Do our rights come with a responsibility?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seems like only Obama and his administration has a right to ignore laws.

What laws are those?

How about the law that says Obama can't appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the senate?

Also the law that says government will not infringe on your right to practice your religion.

As with laws passed by Congress, actions by the Chief Executive are subject to judicial review, such as recess appointments.

With regard to religious expression and the First Amendment, again, no right is absolute, as there are legitimate restrictions placed on religious practice, most notably the Constitutional requirement that church and state remain separate.

 

[bripat9643]

What laws are those?

How about the law that says Obama can't appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the senate?

Also the law that says government will not infringe on your right to practice your religion.

As with laws passed by Congress, actions by the Chief Executive are subject to judicial review, such as recess appointments.

That's like saying the police can arrest you after you rob a bank, so it's OK to rob banks.

With regard to religious expression and the First Amendment, again, no right is absolute, as there are legitimate restrictions placed on religious practice, most notably the Constitutional requirement that church and state remain separate.

That's a restriction on government, not religion.

 

[Meathead]

Seems like only Obama and his administration has a right to ignore laws.

What laws are those?

They are those embedded in the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The people have the responsibility to understand that no right is absolute, that the state is empowered to restrict or preempt a right given a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the responsibility of each citizen to safeguard his rights by seeking relief in court when he determines his rights have been violated.

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The people have the responsibility to understand that no right is absolute, that the state is empowered to restrict or preempt a right given a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the responsibility of each citizen to safeguard his rights by seeking relief in court when he determines his rights have been violated.

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

That 'danger' was best left handled in a civil court, not a criminal one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about the law that says Obama can't appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the senate?

You really need to read our Constitution.

Where does it say that Obama can appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the Senate?

Also the law that says government will not infringe on your right to practice your religion.

So, if you had your way the sacrifice of young virgins would be a right, correct?

No one has a right to commit murder. We are talking about forcing religious institutions to supply birth control to their employees. That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Nonsense.

Employers aren’t being ‘forced’ to use birth control, there’s no First Amendment violation. Employers paying the premiums of their employees’ health insurance is a form on compensation, as with a wage, salary, or comp time. The Commerce Clause clearly authorizes Congress to regulate all forms of compensation, including payments for health insurance.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The people have the responsibility to understand that no right is absolute, that the state is empowered to restrict or preempt a right given a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the responsibility of each citizen to safeguard his rights by seeking relief in court when he determines his rights have been violated.

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

Explain what clear and present danger allows New York to restrict magazines to 7 rounds? Or allows the Federal Government to demand registration of fire arms or even 100 percent back ground checks?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about the law that says Obama can't appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the senate?

Also the law that says government will not infringe on your right to practice your religion.

As with laws passed by Congress, actions by the Chief Executive are subject to judicial review, such as recess appointments.

That's like saying the police can arrest you after you rob a bank, so it's OK to rob banks.

With regard to religious expression and the First Amendment, again, no right is absolute, as there are legitimate restrictions placed on religious practice, most notably the Constitutional requirement that church and state remain separate.

That's a restriction on government, not religion.

That's like saying the police can arrest you after you rob a bank, so it's OK to rob banks.

That makes no sense.

That one is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to due process before being subject to his loss of freedom or other punitive measure is not license to commit a crime.

That's a restriction on government, not religion.

It's a restriction on religion to the extent that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment places a restriction on government endorsement or unwarranted involvement concerning religion, such as prayer in public schools, an unlawful conjoining of church and state. Disallowing the state from promoting religion is not an infringement on religious expression, nor a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

Religion may be restricted where it may not be used to avoid criminal prosecution, for example, where claiming use of an illegal drug is part of one’s religious dogma. See: Employment Division v. Smith (1990).

 

[dblack]

I couldn't make heads or tails out of the poll options, so I didn't answer. But, to address the opening question:

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Well, the Constitution doesn't give us any rights. It tasks government with the job of protecting as much of our freedom as it can. As far as rights being abused, it's not possible, by definition (ie no one has a "right" to violate someone else's rights). Regardless of whether it's a "right", it is possible for a person to violate someone else's rights, intentionally or not, and that's why we have government and a system of laws - to resolve such disputes without violence.

If you're asking "do we have a responsibility to avoid stepping on the rights of others" - absolutely. In addition, if we expect to remain free to think and act for ourselves, we must accept accountability for the outcomes of our decisions.

If you're asking, "do we owe society a debt in exchange for our freedom", absolutely not. Freedom is a gift we grant to each other voluntarily by agreeing to respect our mutual rights and by following the laws enforced by government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Do our rights come with a responsibility?

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

do ordain and establish this Constitution


well, the Constitution does not specifically say just how the Constitution should be administered, just that it is ordained and established ... "in Order to", that must be where the rights may be abused and where Responsibility becomes inherent.

Very thoughtful post.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

How about voting rights? Shouldn't they also come with responsibilities?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

Explain what clear and present danger allows New York to restrict magazines to 7 rounds? Or allows the Federal Government to demand registration of fire arms or even 100 percent back ground checks?

That’s an argument for advocates of such restrictions to make.

Reasonable restrictions with regard to the Second Amendment would include disallowing convicted felons from owning firearms and the prohibition of the possession of weapons deemed ‘dangerous and unusual,’ such as RPGs and sawed-off shotguns. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

 

[dblack]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

How about voting rights? Shouldn't they also come with responsibilities?

There's only one responsibility that comes with rights - the responsibility to respect the rights of others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

How about voting rights? Shouldn't they also come with responsibilities?

They come with the responsibilities of all other rights: that it’s incumbent upon each citizen to protect his civil rights from unwarranted government excess.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The people have the responsibility to understand that no right is absolute, that the state is empowered to restrict or preempt a right given a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the responsibility of each citizen to safeguard his rights by seeking relief in court when he determines his rights have been violated.

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

That is not an example of "Governmental Interest". It is an example of how the exercise of a right can infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How about the law that says Obama can't appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the senate?

You really need to read our Constitution.

Where does it say that Obama can appoint cabinet members without the advice and consent of the Senate?

Article II, sec. 2, clause 3

Also the law that says government will not infringe on your right to practice your religion.

So, if you had your way the sacrifice of young virgins would be a right, correct?

No one has a right to commit murder. We are talking about forcing religious institutions to supply birth control to their employees. That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

So, you admit the government has a legitimate right to infringe on others right to practice their religion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

How about voting rights? Shouldn't they also come with responsibilities?

Yep, and they do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

How about voting rights? Shouldn't they also come with responsibilities?

Yep, and they do.

Well if that we true obama would not have won the first time and most definitely the second time. congress would be gutted and the senate would have a major overhaul
People think they have a right to vote but show no responsibility for the way they voted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Horseshit. Where does the Constitution say that a "governmental interest" can trump any right?

There are many examples.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is among the first and best known by Americans concerning restrictions on speech:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used ...create a clear and present danger.

That is not an example of "Governmental Interest". It is an example of how the exercise of a right can infringe upon the rights of others.

Yes, it is an example of a governmental interest.

The interest is preventing injury and possible death resulting from the panic. The person criminally prosecuted for starting the panic would not be able to claim a First Amendment defense.