which case how can Foxy claim that they have been eroded and/or destroyed if they cannot even be enumerated?

You can't conceive of destroying things that are innumerable? We can still cite examples of freedoms, as I've done above, even if there are countless such examples.

Let me get this straight, you are claiming that "Freedom of association, freedom of conscience, economic freedom, etc..." have been "eroded and destroyed"?

Please cite examples as to how you believe that to be true for each of the above.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away. CAFE standards have indeed saved some fuel - EXCEPT - in cases where a larger group or family has to take 2 or 3 cars now when it once could get everybody into the same vehicle and it has also greatly increased the cost of automobiles to be out of range of many of the lower income Americans. What would have happened had we allowed the free market to take care of things like that? Would we be worse off? Or better off? We'll never know will we?

And if that kind of federal regulation is deemed to be good, why not federal regulations to dictate what we can and cannot purchase at the grocery store? Force us to buy so much fresh vegetables to offset the bad effects of red meat purchased or some such regulation as that? How do we reconcile the arbitrary dictates of a national government that has the power to benefit itself with regulation or lack thereof and may not actually have our best interests in mind?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should the federal government be given authority to mandate that all automobiles manufactured or sold in America must be equipped with seat belts? As would be the case with requiring UL labels on electrical apparatus, are such laws justified in the interest of the general welfare?

South Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine and Kentucky do not have seat belt laws, not because they oppose seat belts, but because they have ruled that each person has the right to choose what is and is not in his/her own self interest in such matters just as each person has the right to choose to do sky diving or hang gliding or rock climbing or surfing giant waves etc. All 50 states, however, do require safety restraints for children in vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not require safety helmets for adults riding motorcycles but do require them for children.

Why not federal mandates that all cars be equipped with speed governors? A few legislators have proposed that rear view cameras in all cars be made mandatory.

The question always rests on how much control the federal government should be given over the way we choose to live our lives and how arbitrary that control can be.

Driving is not a right but a privilege which is why the federal government can make this laws.

Everyone is actually better off now because they raised CAFE standards. We have more money in our pockets because cars get better gas mileage today then they did 39 years ago. If we were still driving those same gas guzzlers we would be choking on the emissions and cursing at the gas pumps.

So not every government regulation is a bad one.

I'm not discussing whether regulations are good or bad. I am discussing the concept of human liberty and how much of it the federal government should have the right to dictate, control, or take away.

Every time we get down to specifics you deflect.

You were asked to state which rights your claimed to have been "eroded and/or destroyed".

Now you are demanding that limitations on what the federal government can regulate but you refuse to discuss what those limitations would entail in practical terms.

In order for this to work it must be pragmatic. That means taking examples and following them to their logical conclusions.

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

And if you cannot figure out from my posts what limitations more federal power could entail, you really need to focus better.

So again, where do we draw the line on what the federal government can regulate before we have no rights of self determination at all? And for those for whom this is a concern, how do we write a clause into the U.S. Constitution that would restore that self determination to the people?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have not answered your question because it has already been asked and answered and ignored by you numerous times in this thread. So I now see the question itself as a diversionary tactic and prefer to move on.

Can you provide a link showing where I did exactly that?