Constitutional Law IS the Law of the Land AND comes from the same God of Nature

[konradv]

In nature there is no law except that the strong take what they want without consequence. The Constitution is supposed to create a society in opposition to natural law, NOT in support of it.

The Constitution is the framework of our System of Government.

It doesn't create a society.

Without government of some sort, there's no such thing as a civil society.

 

[konradv]

Prove to me that God has EVER defended any rights and I'll accept that those rights were given by God.

Any and all rights that you think you have were given by to you by your fellow Monkeys.

Proof? Any and all rights a Monkey has are defended by Monkeys and Monkeys alone. When was the last time you saw the finger of God defending the rights of a weak Monkey against the will of strong?

If God was the source of rights, police and government would be irrelevant.

I used the term God to mean whatever your beliefs want it to. My point is the Constitution doesn't grant us Rights, it reaffirms Rights we already had.

Without a government of some sort to back them up, the rights you think you already have are ephemeral and extend only as far as you can personally enforce them.

 

[tjvh]

Prove to me that God has EVER defended any rights and I'll accept that those rights were given by God.

Any and all rights that you think you have were given by to you by your fellow Monkeys.

Proof? Any and all rights a Monkey has are defended by Monkeys and Monkeys alone. When was the last time you saw the finger of God defending the rights of a weak Monkey against the will of strong?

If God was the source of rights, police and government would be irrelevant.

I used the term God to mean whatever your beliefs want it to. My point is the Constitution doesn't grant us Rights, it reaffirms Rights we already had.

No. It doesn't. It established a framework under which rights can be created. But those rights do not exist on their own. They exist only in the context of the community and only with the agreement of the community.

Before the Constitution came along and you attacked me, I damn sure did have the Right to defend myself. The Constitution reaffirms that Right, it doesn't grant it.

 

[tjvh]

Prove to me that God has EVER defended any rights and I'll accept that those rights were given by God.

Any and all rights that you think you have were given by to you by your fellow Monkeys.

Proof? Any and all rights a Monkey has are defended by Monkeys and Monkeys alone. When was the last time you saw the finger of God defending the rights of a weak Monkey against the will of strong?

If God was the source of rights, police and government would be irrelevant.

I used the term God to mean whatever your beliefs want it to. My point is the Constitution doesn't grant us Rights, it reaffirms Rights we already had.

Without a government of some sort to back them up, the rights you think you already have are ephemeral and extend only as far as you can personally enforce them.

Irrelevant. People had Rights long before the governments came along, whether they chose to enforce those Rights was entirely up to them.

 

[tjvh]

In nature there is no law except that the strong take what they want without consequence. The Constitution is supposed to create a society in opposition to natural law, NOT in support of it.

The Constitution is the framework of our System of Government.

It doesn't create a society.

Without government of some sort, there's no such thing as a civil society.

You think we need government to be civil, I think we need morals to be civil... Big difference comrade.

 

[ogibillm]

11. Thou shalt have a bicameral legislature

 

[konradv]

I used the term God to mean whatever your beliefs want it to. My point is the Constitution doesn't grant us Rights, it reaffirms Rights we already had.

Without a government of some sort to back them up, the rights you think you already have are ephemeral and extend only as far as you can personally enforce them.

Irrelevant. People had Rights long before the governments came along, whether they chose to enforce those Rights was entirely up to them.

It's quite relevant. Without a government you can't prove man had any rights at all, besides those he could enforce on his own, i.e. very few.

 

[konradv]

The Constitution is the framework of our System of Government.

It doesn't create a society.

Without government of some sort, there's no such thing as a civil society.

You think we need government to be civil, I think we need morals to be civil... Big difference comrade.

Without government, in your case a theocracy, how are those morals to be enforced, asshat?

 

[konradv]

I used the term God to mean whatever your beliefs want it to. My point is the Constitution doesn't grant us Rights, it reaffirms Rights we already had.

No. It doesn't. It established a framework under which rights can be created. But those rights do not exist on their own. They exist only in the context of the community and only with the agreement of the community.

Before the Constitution came along and you attacked me, I damn sure did have the Right to defend myself. The Constitution reaffirms that Right, it doesn't grant it.

Of course you did, but if I won, you'd have no rights at all. You'd either be dead or my slave.

 

[PratchettFan]

I used the term God to mean whatever your beliefs want it to. My point is the Constitution doesn't grant us Rights, it reaffirms Rights we already had.

No. It doesn't. It established a framework under which rights can be created. But those rights do not exist on their own. They exist only in the context of the community and only with the agreement of the community.

Before the Constitution came along and you attacked me, I damn sure did have the Right to defend myself. The Constitution reaffirms that Right, it doesn't grant it.

Did you really? And if I were a slave owner and you were a slave, did you have the right to defend yourself? If I were the land owner and you owed your living to my pleasure, did you have the right? Don't be naïve. If your neighbors decide you no longer have rights, you no longer have them. If you don't believe me, explain this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...bramSmith.jpg/275px-ThomasShippAbramSmith.jpg

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Constitution is the framework of our System of Government.

It doesn't create a society.

Without government of some sort, there's no such thing as a civil society.

You think we need government to be civil, I think we need morals to be civil... Big difference comrade.

Being civil or being an asshole is every Monkeys personal choice of attitude, and choice in attitude is the one natural right Monkeys do have.

Civil Law and government are there to enforce behavior. Morals and attitude matter not if a Monkey can behave him/her self as per a flexible and reasonable and agreed upon code of Civil Law.

That's why Civil Law must remain flexible, and up-to-date with current technology and culture. That's why codifying a religion, especially a stuffy old religion based on one of the ancient stories in to Civil Law will destroy a pluralistic nation.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that the religious right seems finally to be failing in their Christian political agenda.

All the 20th Century proved is that America was not nearly as pluralistic as She thought she was. Even after the awe inspiring community effort of winning World War II, if you didn't come home a white Christian, you came home a second class citizen. There were, to say the least, still a few bugs in the system as evidenced by more than just the 60's.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...
and were given to the Founding Fathers to put natural
laws in writing, from the same Divine Source,
God of Nature, who is the same God in the Bible.

It doesn't say that in the Constitution or the Bible. So you're full of crap.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is the framework of our System of Government.

It doesn't create a society.

Without government of some sort, there's no such thing as a civil society.

You think we need government to be civil, I think we need morals to be civil... Big difference comrade.

Law is the cornerstone of a civil society, as 'morality' cannot be legislated.

The law safeguards society from both the excesses of government and that of the individual; civil law for the former, criminal law for the latter. It is incumbent upon both government and the individual to function within the confines of the law, and failing to do so, both must be prepared to suffer the consequences.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The law safeguards society from both the excesses of government and that of the individual; civil law for the former, criminal law for the latter.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Without government of some sort, there's no such thing as a civil society.

You think we need government to be civil, I think we need morals to be civil... Big difference comrade.

Law is the cornerstone of a civil society, as 'morality' cannot be legislated.

The law safeguards society from both the excesses of government and that of the individual; civil law for the former, criminal law for the latter. It is incumbent upon both government and the individual to function within the confines of the law, and failing to do so, both must be prepared to suffer the consequences.

^Bump

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You think we need government to be civil, I think we need morals to be civil... Big difference comrade.

Law is the cornerstone of a civil society, as 'morality' cannot be legislated.

The law safeguards society from both the excesses of government and that of the individual; civil law for the former, criminal law for the latter. It is incumbent upon both government and the individual to function within the confines of the law, and failing to do so, both must be prepared to suffer the consequences.

^Bump

Criminal laws can safeguard society from excesses of government and civil law can safeguard from excesses of the individual - the statement doesn't make sense.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Law is the cornerstone of a civil society, as 'morality' cannot be legislated.

The law safeguards society from both the excesses of government and that of the individual; civil law for the former, criminal law for the latter. It is incumbent upon both government and the individual to function within the confines of the law, and failing to do so, both must be prepared to suffer the consequences.

^Bump

Criminal laws can safeguard society from excesses of government and civil law can safeguard from excesses of the individual - the statement doesn't make sense.

Potato, potato...

When the freedom and security that is promised by the US Constitution truly filters through the entire community of Monkeys called 'America', in all her pluralistic and diverse glory, allowing each and every American to tap in to the potential they're born with, Momma's little bastards have the stars within their grasp. Quibbling over semantics and interpretations of words seems silly.

I'll applaud any statement that supports Civil Law trumping Religious Law when they conflict.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

^Bump

Criminal laws can safeguard society from excesses of government and civil law can safeguard from excesses of the individual - the statement doesn't make sense.

Potato, potato...

Potato and potato are the same word - civil and criminal are not.

When the freedom and security that is promised by the US Constitution

The Constitution does not make any promises.

Quibbling over semantics and interpretations of words seems silly.
I'll applaud any statement that supports Civil Law trumping Religious Law when they conflict.

But you don't even know what "civil law" means - to find out would be quibbling over semantics in your book - so what are you really saying?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Two words: Literary allegory.

You're going to miss the forest if you spend all your energy analyzing the bark on the individual trees, Bro'.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What I'm saying is that there are two sources of the rules we live under: Civil Law and Religious Law.

Civil Law is the rules we have that are subject to the political will of the voters in any given moment in time, Religious Law is based on current interpretation of rules for life as gleaned from one or more of the ancient stories.

Sometimes they agree: Thou shall not kill. / Murder is illegal.
Sometimes they don't: Thou shall have no other Gods before Me. / Freedom of worship is a right.

When they don't agree, I'd like to see Civil Law trump Religious Law every time.


(Insert your preferred Deity here) bless the Muslims and their very understandable example: Sharia Law.