Curbing Judicial Activism

[Nemo]

No. You are not born with any rights. All rights exist by law, and the law alone. There are no rights without law; no rights contrary to law; no rights superior to law. That is the way it is under the Constitution. We live under the "rule of law".

 

[saveliberty]

No. You are not born with any rights. All rights exist by law, and the law alone. There are no rights without law; no rights contrary to law; no rights superior to law. That is the way it is under the Constitution. We live under the "rule of law".

Let's take a wee look at the bold printed ones shall we?

We had laws which segregated blacks from whites correct? What exactly happened to those laws when they came up against a RIGHT? Laws are struck down by our rights enumerated in the Constitution by the Supreme Court frequently. Note I said enumerated and not given. Your Progressive hackery is rampant.

 

[Nemo]

Ask yourself when Blacks got their rights? Or, more close to home, when did women get their rights? What was the source of those rights? By what means were they implemented? By what means are they secured?

If you truthfully answer these simple questions, your will come to the ineluctable conclusion that our rights are provided and protected by law.

 

[saveliberty]

Ask yourself when Blacks got their rights? Or, more close to home, when did women get their rights? What was the source of those rights? By what means were they implemented? By what means are they secured?

If you truthfully answer these simple questions, your will come to the ineluctable conclusion that our rights are provided and protected by law.

They had those rights the whole time. Laws prevented them from being exercised.

 

[saveliberty]

Your refusal to answer my questions is very telling.

 

[Nemo]

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
-Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31, 1776

"As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our
struggle has loosened the bonds of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians, and negroes grew insolent to their masters. But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe, more numerous and powerful than all the rest, were grown discontented.–This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out.

"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full atitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight; I am sure every good politician would plot, as long as he would against despotism, empire, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, or ochlocracy."
Response of John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776
. . .

What rights did women have when the Constitution was ratified? Women were generally denied basic rights; they could not vote, own property, keep their own earnings, or even custody of their children. Did the founding fathers forget women when they drafted the Constitution? When did women get their rights in the United States? What was the source of those rights? Is there not even now a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of sex?

 

[saveliberty]

The source was being a human being, it was enumerated as a Constitutional Amendment. Laws kept women from owning property for a time. Laws were changed not rights. Did you have the right to practice a religion prior to a law? Could you assemble without a law? You are desparately trying to give government a power they do not nor should have. Why? The only possible reason is to promote an advantage in government which is simply a form of tyranny. You really need to reconsider what the Constitution actually is and understand terms better.

 

[saveliberty]

and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
-Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31, 1776

Why? Because rights are more powerful than law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution clearly states that all rights not enumerated fall to the states and individual. No "interpretation" needed. It is also an improper debate technique to base a point on assumption.

Nonsense.

The Constitution's case law clearly states that the Founding Document affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution clearly states that all rights not enumerated fall to the states and individual. No "interpretation" needed. It is also an improper debate technique to base a point on assumption.

Nonsense.

The Constitution's case law clearly states that the Founding Document affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

"...case law...."????


I typed 'moron' into my GPS, and guess what?

I'm at your front door!

 

[Nemo]

Rights do not exist without law. Under the Constitution, there can be no extralegal rights, for it is the law that reigns supreme. The Constitution is the foundation of our government and the font of our rights and liberty by law. The Constitution established the United States as a nation of laws, not men. We live not independently, but under the rule of law. There are no rights - not one - that are not subject to law.

 

[saveliberty]

Rights do not exist without law. Under the Constitution, there can be no extralegal rights, for it is the law that reigns supreme. The Constitution is the foundation of our government and the font of our rights and liberty by law. The Constitution established the United States as a nation of laws, not men. We live not independently, but under the rule of law. There are no rights - not one - that are not subject to law.

Laws modify rights, know why?

Rights exist prior to law.

Some will use their rights to enfringe upon others.

I am Catholic or Methodist, what law am I specifically subject to?

I certainly do live independent of you. There was this little part of me that thought maybe you would research the Constitution from a nonprogressive source. Instead you buried yourself even deeper.

 

[saveliberty]

This phrase you like to repeat, rule of law. Do some reading, know what judges do? APPLY the rule of law. Know what Justices do? APPLY the Constitution.

 

[saveliberty]

No. There are no rights that are not subject to law. You cannot name one. There are no God-given rights, no natural rights, no inherent rights, no unalienable rights. None. There are only legal right5s - rights provided and protected by law.

According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.

Unalienable / Inalienable

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.[1] The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition of law (n)
Bing Dictionary
law[ law ]1.binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority
2.piece of legislation: an act passed by a legislature or similar body
3.legal system: the body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable by established process

Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."

Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nemo]

No, no no! Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. Likewise, it may come as a surprise for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "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. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.

 

[saveliberty]

Denial of history, construction and definitions does not make you correct. Since you refuse to understand or learn any of this further discussion is not productive. Others will clearly see the fallacies you cling to.

 

[saveliberty]

For the rest of you so interested, here is an opportunity to learn about the Constitution that is offered at no charge:

https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/register

 

[Nemo]

Name one right that is not subject to law.

 

[saveliberty]

Name one right that is not subject to law.

Name one law that doesn't flow from a right.

Name one law that grants you a right (note I didn't say priviledge).

Rights are modified when they take the right of another, we call these things laws.

 

[Nemo]

The First Amendment