What "rights" does nature give us?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are not bound to anything as human beings, we are born into socially constructed civilizations that expect us to adhere to rules setup perhaps over 200 years ago that from the get go was hypocritical in that "we the people" were not allowed a chance to even vote on this constitution, only white men had that honor.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthy document to organize behind.

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

 

[Michelle420]

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthy document to organize behind.

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Your point is constitutions have been around a long time and just like those who socially constructed this one over two hundred years ago, they saw a neeed, even though it was totally hypocritical if you look at all the violations happening in that time frame.

All I am saying is in modern times should the pure constitutionalists grow large in numbers and try to interpret things in the same hypocritic fashion as those old white men, I see no other option then constitutional disobedience.

Also I wouldn't feel bad at all if a new constitution with all parties represented was socially constructed to fit the modern times.

But As we probably both know it is not gonna happen.

Be well !

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Your point is constitutions have been around a long time and just like those who socially constructed this one over two hundred years ago, they saw a neeed, even though it was totally hypocritical if you look at all the violations happening in that time frame.

All I am saying is in modern times should the pure constitutionalists grow large in numbers and try to interpret things in the same hypocritic fashion as those old white men, I see no other option then constitutional disobedience.

Also I wouldn't feel bad at all if a new constitution with all parties represented was socially constructed to fit the modern times.

But As we probably both know it is not gonna happen.

Be well !

don't become an alarmist. the kooks will always be with us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Your point is constitutions have been around a long time and just like those who socially constructed this one over two hundred years ago, they saw a neeed, even though it was totally hypocritical if you look at all the violations happening in that time frame.

All I am saying is in modern times should the pure constitutionalists grow large in numbers and try to interpret things in the same hypocritic fashion as those old white men, I see no other option then constitutional disobedience.

Also I wouldn't feel bad at all if a new constitution with all parties represented was socially constructed to fit the modern times.

But As we probably both know it is not gonna happen.

Be well !

No.

My point is that the law has been around for a long time, the Constitution its most recent incarnation.

For example:

1166 - Assize of Clarendon:

Established the grand jury system for investigating recent crimes

1176 - Assize of Northampton:

Established a jury of presentment to decide which cases should be tried

1181 - Assize of Arms:

Ordered that all free men should keep arms and be prepared to defend the country

Henry II and Common Law

Sound familiar?

The Constitution of the United States, in conjunction with a republican form of government, represents the first successful judicial system ensuring individual rights; indeed, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, case law refined and purified in the crucible of judicial review.

You are thus correct in your admonishment of ‘constitutionalists,’ who are either ignorant of this truth of the Constitution or refuse to acknowledge this truth for reasons both partisan and selfish.

 

[Cowman]

Die and decompose... and maybe if you're unlucky have your atoms reused in the body of a serial killer or a bear taking a dump in the woods.

 

[SniperFire]

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthy document to organize behind.

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

fuck off you semi-literate moron

 

[Cowman]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

Excuse me? Obama won, so America is no more. It's gone. It's dead. You guys can't fucking proclaim to love it anymore since it's dead to you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

Excuse me? Obama won, so America is no more. It's gone. It's dead. You guys can't fucking proclaim to love it anymore since it's dead to you.

yeah, they failed at taking it back.

 

[hazlnut]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

Hey Dipshit....

John Locke had more to do with your 'rights' than any invisible man in the sky.

Eat shit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Remember the Constitution isn’t the ‘beginning’ of anything, it’s not isolated and alone on some distant island.

The Constitution is part of the greater judicial fabric of the Western experience; the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

It’s thus this legal tradition, well over a thousand years old, and its continued examination and refinement of the understanding of individual rights and how those rights relate to government which gives legitimacy to our Constitutional case law today – free of the necessity of our rights being ‘bestowed’ upon us by some contrived deity.

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

Hey Dipshit....

John Locke had more to do with your 'rights' than any invisible man in the sky.

Eat shit.

Locke and his abstract thoughts.

 

[Contumacious]

I am not confused, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. You might be able to file a case in court challenging an amendment to a state constitution, but it will not work in challenging the federal one. That is why they specifically passed an amendment to repeal prohibition, courts do not have authority to do so.

See? Dante never said one could challenge a federal amendment.

What he said was a slave could ask the court to look at rights under conflicting amendments

Does Dante offer suffer delusions about what he said and who he is?

I read somewhere that he admitted to being Monica Lewinsky.

.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

See? Dante never said one could challenge a federal amendment.

What he said was a slave could ask the court to look at rights under conflicting amendments

Does Dante offer suffer delusions about what he said and who he is?

I read somewhere that he admitted to being Monica Lewinsky.

.

.

True. I came clean after you admitted to being Linda Tripp and QW was outed as being that toxic bitch Lucianne Goldberg

 

[SniperFire]

Doomed libtards.... Allow me to assist. Afterall, I am here to help!

The unalienable rights we enjoy are of course the most important tenet of the founding of our Nation.

Our foundational document specifically details the source of these rights:

'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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'

See, it isn't hard. It isn't a mystery. It is right there in our founding document.

If gubmint gave out rights, they wouldn't be unalienable. duh.

We are a defacto theocracy when you think about it!

See ya in church!

LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

Excuse me? Obama won, so America is no more. It's gone. It's dead. You guys can't fucking proclaim to love it anymore since it's dead to you.

yeah, they failed at taking it back.

And they failed to mention exactly from whom they were ‘taking it back.’

 

[SniperFire]

Another godless progressive who doesn't believe in America. Imagine that. LOL

Hey Dipshit....

John Locke had more to do with your 'rights' than any invisible man in the sky.

Eat shit.

Locke and his abstract thoughts.

Locke the bible thumper? LOL

' for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.'

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2

 

[SniperFire]

Godless progressives are selective readers.


LOL

 

[Moonglow]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

The right of nature to process poop in the woods.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Doomed libtards.... Allow me to assist. Afterall, I am here to help!

The unalienable rights we enjoy are of course the most important tenet of the founding of our Nation.

Our foundational document specifically details the source of these rights:

'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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'

See, it isn't hard. It isn't a mystery. It is right there in our founding document.

If gubmint gave out rights, they wouldn't be unalienable. duh.

We are a defacto theocracy when you think about it!

See ya in church!

LOL

The Declaration of Independence is not the founding document of the USA

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey Dipshit....

John Locke had more to do with your 'rights' than any invisible man in the sky.

Eat shit.

Locke and his abstract thoughts.

Locke the bible thumper? LOL

' for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.'

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2

are you on drugs?