Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Your cconcession, acceptted.

NONE was given.

Rights are not granted by anyone, especially the state.

So, the right to sue someone for helping another to get an abortion is a lie?

Disagree?
Cite the law that grants you the right to free speech.

Ratified in 1791.
When Virginia approved the amendment(s), it became US law.
Just like the other 9.

I accept you concession in advance.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Your creator - whether or not you believe your creator is God or nature. The rights are natural rights.

But that is what a person that was creating a government told you at the time.
If they were "natural" all the countries of the world would have these rights.

How can the government grant rights?

They can grant them and take them away, through votes.

Where do they get that power?

Elections or appointments.

Are they born above us?

Of course.

Royalty?

They sure think so.

 

[Abatis]

That sounds nice, "that all power originally resides in the people and "We the People" created government".
That was the original principle and was true for a long time.

And remains today.

Rights that can't be taken away without a just cause. . . .

That didn't even make sense when Jefferson included it because the Africans and the American Indians were denied without just cause.

So, as I thought, your philosophy of US federal governmental authority does not allow you to recognize and/or apply, the actual definition of "unalienable rights".

That's what is stated.
Not true anymore, enumerated rights were being expanded beyond retained rights, almost as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution because the government was being expanded with different departments and agencies that addressed different issues that came up.

Huh? . . . "enumerated rights" expanding beyond "retained rights"?

The express enumeration of powers limits them, as SCOTUS said:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated.​

​

The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

You ridicule and dismiss the inviolate, unalterable and thus permanent nature of principles, you also mock the idea that committing powers to writing and the ratification of that strict expression becomes fixed rules for government operation. It is obvious you support and believe the distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers has been abolished.

.

 

[Abatis]

That's why the constitution was amended 27 times and SCOTUS decisions falling one way or the other.

The only amendment I can think of that expanded powers was the 18th . . .

The fact is obvious and undeniable that the federal government understood that whatever, "unspecified “implied” powers" you imagine to exist, could not be massaged and milked to allow Congress to ban intoxicating liquors . . .

The existence of the 18th Amendment belies your theory and extinguishes the illegitimate idea that the federal government can just do whatever it claims benefits the general welfare, or whatever bullshit being pushed at a particular time . . . e.g, gun violence is a "public health crisis" so "we" don't need to trouble ourselves with that dumb, antiquated 2ndA / right to keep and bear arms.

Sure it does, when the 10th was written, 13 states were in existence, as the country expanded, states tried different rules that infringed for or against people's power or rights, decisions were made by the courts or federal government that gave or stopped those actions.

Again, the federal Bill of Rights was no impediment to state action until (in theory) the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Soon after, SCOTUS effectively disabled the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause in 1873 in a decision called, The Slaughter House Cases.

Because Slaughter House disabled the 14th's "privileges or immunities" clause, only "due process" and "equal protection" remained as legal processes to protect substantive fundamental rights from state abridgment.

Those two amorphous, subjective concepts demand a specific law already enacted, or government action that already happened, to be challenged claiming a specific rights injury and a subsequent excruciating examination of the affronts to "due process" or "equal protection" in that rights injury and how, maybe, those "protections" are owed to the citizen . . . That piecemeal process took decades to develop and is how we were saddled with "selective incorporation"; truth is, "selective incorporation" is a contrivance invented by the Court as a workaround to Slaughter House.

.

 

[Abatis]

YES, "principles".
Sounds good on paper, not so good in the field.

I completely understand that is how leftist authoritarians think; that's why it seems Democrats can never utter the word or speak of the concept of "principles". Instead they prattle on about "values" because values are always under constant reevaluation. Progressivism demands "values" to be revised or even be totally abandoned if new heartstrings are tugged.

What you describe as the 'truth" are about as significant as "principles" are.
A nice theory but not reality.

SCOTUS does not agree with you.

"Anti-constitution"?
As those who supported Trump looked the other way, making excuses, and let him violate the constitution on a daily/monthly basis?

ADHDDebate.

Try not to be so emotionally driven and easily distracted by your TDS; you sound unhinged.

Apparently, you don't understand "unspecified implied powers" can and are infringing and expanding beyond enumerated powers.

There's a word for that, usurpation.

I understand it.

Apparently not or your politics just demand that you ignore what SCOTUS has said:

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.​

​

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society."​

You fail to understand those implied powers and enumerated powers were being blurred within the first 100 years of the country and its constitution.

The rules are still the rules and I'm certain your idea of implied powers and my idea of implied powers are diametrically opposed. As an example, I would say that the federal government possesses implied powers to fulfill its promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government. This is confirmed when SCOTUS says, even putting the 2nd Amendment out of view, the federal government can not allow a state to disarm its citizens.

I would predict you would say that there are implied powers to deconstruct our republic and institute a direct democracy if enough people want it, and of course, disarm the citizenry.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NONE was given.

It was, whether you realize it or not.
And accepted.
As usual.
When you believe you can present a meanignful response to what I posted let us know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NONE was given.

It was, when you failed to present a meaningful response.

So, the right to sue someone for helping another to get an abortion is a lie?

There is no such right - it is a privilege granted by law.

Ratified in 1791.
When Virginia approved the amendment(s), it became US law.
Just like the other 9.

What rights does the bill of rights grant?
Please copy/paste the text to that effect.

 

[woodwork201]

But that is what a person that was creating a government told you at the time.
If they were "natural" all the countries of the world would have these rights.

They can grant them and take them away, through votes.


Elections or appointments.

Of course.

They sure think so.

All countries do have those rights; all people have those rights. Do you think the Uighurs in China have the right to life? Or is it OK for the Chinese to slaughter them? Is slaughtering them a human rights violation? You are clearly arguing that it is not a violation and that they have no natural right to life. That's exactly what I'd expect from a 21st century "liberal" or leftist. There are no human rights violations in the world and we needn't allow any asylum from our southern border.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

And remains today.

Sure it does.

August 11 2011
DES MOINES — Mitt Romney’s visit to the Iowa State Fair on Thursday might have been the best debate prep session he could have hoped for.

Romney’s appearance at the fair’s soapbox grew unusually testy when a few angry people heckled the Republican presidential candidate over his declaration not to raise taxes.

“Corporations!” a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations that have benefited from loopholes in the tax code. “Corporations!”

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

So, as I thought, your philosophy of US federal governmental authority does not allow you to recognize and/or apply, the actual definition of "unalienable rights".

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
If it is so "unalienable", why is that not a right in all the countries of the world?

Huh? . . . "enumerated rights" expanding beyond "retained rights"?

The express enumeration of powers limits them, as SCOTUS said:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated.​

​

The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

That's the Supreme Court, only 12 years after the constitution was ratified.
Why do you think they even heard the case?
Because power was being challenged, even back then.
As I stated earlier before the ink was dry.

You ridicule and dismiss the inviolate, unalterable and thus permanent nature of principles, you also mock the idea that committing powers to writing and the ratification of that strict expression becomes fixed rules for government operation.

"Principles"?
From politicians?

It is obvious you support and believe the distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers has been abolished.

.

Never stated, I support it, it's the way the three branches of government operates.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I completely understand that is how leftist authoritarians think; that's why it seems Democrats can never utter the word or speak of the concept of "principles".

Sure, as Trump and his cult tried to overthrow an election?

Instead they prattle on about "values" because values are always under constant reevaluation. Progressivism demands "values" to be revised or even be totally abandoned if new heartstrings are tugged.

As republicans harped on "family values" since Reagan?
ALL the way up to when Trump was nominated, then........................out the window.

SCOTUS does not agree with you.



ADHDDebate.

Try not to be so emotionally driven and easily distracted by your TDS; you sound unhinged.

I'm sure it does, the truth would sound like that to those in Trump's cult.
Unhinged are in Trump's cult, even worse than he is.

There's a word for that, usurpation.

Well "usurpation" has been happening since the constitution has been ratified.

Apparently not or your politics just demand that you ignore what SCOTUS has said:

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.​

​

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society."​

The rules are still the rules and I'm certain your idea of implied powers and my idea of implied powers are diametrically opposed.

Doesn't matter my idea or your idea of implied powers.
They are being challenged by politicians, lawyers, and judges, for and against the government "powers".

As an example, I would say that the federal government possesses implied powers to fulfill its promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government. This is confirmed when SCOTUS says, even putting the 2nd Amendment out of view, the federal government can not allow a state to disarm its citizens.

None have, so far.

I would predict you would say that there are implied powers to deconstruct our republic and institute a direct democracy if enough people want it, and of course, disarm the citizenry.

You would be wrong.
They don't, right now.

.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

All countries do have those rights; all people have those rights.

WTF?
They do?

Do you think the Uighurs in China have the right to life? Or is it OK for the Chinese to slaughter them? Is slaughtering them a human rights violation?

So, they don't?

You are clearly arguing that it is not a violation and that they have no natural right to life.

I did not, I think everyone has a right to life but that isn't my call.
The Chinese have a different opinion.

That's why so many countries are pissed off.

That's exactly what I'd expect from a 21st century "liberal" or lef

Yeah, I know, the truth always comes as a surprise to Trump and his cult.