Civil Rights - what are included?

[Coloradomtnman]

You missed the point. You have the right to do anything not forbidden by law, and if it is forbidden, that law must be constitutional. If the government forbids you to do something, constitutionally, it must show an actual legitimate need to do so. Since marriage isn't forbidden, and you are an individual with self-determination to seek happiness and you wish to get married, you have the right to do so. To seek happiness. That is your right and it is explicit in the Declaration of Independence, and in Constitutional case law, and therefore, you have the right to marry.

The Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of citizens. Anything not explicitly forbidden by constitutional law, you have the right to do. Like drink wine and wear hats and get married.

You dont have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

Only as needed to protect the rights of citizens. That's the key.

Rights, property, persons, and to maintain a "flourishing society" I would say. I think the government may intervene if it feels that a community's behavior is such as to be detrimental to good order, whether laws are broken or not. I'm speculating on that last bit and can't think of any positive examples to back it up, but I can think of examples of the opposite.

 

[dblack]

You dont have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

Only as needed to protect the rights of citizens. That's the key.

Rights, property, persons, and to maintain a "flourishing society" I would say.

And I would say you are wrong. I think Jefferson would agree. Government is not there to run society. It's not there to decide what the good life looks like and push us all toward such goals. It's there to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what the good life means and pursue it on our as we see fit, without resorting to violence to achieve our ends.

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.
The government forbids from growing pot in my backyard. Do I have a constitutional right to grow pot in my backyard?

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

Don't play dumb with me, rabbi, I know you're smarter than that. I agree that growing weed in your backyard is very likely not harmful to anyone, but the government (and most Americans, especially your fellow conservatives) would disagree; perceiving it as harmful to society at large.

I dont know what a majority of Americans believe. And dont care either. You maintain that gov't forbids something with good reason based on the Constitution. So I am asking what that is in this case.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

Don't play dumb with me, rabbi, I know you're smarter than that. I agree that growing weed in your backyard is very likely not harmful to anyone, but the government (and most Americans, especially your fellow conservatives) would disagree; perceiving it as harmful to society at large.

I dont know what a majority of Americans believe. And dont care either. You maintain that gov't forbids something with good reason based on the Constitution. So I am asking what that is in this case.

And I'm answering you that the government perceives you growing weed as harmful to society at large. Therefore, the government perceives it has good reason to enforce the law federally enacted by a body of duly elected representatives and another law enacted in your state by either the legislature or through a referendum. The government isn't infallible.

I don't agree with the government in this nor with the law, but that's why we use a legislature to pass laws and a judiciary to address unconstitutional laws. If you really believe that your right to grow weed has been unconstitutionally abridged file a suit. If the court finds for you, your rights will be reinstated. If not, appeal. I hope you win.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

Don't play dumb with me, rabbi, I know you're smarter than that. I agree that growing weed in your backyard is very likely not harmful to anyone, but the government (and most Americans, especially your fellow conservatives) would disagree; perceiving it as harmful to society at large.

I dont know what a majority of Americans believe. And dont care either. You maintain that gov't forbids something with good reason based on the Constitution. So I am asking what that is in this case.

And I'm answering you that the government perceives you growing weed as harmful to society at large. Therefore, the government perceives it has good reason to enforce the law federally enacted by a body of duly elected representatives and another law enacted in your state by either the legislature or through a referendum. The government isn't infallible.

I don't agree with the government in this nor with the law, but that's why we use a legislature to pass laws and a judiciary to address unconstitutional laws. If you really believe that your right to grow weed has been unconstitutionally abridged file a suit. If the court finds for you, your rights will be reinstated. If not, appeal. I hope you win.

You're making shit up. Where in the Constitution does the gov't have the authority to outlaw someone growing weed in his backyard?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No, because it is forbidden by law.

So what is the actual constitutional need to do that, which you claim gov't has?

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

Only as needed to protect the rights of citizens. That's the key.

Rights, property, persons, and to maintain a "flourishing society" I would say.

And I would say you are wrong. I think Jefferson would agree. Government is not there to run society. It's not there to decide what the good life looks like and push us all toward such goals. It's there to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what the good life means and pursue it on our as we see fit, without resorting to violence to achieve our ends.

I didn't say it was always Constitutional for the government to do what it thinks necessary to maintain civil order, just that I thought it might act in such a case. Notice I used quotes about the term in the earlier post. And Hamilton might agree with the use of government in such a way. Jerfferson might not, but he might be okay with the outcome.

I thought of a positive example that demonstrates that, when the government stepped in to do what it thought was necessary to maintain a "flourishing society". Teddy Roosevelt and the coal strike of 1902. The President forced an agreement between the coal barons and the union when the office had no Constitutional authority to do so.

Not saying it was right or wrong, or even unconstitutional. Just sayin'.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

Don't play dumb with me, rabbi, I know you're smarter than that. I agree that growing weed in your backyard is very likely not harmful to anyone, but the government (and most Americans, especially your fellow conservatives) would disagree; perceiving it as harmful to society at large.

I dont know what a majority of Americans believe. And dont care either. You maintain that gov't forbids something with good reason based on the Constitution. So I am asking what that is in this case.

And I'm answering you that the government perceives you growing weed as harmful to society at large. Therefore, the government perceives it has good reason to enforce the law federally enacted by a body of duly elected representatives and another law enacted in your state by either the legislature or through a referendum. The government isn't infallible.

I don't agree with the government in this nor with the law, but that's why we use a legislature to pass laws and a judiciary to address unconstitutional laws. If you really believe that your right to grow weed has been unconstitutionally abridged file a suit. If the court finds for you, your rights will be reinstated. If not, appeal. I hope you win.

You're making shit up. Where in the Constitution does the gov't have the authority to outlaw someone growing weed in his backyard?

The better question is where in the Constitution does it limit the authority of the government to not outlaw someone growing weed in his backyard? The government can do whatever it wants unless limited by the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

Non sequitur. If you want to argue God exists, and created Rights, please provide the evidence.

Even if true, it is man who enforces the Rights or not, no matter their source during his or her life time.

Oh, and take you childish misuse of the President of the United States name and shove it up your racist ass, if there's enough room being that's where your head is.

That job title is no more or less important than any other, and just because you temporarily hold the job, doesn't mean you're doing the job or deserve any respect when you're not. So take your self righteous indignation and follow your own advice.

 

[OKTexas]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

Perhaps, but without a government to enforce them, it doesn't mean much. In nature might makes right.

Another far left drone proving they do not understand the Constitution..

Another dilettante ^^^ pretending to be an authority on COTUS - The Crazy Right Wing memberships' claims are opinions based on opinions.

You regressives live and breath for opinions, if you can't get what you want at the ballot box, you run to judges seeking their opinions. Judicial tyranny is tyranny none the less.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

No, rights cannot be abridged by the people.

Our rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, or rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government reflecting the will of the people, consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

And when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those so disadvantaged are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, where measures inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated.

As for the Ninth Amendment:

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

Ninth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

This is why the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI - “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

And here's an example of the stupidity expressed by most conservatives protected by the inalienable rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Progressives believe they have the RIGHT to the labor and property of their fellow citizens, that's gotta be one of these unmentioned rights, correct?

of course it is that pretty much sums up the DNC platform

 

[OKTexas]

Notice, the crazy right wings cannot answer the question, for others sidetracked by CrusaderFrank and other screwballs, here is the questions:

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

If you have a right to life, you have a right to defend it by any means necessary. You have a right to sustain yourself through the fruits of your labor.

If you have true liberty you have a right to conduct your affairs as you see fit, free from interference of others or government. We actually had that when this country was first established. Liberty has since been attacked and diminished to a point where there's just not much left. Every time government uses it's monopoly on force to tell you what you must or can't do, there is a loss of liberty.

The pursuit of happiness is just a compilation of the first two because without them there is no happiness.

There are a myriad of other rights that can be inferred in the above and it's supposed to be the governments job to protect them, not constantly chip them away.

There is that what you was looking for.

 

[OKTexas]

To be able to talk about Jesus publically - and witness Christianity - without retribution.

Both of which are presently protected, as well as publicly speaking about and witnessing to Buddha, YHWH, Allah, or that there is no God or gods.

Christians, no matter how much they may secretly want it, are not being persecuted in this country - which is predominantly Christian in it's populace and even more so in the individuals who govern it.

probably not for long however....

Really? From my perspective the 1st Amendment has lasted a long time without any fundamental changes in it's interpretation, and seems like with a predominantly Christian (and religious) majority, and ~20% of the population with no religious affiliation all supporting the 1st Amendment, and a government made up almost exclusively of Christians, that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are pretty much here to stay.

Unless, of course, you mean Christians potentially setting up a theocracy. Then, yeah, the 1st Amendment would be fundamentally changed. That's why we, as a secular nation, must be the bulwark against any threat to the Constitution and liberty, such as a theocracy set up under any religion would be.

You can't say religion is here to stay if government at any level can prevent you form making a living at your chosen field and conducting yourself according to your faith. That is government defining acceptable religion and a denial of liberty, which is prohibited by the 1st Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

It's already been attempted, in Houston. they told ministers they had to submit copies of their sermons when the HEOR ordinance was a hot topic.

 

[OKTexas]

There is no right to same sex marriage. It exists nowhere in the Constitution.

Which aren't how Rights work. They don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Marriage of any kind isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.

And if it is a right then it is one referred to in the 10thA as being a power of the states.

It is a Right, and therefore can not be abridged by the States.

Where do you find this "right"?

The Right to marry?

It is a human right and I would think that is sufficient, but otherwise consult Constitutional case law. It has been upheld numerous times.

Marriage was always a religious ceremony until government insinuated itself into it.

 

[OKTexas]

Marriage is a contract.

Only after government made it so, before that it was a religious ceremony to symbolically join two people as one.

 

[OKTexas]

Some say that marriage isn't in the constitution.

Well the case before the supreme court wasn't about marriage in the constitution. What it was about what is in the constitution.

Which right there in the 14th amendment it clearly says that everyone has to be treated equally under the law.

Homosexuals were not being treated equally under the law so they did what all Americans have a right to do.

Take it to court. Homosexuals kept winning because there isn't anything in our constitution that says the government has the right to discriminate against homosexuals.

Please all you homophobes show me where it says in the constitution that the government can fragrantly discriminate against homosexuals.

Show me where any man or woman was being discriminated against, they had the same rights as any other man or woman in the country, there was no discrimination, period.

 

[OKTexas]

The government has a legitimate constitutional need to maintain civil order.

How does my growing a plant in my backyard threaten civil order?

Don't play dumb with me, rabbi, I know you're smarter than that. I agree that growing weed in your backyard is very likely not harmful to anyone, but the government (and most Americans, especially your fellow conservatives) would disagree; perceiving it as harmful to society at large.

I dont know what a majority of Americans believe. And dont care either. You maintain that gov't forbids something with good reason based on the Constitution. So I am asking what that is in this case.

And I'm answering you that the government perceives you growing weed as harmful to society at large. Therefore, the government perceives it has good reason to enforce the law federally enacted by a body of duly elected representatives and another law enacted in your state by either the legislature or through a referendum. The government isn't infallible.

I don't agree with the government in this nor with the law, but that's why we use a legislature to pass laws and a judiciary to address unconstitutional laws. If you really believe that your right to grow weed has been unconstitutionally abridged file a suit. If the court finds for you, your rights will be reinstated. If not, appeal. I hope you win.

You're making shit up. Where in the Constitution does the gov't have the authority to outlaw someone growing weed in his backyard?

According to the supremes the commerce clause, which is bullshit unless you intend to sell it across state lines.

 

[Tilly]

So you don't foresee sermons being monitored in Churches in the future

Wow are you paranoid.

Here's a clue for you, people just don't care.

Americans don't care what your preachers say in their sermons.

No one is out to get you, seek help. It's out there.

Lots of Americans care.