Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[RKMBrown]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.

Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech. (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)

 

[dcraelin]

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?
Where did the idea of government exist before?

I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.

So family or tribe aren't ideas about something?

didnt say they weren't but I dont get your point

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?
Where did the idea of government exist before?

I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.

Pretty much----the first alternative to beating the shit out of each other to get what we wanted/needed.

kind of a negative way of putting it but ....basically

 

[Asclepias]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

What is this reality in which they don't exist? Would you define it? In other words, what do you mean by reality?

I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's talking about it and neither do you.

Reality encompasses the Subject-Object dichotomy. But don't worry about that, just understand the following.

Ideas in the minds of sentient beings do in fact exist. They are real.

The concern regarding ontological actuality, however, goes to those things that can and do exist in both the rational realm of being and the empirical realm of being.

Natural law and natural rights pertain to that which exists in both realms; therefore, they are actual.

Quantum and I and others have already proven that.

Natural rights precede government, are not derived from government, cannot be transferred to another or even taken away by another.

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The rest is the mere semantics of rationally and emotionally immature minds whose thought processes verge on the edge of psychopathy: persons who understand the boundaries of permitted behavior, i.e., the point at which their innate rights end and where those of others' begin, the essence of natural law and innate rights, but only in terms of the positive and negative consequences of human interaction derived from experience, observation.

 

[dilloduck]

What is this reality in which they don't exist? Would you define it? In other words, what do you mean by reality?

I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's talking about it and neither do you.

Reality encompasses the Subject-Object dichotomy. But don't worry about that, just understand the following.

Ideas in the minds of sentient beings do in fact exist. They are real.

The concern regarding ontological actuality, however, goes to those things that can and do exist in both the rational realm of being and the empirical realm of being.

Natural law and natural rights pertain to that which exists in both realms; therefore, they are actual.

Quantum and I and others have already proven that.

Natural rights precede government, are not derived from government, cannot be transferred to another or even taken away by another.

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The rest is the mere semantics of rationally and emotionally immature minds whose thought processes verge on the edge of psychopathy: persons who understand the boundaries of permitted behavior, i.e., the point at which their innate rights end and where those of others' begin, the essence of natural law and innate rights, but only in terms of the positive and negative consequences of human interaction derived from experience, observation.

So the idea that there are no natural rights also is real. Why don't you just enumerate a few of the so called natural rights that you speak of. I noticed you already declined to name an inalienable right ( unless I just missed it and then I apologize.

Or name an innate right---that would be cool too

 

[gnarlylove]

Sorry for the length of this post, but it, along with the links provided, sums up everything I've argued in one place, answers your concerns, accordingly, long the way, ties up a few loose ends, and encapsulates all of the fundamental principles and themes of natural law.

I appreciate the review. Sadly I had a better more organized reply but was deleted by a single keystroke that closed the page. I wonder why that always happens.

the immanent realm of being is contingent...the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal. That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident

It is not self-evident by any means. Contingency implies relativism. Conditional circumstances imply the subjective. There is no reason to think human animals have access to absolute capacities. By our very nature we are subject in time and space. Therefore we cannot make declarations that transcend time and space with any meaning or weight.

However, universality has definite meaning. When we find certain actions or moral behaviors transcend culture and geography, then we call it universal. This is by no means absolute. It seems like you're using them interchangeably and I want to appeal to your sensible nature by ceasing such a faux-pas. William Lane Craig is a sharp defender of this essential demarcation. Although it seems semantical, words have meanings and we need to stick to them in argumentative prose.

and it is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law proper on which this was nation founded: the classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity’s ethical system of thought....

As handed down to us, its culmination is that which is propounded, principally, by Locke in his Two Treatises of Civil Government and by Sidney in his Discourses Concerning Government in which the ontological justification for natural law proper is predicated on the biblical imperatives concerning the ultimate Origin of natural morality and rights, and those of human conduct and human interaction.

I know Locke very well and am holding that book you reference. But your argument what is (Locke's principles) is what should be is another faux pas. It's technically the normative fallacy. You are offering a description of what is. But there's no good reason to think what is at any particular time is what should be prescribed.

I imagine you are convinced the Christian message is absolute truth and since the US is supposedly founded on these principles, you find this sufficient reason for why they should be. But let me turn your attention to thinks you don't know about Locke and American government.

Locke's concept of private property was taken to logical conclusions in Westward Expansion. Read the following and see if Jesus would agree with private property and its outworking. The Native Americans who had no title or deed to the land, so the colonists swept the land with fierce devastation--all the while claiming to be fulfilling God's purpose with moral fervor.

Alexis de Tocqueville recounts how the US violated no moral principle in genocide of the Indian Persons: "Americans have accomplished this twofold purpose [Native American extermination] ...legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity." I ask you, how is it possible to be doing God's purpose under such inherently immoral acts? Jesus insisted to never resort to violence--as do all spiritual teachings--and rightly so! It doesn't mean violence is never an option but the onus is on the one wielding violence. In this case, the justification was legal etc. which is just absurd given the consequences.

Ayn Rand was famous for excusing cultural and human extermination on the basis that natives have no papers saying they own it. What brutish logic. Do you think it makes sense to deprive people of life and access to streams or land because of the concept of private property? Do you think private property is just "how the world is?" Does drawing up a document with your name on it claiming you own something all of a sudden make it yours? Maybe if you took it with you beyond the grave I'd consider it yours but it's just a tactic, private property is, to use legalisms against natives and the poor landless peasants.


In "The Reasonableness of Christianity" he wrote that "the day labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairy maids" must be told what to think. "The greatest part cannot know, and therefore they must believe." Is this Democracy? By any genuine definition of Democracy, one must be free to make up their minds and have their own free voice heard.

Moreover, ask yourself: does America give the poor a chance to be heard regarding their plight? Say of needing benefits extended or not slashing welfare? Who decides this? It's done by rich elites, literally congress has become full of millionaires. They will continue to vote for their interests and the correlation between the bottom 1/3 of the population is negative or harmful to how congress votes and this is academically reported. See Noam Chomsky for the reference.

Plus many people contemporaneous with Locke, like Hume has rightfully argued against Locke's positions from many angles. Plus Locke thought we had a tabula rasa which is been shown to be entirely false in the area of linguistics, biology and language acquisition.

So I'd argue Jesus would vehemently oppose private property because it clearly is used against the poor to keep them poor. Did Jesus say aim to be rich? No. He lived among the poor and healed the sick. Most declared Christians don't behave at all like Christ. It's trully appalling and I know this profoundly having been one.

The corollary here is that humans beings should not grant rights to mere animals, as such foolishness undermines the liberty of human beings. Animals are recourses or property.

Is this what the Bible means when it says "be good stewards of creation" and to slaughter billions of animals that "chew the cud"? As a sensible Christian, one cannot condone such acts towards holy creation. To an extend survival is necessary, but we've set up a world have commodifies life and sells and buys it like it's an object--not holy. Animals are endowed with the same right to life as human beings.

In biology, we have this:

John Taylor Bonner, a famous biologist, wrote,
While we readily admit that the first organisms were bacteria-like and that the most complex organism of all is our own kind, it is considered bad form to take this as any kind of progression...[One] is flirting with sin if one says a worm is a lower animal and a vertebrate is a higher animal, even though there fossil origins will be found in lower and higher strata.

A beautiful quote denoting the problem of humanity: the ego. By thinking one is special, one affirms an exceptional status to take what they want however they can, often without concern for anything but the self. This meme of only concerning ourselves with our self has created a ruinous cultural virus and fragmented us from others, ecology, and reality. We must replace our egocentric understanding with a empathetic or altruistic approach if we wish to better society and our own lives.

We shouldn't expect to live a good life if we mainly concern ourselves with our wants and needs. Though humanity may operate based on privilege and greed, the subtle essence of the universe does not. Just as it says in the Bible, "God is no respector of persons," meaning God is equally concerned with everyone, no one stands above the rest.

None of the natural rights of man are derived from government; they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by another.
But no one ever loses one's right of self-defense.

In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.

You are no longer making sense. The right to self-defense is absolutely deprived in isolation chambers and prison, jail, handcuffs, poverty etc. One cannot combat the US government, otherwise they are defined as a terrorist and detained without trial and this obviously means they have no self-defense, or some are just killed without warning, some are American citizens under the NDAA (National Defense AA)

You have a very privileged understanding that has never mingled among the poor. I grew up in a low income family but was sheltered from greater reaches of poverty. Then I lived homelessly, as I had no other options, and really came to see what it means. You waxing eloquently on poverty is an utter mystery when you have no idea what American law is about: it advantages the rich, doesn't enforce laws on whites like drugs laws, and always prosecutes the poor, defenseless and supposedly "non-productive" classes. But why are those people not-productive in the first place? Because they have few if any opportunities out of poverty--simply put there are not enough jobs for enough human beings in America. Our manufacturing base has disappeared. They are plenty of fees on being poor that maintains poverty and keeps the workforce insecure: meaning workers don't know if they will have a job the next day and are easily replaced by eager unemployed. Thus they won't ask for better wages, benefits, better conditions etc. and in economic terms this is better, according to Allan Greenspan in the 90s.

Do you think this is Christian? To keep people in their place as our society does? Christianity can be a great tool for spiritual englightenment and was for me but to view it as the absolute truth is scary and gives you the right to terminate other people. Clearly because you think the principles that guided this country up to the present have been tolerable. I say they are the most vile deeds done in history and they were justified on the basis of Christian morals.

But there is a difference between what Christianity actually teaches and how people like you and others understand Christianity in the broader context of society and the world. Furthermore, there is a larger gap between what Christians claim and what Christians do, as with all people. But spritiaul paths are intended to sync these up and having moved away from Christianity and hedonism, both symptoms of the ego, I've been able to find myself much more aware of my actions aligning with morals. It's amazing how taking the ego out of the picture puts Christ or rather, Life or the subtle essence of the universe on center stage and with that being the case, one is able to act in total accord with Christ or the subtle essence of the universe. But it takes work and practice. It isn't easy to stop focusing on the I and the ego and your subjective thoughts. But is worth coming to know and do.

But I dug out my old papers and have a few more thoughts on absolute capacities of human beings that might help convince you further that your position is false.

Rorty says “that the world is out there…is to say…that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do no include human mental states” (Contingency, 5). The assumption that pesters postmodernists is that our feeble minds grasp—through language—the way the world really is. Rorty sums up this concern by saying “Truth…cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist…” (Contingency, 5). Concepts like absolute morality or justice fit in this category too. They supposedly sans time and are waiting to be discovered by humans. The Truth is “out there in other words.

To say that we should drop the idea of Truth as out there waiting to be discovered is not to say that we have discovered that, out there, there is no Truth. It is to say that our purposes would be served best by ceasing to see Truth as a deep matter, as a topic of philosophical interest, or “true” as a term which repays “analysis.” “The nature of Truth” is an unprofitable topic, resembling in this respect “the nature of man” and “the nature of God”…. But this claim about relative profitability, in turn, is just the recommendation that we in fact say little about these topics, and see how we get on (Contingency, 8).

If you want to discuss absolutes more, I have a very persuasive paper on the matter. Let me wrap up by saying in Contingency, Rorty notes in a footnote that Nietzsche quips that “‘what we call ‘Truths’ are just useful lies.’” Derrida engages similarly in saying “‘what we call ‘real’ is not really real.’” He says they are “liable to chares of self-referential inconsistency (Contingency, 8).

Lastly, Foucault also thinks “Truth isn’t outside of power” (Truth and Power interview). I take that to mean Truth is defined by rulers for their benefit. Indeed, the world operates without any checks and balances to keep those underrepresented represented. The rulers are not chosen based on who is the best for the world—they are chosen by their persuasive capacities. Rhetoric and manipulation is all there is to it. Truth is just a grand cover-up of the fact manipulation is it; rulers use Truth to get us to think there is a reason beyond us, beyond her, to believe or behave a certain way. Even that statement is manipulation in an attempt to persuade you. Whoever is in power, as Foucault knows, can make any system, including a life-destroying one. So within society we get the desire of the ruler. This is encouragement to make our desire the reigning one.

Therefore there is not evidence that human language has achieved absolute declarations of Truth. Our truth is a lower case t that does not sans time and space but is rooted in subjective locals and subjective universals. To say anything more is to go beyond one's sensibility.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.

Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.

Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically. A risibly stupid claim.

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.

OP? I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.

No. Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dilloduck]

Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.

M.D. Rawlings

This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Life is not a right. Someone can kill you.

And?

And governments dont give birth to humans.

The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life. If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.

So far, you have excelled at the latter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.

Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech. (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)

Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.

It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1​

 

[dilloduck]

And?

And governments dont give birth to humans.

The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life. If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.

So far, you have excelled at the latter.

The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.

 

[Asclepias]

I'd have to disagree with you M.D. Rawlings. You cant point out an inalienable right without saying that man designated it to be one. You dont have a right to life, liberty, or property without some type of government giving you that right. The fact they can all be taken away is proof they can be given. Inalienable means you cant give or take it. Rights are defined as a license given to you by a government.

 

[Asclepias]

And?

And governments dont give birth to humans.

The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life. If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.

So far, you have excelled at the latter.

Did you read what you just wrote? I bolded it for you so you cant miss it this time. The fact that they said its a right makes it so. The Supreme Court is a branch of the government. The judicial branch to be exact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

You don't have write anything down for it to be granted...

Yes. You do.
For the government to give you something, the mechanism thru which it does so must be written down somewhere within its body of law.
If you believe that the government gave you the right to free speech then you must be able to cite the text that does so.

but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.

The text of the 1st clearly protects the right to free speech that pre-exists the creration of the 1st amendment, and so just as clearly does not grant said right to free speech

 

[dilloduck]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.

It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1​

That's not granting a right. It's prohibiting government from interfering in a behavior that a citizen just up and did with no one's permission at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.

The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.

 

[dilloduck]

I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.

Life is not a right. It is a miracle of nature.

A miracle is, by definition, is not natural.

That said, how does the fact that life is miraculous prove that it is not a right? Especially when I can point to the fact that the Constitution says it is?

The Supreme Court is who you wanna ask. They have determined that a fetus does not have that right.

 

[Asclepias]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

You don't have write anything down for it to be granted...

Yes. You do.
For the government to give you something, the mechanism thru which it does so must be written down somewhere within its body of law.
If you believe that the government gave you the right to free speech then you must be able to cite the text that does so.

but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.

The text of the 1st clearly protects the right to free speech that pre-exists the creration of the 1st amendment, and so just as clearly does not grant said right to free speech

No it doesn't have to be written. Look up the word granted. You dont have a pre-existing right to free speech. Political prisoners the world over will explain this to you in detail. What other text do you need to have cited other than the first amendment? Its an inference that the right is there by virtue of the amendment protecting it. That doesn't mean that it pre-existed. That only proves it is one of the many beliefs that could have been debated in drawing up the document.

 

[Asclepias]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.

You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.

It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1​

Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.