Remembering why the Bill of Rights was not part of Constitution and why the income...

[Joe Steel]

No matter what they said or what you think they said, rights only exist when the can be enforced by law.

Wrong. Rights are not a result. They are rules that tell us which laws are just and which are unjust.

That's nonsense. Try again.

That demands a statute or legal document to present to a judge not the recollections of conversations with God.

So if a legal statute says I can own another human being, that doesn't violate anyone's rights?

Not if the person you might own has no right to be "not owned."

 

[Sallow]

Except the bill of rights is part of the Constitution.

It was not in the beginning. The Constitution was ratified without it.

good for you, you can conjugate your verbs while Sallow cant. Was and is are not the same word and now he knows it too!!

Doesn't matter.

A. The Constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document.
B. It's part of the Constitution.

Simple as that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Property rights are created by the government, therefore the government has a right to take your property?

How can anyone with two or more brain cells believe that?

What about wealth, does the government create that, too?

Ask the native americans and the mexican americans in the 1800s about that one.

poor devils were not protected by natural rights so were subjected to genocidal liberal whims

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Doesn't matter.

dear you forgot to say what doesn't matter???????????????

A. The Constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document.

if I said it was I'll pay you 10,000. Bet???????????

B. It's part of the Constitution.

you mean it [Bill Of Rights] is now part of Constitution. OP is about why it was not always a part!!
Still over your head??

 

[Joe Steel]

Ask the native americans and the mexican americans in the 1800s about that one.

poor devils were not protected by natural rights so were subjected to genocidal liberal whims

The genocide in the American West was to clear the land of native Americans so the land could be taken by Europeans. Wouldn't this indicate they had no property rights? Why not? Didn't God give them any?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ask the native americans and the mexican americans in the 1800s about that one.

poor devils were not protected by natural rights so were subjected to genocidal liberal whims

The genocide in the American West was to clear the land of native Americans so the land could be taken by Europeans. Wouldn't this indicate they had no property rights? Why not? Didn't God give them any?

yes dear, God and nature gave them natural rights but liberals took them away, temporarly. Liberals don't believe in natural rights, they believe in liberal rights.

 

[Sallow]

Doesn't matter.

dear you forgot to say what doesn't matter???????????????

A. The Constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document.

if I said it was I'll pay you 10,000. Bet???????????

B. It's part of the Constitution.

you mean it [Bill Of Rights] is now part of Constitution. OP is about why it was not always a part!!
Still over your head??

The OP was wrong.

Still over your head?

 

[Sallow]

poor devils were not protected by natural rights so were subjected to genocidal liberal whims

The genocide in the American West was to clear the land of native Americans so the land could be taken by Europeans. Wouldn't this indicate they had no property rights? Why not? Didn't God give them any?

yes dear, God and nature gave them natural rights but liberals took them away, temporarly. Liberals don't believe in natural rights, they believe in liberal rights.

There are no "natural" rights.

 

[Mr Natural]

So what are we saying here, that the Bill of Rights was a Liberal idea?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The genocide in the American West was to clear the land of native Americans so the land could be taken by Europeans. Wouldn't this indicate they had no property rights? Why not? Didn't God give them any?

yes dear, God and nature gave them natural rights but liberals took them away, temporarly. Liberals don't believe in natural rights, they believe in liberal rights.

There are no "natural" rights.

maybe thats true for an idiot but for Aristotle Locke and our Founders there were natural rights, thank God!!!

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{natural rights}

 

[Pheonixops]

it's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

property rights are created by the government, therefore the government has a right to take your property?

How can anyone with two or more brain cells believe that?

What about wealth, does the government create that, too?

liberals think so. Some people are willing to cede all rights, liberties and their free will to an oppressive government that promises to take care of them. Snip

no they don't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So what are we saying here, that the Bill of Rights was a Liberal idea?

too stupid how can it be liberal when its designed to protect rights that liberal government would want to take away???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

britspat and ed-bee together? too much shit in one thread.

bye

 

[Erand7899]

Again, I ask for cites. Because you are dead wrong. Property taxes are a direct tax and they have been with us since the founding.

Apples and oranges. States and localities were not bound by the same rules on taxation that the federal government was bound by.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

---

what rules do you see binding the feds?

Prior to the adoption of the 16th amendment in 1913, the federal government was precluded from direct taxes except in proportion to the census or enumeration. The states were not bound by that clause. (Section nine - Limits on Congress).

Note: My response related to the discussion about direct taxation and property taxes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

britspat and ed-bee together? too much shit in one thread.

bye

translation: as I liberal I don't dare confront them

 

[Sallow]

So what are we saying here, that the Bill of Rights was a Liberal idea?

The whole constitution was a liberal idea.

There is very little that was conservative about it.

 

[Pheonixops]

So what are we saying here, that the Bill of Rights was a Liberal idea?

The entire document was a LIBERAL IDEA. The founding of this country was a liberal idea. In fact, 'the party of Lincoln" was a Liberal movement.

 

[Sallow]

yes dear, God and nature gave them natural rights but liberals took them away, temporarly. Liberals don't believe in natural rights, they believe in liberal rights.

There are no "natural" rights.

maybe thats true for an idiot but for Aristotle Locke and our Founders there were natural rights, thank God!!!

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{natural rights}

Who is Aristole Locke?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are no "natural" rights.

maybe thats true for an idiot but for Aristotle Locke and our Founders there were natural rights, thank God!!!

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{natural rights}

Who is Aristole Locke?

typical liberal trying to change subject to spelling because he lacks IQ for subject

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Apples and oranges. States and localities were not bound by the same rules on taxation that the federal government was bound by.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

---

what rules do you see binding the feds?

Prior to the adoption of the 16th amendment in 1913, the federal government was precluded from direct taxes except in proportion to the census or enumeration. The states were not bound by that clause. (Section nine - Limits on Congress).

Note: My response related to the discussion about direct taxation and property taxes.

why didn't you post that previously? Do not assume most posters here know what you do...doing so will have you entering a mental health clinic