Why do you want more government in your life?

[The Rabbi]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want to know how the government will be more involved in my life?

Ask Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. They'll explain it to ya just like they have the OP.

They just passed a 2000+ page bill regulation our ability to control how our we recieve our health care, the very process of us taking care of our lives. How on earth does that not involve government more in our life?

I've yet to be informed - via my employer where my health ins. comes from - of any changes to our healthcare on account of the healthcare bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

Why would someone prevent you from traveling without cause? That doesn't constitute a right.

 

[DiamondDave]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

Uhhhh.. no

You can be prevented from traveling for various reasons.... it is not a right.. you have no more a right to travel than you have a right to health care.. nobody can 'stop' you for paying for healthcare, though you can be restricted by the choice of another/provider or by the the need in a given situation... you do not have the 'right' to be on a bus or to drive a car on a road or to board an airplane, etc

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

Uhhhh.. no

You can be prevented from traveling for various reasons.... it is not a right.. you have no more a right to travel than you have a right to health care.. nobody can 'stop' you for paying for healthcare, though you can be restricted by the choice of another/provider or by the the need in a given situation... you do not have the 'right' to be on a bus or to drive a car on a road or to board an airplane, etc

All rights are limited. You can't name a right, even the enumerated ones, that isn't limited. I said 'without cause', for a reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

Why would someone prevent you from traveling without cause? That doesn't constitute a right.

You can prevent or prohibit people from owning guns for all sorts of reasons that does not take away the right to bear arms.

 

[DiamondDave]

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

Uhhhh.. no

You can be prevented from traveling for various reasons.... it is not a right.. you have no more a right to travel than you have a right to health care.. nobody can 'stop' you for paying for healthcare, though you can be restricted by the choice of another/provider or by the the need in a given situation... you do not have the 'right' to be on a bus or to drive a car on a road or to board an airplane, etc

All rights are limited. You can't name a right, even the enumerated ones, that isn't limited. I said 'without cause', for a reason.

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uhhhh.. no

You can be prevented from traveling for various reasons.... it is not a right.. you have no more a right to travel than you have a right to health care.. nobody can 'stop' you for paying for healthcare, though you can be restricted by the choice of another/provider or by the the need in a given situation... you do not have the 'right' to be on a bus or to drive a car on a road or to board an airplane, etc

All rights are limited. You can't name a right, even the enumerated ones, that isn't limited. I said 'without cause', for a reason.

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

 

[DiamondDave]

All rights are limited. You can't name a right, even the enumerated ones, that isn't limited. I said 'without cause', for a reason.

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

States can and do restrict travel, though rarely..... organizations, companies, etc can also restrict travel depending on situations and even POLICIES (I.E. being removed from a plane for concerns, behavior, etc)... roads and walkways can and are closed for many different types of reasons.. you can be refused on public transportation... you can be restrained from travel off your property by authorities.. the list goes on

travel is a privilege that is rarely infringed upon... it is not a right, just as health care is not a right, just as minimum wage compensation is not a right... again.. you and ones like you love to call things rights and assume that they are... however, most of what you deem as 'rights' are freedoms, laws, or privileges

 

[The Rabbi]

All rights are limited. You can't name a right, even the enumerated ones, that isn't limited. I said 'without cause', for a reason.

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

Yes. That's what Dave is getting at. Merely having the ability to do something doesn't make it a right. It is a right when the state cannot forbid it without some scrutiny.

 

[Care4all]

ones state CAN NOT prevent someone from leaving the state UNLESS they are on bail....have allegedly committed a crime.

*or on parole.

 

[Vanquish]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

Yes...there is a right to travel. It's a firmly established constitutional doctrine.

This is why I love people who argue on forum boards without legal degrees. It's funny.

US Constitution Annotated - The Right to Travel

The Right to Travel

The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

Thanks for playing.

Don't let the parts about the uncertainty fool you...this gets actual use all the time when combined with the full faith and credit clause so that when you move to a new state you dont get discriminated against.

 

[DiamondDave]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

Yes...there is a right to travel. It's a firmly established constitutional doctrine.

This is why I love people who argue on forum boards without legal degrees. It's funny.

US Constitution Annotated - The Right to Travel

The Right to Travel

The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

Thanks for playing.

Don't let the parts about the uncertainty fool you...this gets actual use all the time when combined with the full faith and credit clause so that when you move to a new state you dont get discriminated against.

The premises they use are about laughable

The Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, or even a mention of any explicit right to travel

The constitution references many freedoms and there are indeed laws that lay out freedoms specifically.... but again, just because something is a freedom, law, or privilege does not make it an inherent right

The right to "locomotion" (I.E. walking, crawling, etc under your own power) as it is sometimes called, has been attempted to be used to define a 'right to travel' in many cases including cases of driving without a license... and this is mainly unsuccessful because there is not constitutional right to travel

 

[DiamondDave]

ones state CAN NOT prevent someone from leaving the state UNLESS they are on bail....have allegedly committed a crime.

*or on parole.

or state of emergency... for public safety concerns... because of public inebriation.. etc

There are times when the state can and does prohibit travel... but as stated, it is rare to lose the freedom or privilege to travel about

 

[The T]

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

Yes. That's what Dave is getting at. Merely having the ability to do something doesn't make it a right. It is a right when the state cannot forbid it without some scrutiny.

Perhaps some of these people confuse 'rights' with unfettered Liberty.

And wasn't the latter the whole objective of the U.S. Constitution and subsequent State Constitutions that usuall mirror the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Vanquish]

DiamondDave, you're absolutely infantile.

You keep going back to the constitution like a broken record and saying things aren't in in there. What apparently escapes you is that there is a body of law built around and built UPON the words in the constitution.

And it's not just "those sneaky libruls" that rely on such laws, doctrines, and premises.

There IS a right to travel that you would learn about if you went to law school or practiced law. But you haven't and you don't ...so the ideas of case law and precedent seem foreign to you.

I suppose it's kind of like science...where the Earth looks flat but the truth is counter-intuitive.

Let's be fair..I'm not against a textual, contexual reading of the damn document. I'm fairly originalist actually. I believe that judges shouldnt change the law through interpretation, but the mechanism for change is amendment and legislative act. But this idea that the constitution hasn't been built upon is complete horsecrap.

 

[Samson]

I suppose it's kind of like science...where the Earth looks flat but the truth is counter-intuitive.

.

So you're saying the Earth is Round?









That's NOT in the Constitution!!!

 

[Vanquish]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[The Rabbi]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

Yes...there is a right to travel. It's a firmly established constitutional doctrine.

This is why I love people who argue on forum boards without legal degrees. It's funny.

US Constitution Annotated - The Right to Travel

The Right to Travel

The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

Thanks for playing.

Don't let the parts about the uncertainty fool you...this gets actual use all the time when combined with the full faith and credit clause so that when you move to a new state you dont get discriminated against.

What Dave said,|Thanks