Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.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.
Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
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.
Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.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.)
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.
It does, expecially if you want to argue that you are being given something that would not otherwise have. There must be a legal mechanism for a grantof anything by the government; you know you can find no such things and so will choose to be wrong in tis regard as you know its the only leg you have to stand on.No it doesn't have to be written.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.
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 speechbut if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
Yes, expecially in contrast to the word "protected".Look up the word granted.
You have thus far been unable to prove any such thing, especially in your inability to cite any sort of text that grants it.You dont have a pre-existing right to free speech
So? All this means is their government has legally taken that right away, or refused to protect it. Either way, it does not prove that the right does not exist absent a grat by the government,Political prisoners the world over will explain this to you in detail
As noted above, compare and contrast the definitions of "grant" and "protect".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.
Given that the language protects, not grants the right, the right must already exist in order for it to be protected - thus, it necessaroly pre-exists the 1st amendment.That doesn't mean that it pre-existed.
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.
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.
Under certain circumstances, any and every right may be taken away.So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.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.
Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
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.
Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.
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.
Under certain circumstances, any and every right may be taken away.So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.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.
I thought everyone knew this.
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.
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.
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.
They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues.
Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?
The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.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.
Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
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.
Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.
Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter. They transgressed on another persons given right to life. Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.
The Supreme Court is who you wanna ask. They have determined that a fetus does not have that right.
They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues.
Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?
They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.
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.
Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right.
Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?
Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.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.)
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.
So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.
Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.
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.
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.
Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.
But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.
