"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Enough said. Snark about freedoms coming from our creator reveals a complete disrespect for both freedom and the rights of man.
I don't see how. The assumption about "the creator" could mean (as it did then) "God" (and even then only the "God" of Protestant Christian Theology is inherently problematic when it comes to freedom) but it could equally mean "arising from the state of man's being" - a statement about our inherent constitution as opposed to a religious belief. If you look at the recent trends in thought on freedom it is usually framed as an inherent part of our natural make up, whether it is located in the capacity for self definition or the ability to make choices it is seen as arising from the process of our creation, and as the process by which we create.
Whether you belive in God or not, matters none. The point of our rights being inherent to us as human beings remains exactly the same. They do not come from statements in books, or legislation or promises of politicians, nor demands for someone else's property or services.
PAY ATTENTION - WE HAVE COME TO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE!
It's not an issue whether the rights of man have a divine origin. It's not even about any of the rights listed here "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ". Amazingly, it's not about any of rights in the Bill of Rights.
Nope, the teabaggers have pulled a whizzer by inventing a new right. It's the right not to pay taxes you disagree with. No, you won't find that right in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. When you back a wingnut into a corner about the 'tyranny', it always and finally comes down to the craven greed of a miser who objects to paying the toll for living in a country he pretends to love.
More lies from Doug.
Please don't come post blatant falsehoods here, Doug. You know you're wrong and that it's untrue, so stop insulting yourself by being shown such a slave to your partisanship you'll lie endlessly to advance it.
I have already stated repeatedly what the T EA Party is about, and your fictional nonsense is not needed.
I don't want to sound all European on you - but d'uh!
Only in America would the idea that rights derive from a bit of paper arise... the rest of the world uses bits of paper to formalise the rights we feel ought to exist, and the legal/political systems to structure these rights within a societal context.
As for the claim that rights do not arise from the demand for service; I'm afraid you're mistaken. A child has a right to life, this requires a level of service from the mother and father as an inherent part of that right. (Otherwise you come to a place where, being unable to fend for themselves, children forfeit the right to life. It's not an illogical place to be but if you are there you might want to have a check of the old moral compass).
Some rights do entail an inherent level of service, for example the right to freedom of conscience requires a level of service insofar as education is required to understand these things, lack of tyranny (or governmental self restraint) is required to exercise it, and tolerance is required from others in order to practise it.
Not to mention, the people who wrote it owned slaves, had no concern for the rights of the Indians, and thought of women as property!!
It's false on the face of it.
John Holden is right. Back then, it was all land-holding white men have all these inalienable rights...today, they mean: all Republibaggers!
No one else need apply.
I don't argue with any of that apart from to point out that it says "all men" not "all republicans".
I'm glad that you agree that it is wrong to deprive anybody of their freedom and expect to see this reflected in your subsequent posts.
I am ALWAYS an advocate for freedom. If you haven't caught on by now, you're truly in la-la land.
You always advocate freedom for the right, the left can just shut up!
Because the left advocates for oppression!
Does it really!
Could have fooled me!
I see much more oppression coming from the right, no abortion, no unions, no minimum wage, for three. Can you produce a similar three for the left?
OMG! I can produce an endless list! Everything the left is for oppresses somebody!
No, three will do, can't keep you from your searching for scandal too long.
With Democrats in power, scandal is thrust upon us like a tsunami of evil.
CFL light bulbs
Low flush toilets
So, how do any of those restrict freedom?
Unless it's freedom to die!
All of them. They use the power of government to force behavior upon people, over matters over which the government has no delegated authority.
Of course they have delegated authority, you delegated to them.
No, they are not. I have the written contract that delegates authority to the federal govenrment, and those things ARE NOT IN THERE.
Nope, you are wrong. My contract says, PRECISELY certain things are delegated, and the rest..belong to me. No exception.
"I don't want to pay into social security"
"Too bad, pay up or you go to jail"
... if you can't see why that's a restriction of freedom, then I pity you.
This is where freedom becomes complicated, or not, your freedom would deprive another of the freedom to live. Any system, even complete anarchy will trade one freedom off against another.
I could claim the freedom to drive down a busy and foggy street at an unlimited speed but were I to do so I would deprive others of the freedom to walk or drive safely down that street.
Instead I trade off some of that freedom to preserve the freedom of others.
No to mention, I don't have enough money to pay your utterly outrageous prices: Oh well, Lose your heat, go hungry, lose your car, home, live on the streets.
Freedom to suffer at the cost of "must make huge profit".
You hit the nail on the head lovemychris.
How can it be called freedom when homeless stats are through the roof?
Doctors visits unaffordable,including insurance premiums.
I appreciate National/Patriotic pride ,but pride doesnt fill the bellys of hungry children ,nor replace a mans dignity.
Abortion, unions, and minimum wage ARE NOT MATTERS OF FREEDOM.
Freedom coming from a "Creator" doesn't necessarily mean a god or anything.
We're all made from earth.
In reality, rights are just naturally infused in us when we're born.
It's a free world and we are free to do the right thing.
There's a good story about the fellow who took over a private park in the city. It had been abandoned for years, and it took a solid year of toil to restore the gardens. A local pastor observed the restoration and in pompous piety told the gardener what a splendid job he thought the Lord and the gardener were doing.
The gardener's response, "Thank you very much, but you should have seen it when the Lord had the place all to Himself."
Think what you will about the origins of the rights of man. It's no skin off my nose if you want to think they came from Sharia Law. But those rights were articulated by man, they are defined by man, They are maintained by those elected & appointed to write & interpret the law.
You are incorrect.
Man's rights are inherent to himself. The only role government has is to NOT interfere with them. It does not define them, enumerate them, or create them. The only thing we have to do is stop government from taking them.
But isn't government also involved in protecting rights?
You know like the right to life, the right to own property, the right to freedom of expression?
The ONLY legitimate purpose of governance is to prevent our rights from being taken. You have the freedom to express anything. The only way you can lose that, is if government takes it. Life. You already have it. Are you concerned that someone may try to take it?
The 'pursuit of happiness' is a vague term that one can argue can be hindered by the structure of any given economic system
No, I'm not concerned that somebody may try and take my life.
I might be though without knowing that government takes a pretty hard line on those who might like to take my life.
There are courts to slap them on the wrist in the UK for murdering. Isn't that enough?
Well, if you think life in prison is a slap on the wrist. . .
Considering you have no freedom in the UK anyway, it seems like little more than going on holiday with bad decorating.
Don't we have freedom in the UK!
First I knew about that, I'd say more people have more freedom in the UK than in the US.
You don't even have the right to free speech.
You only have the privilege of what the government deigns allow you to say.
One might be also concerned that a healthcare system has been created where where one can keep living is based upon how much money they have for medical treatments.
Or should the phrase be changed to "Life (if you can afford it), liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
You have no right to the services, the labors, the wealth, or possessions of anyone. That includes the doctor, medicine, etc. What you don't own is NOT yours and you have NO right to it.
I have a right to life... how can you create a system that will in effect deprive me of it based on how much money I have?
What about capital punishment.. I am correct assuming you are in favor of the state taking life away in some instances?
Nobody is depriving you of your right to live. Your right to live is your right to live by your best efforts. If someone's invention can extend it, your rights are not denied if they do not give it to you.
Tell a poor dying person that no one is depriving them of their right to live right after some insurance company has cut them off from the medical treatment they need.
That is absolutely correct. Nobody has .
BTW, did you realize that insurance is a contract, and if you signed on to it, and they are living up to their end of the deal, then you don't even have a complaint?
If they aren't, you can sue them. Happens regularly.
You' re just bitter because you want to violate insurance contracts in your favor all the time and that's stupid.
Bitterness stems from seeing poor people die because they are poor
Everyone dies, moron. Because they're human.
Yes, I do believe that under certain circumstances, individuals, by their choice of crimes against others, give up their rights, and that they can be rescinded, not by the government, but only by a unanimous jury of their peers.
Your consistency of approach was admirable (although mostly disagreeable) up to here.
I must admit that it is surprisingly painful to see a champion of the inalienable, God-given rights of man, especially the right to life, willingly give up to the state the right to take away one of a person's most important possessions.
Evidently a people in a free and democratic society do not have the right, through their elected representatives, to establish programs to help one another.... but they can create a big bad government which can set up a court system and laws which will take away the God-given right to life.
The debate rages on. I fall on that side.
Do you want to debate the issue, or just pontificate senselessly?
there is no need for a debate... you are very clearly against the government committing the 'crime' of taxing its citizens, but not against it establishing laws and procedures to murder them in certain circumstances.
The any rationalization for your hypocrisy and inconsistency is just that... rationalization..
The only thing inconsistent is your integrity. Oh, wait, you have none.
Nowhere do I say taxes are a crime. You just lied.
Oh, wait, I just realized you realized you had already lost the debate, and so you suddenly had to try to change the subject and try to scamper off flinging insults over your shoulder.
Sorry, not only can I win the debate, you'd look like the idiot you're playing.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt
You proved you can;t have a civil debate, and need to resort to name calling when you 'lose' a conversation and are proven to be a hypocrite with poorly thought out ideas .. a typical approach you take in most of these forums.
Hey, buffoon... I'll give you the chance to cash those checks your mouth just wrote. ..
come on over and prepare to eat crow.
Government CAN'T ensure rights. It can only take them.
Government is, by definition, the negation of liberty.
You are not in touch with reality.
When the Supreme Court makes a determination that a homophobic loonie church can protest at military funerals they ARE defining freedom of speech. (The decision was correct.)
The court can be right, and the court can be wrong. The Constitution only changes as it is amended. Neither its meaning, its intent, nor it limitation on government has ever changed aside from the amendments.
The Supreme Court DOES NOT define what it means, it does.
You realize that is just your wish and not the reality, right?
The court interprets the law, and in doing so defines it.
No, it is not my wish. It is reality. The fantasy is people who think that SCOTUS can amend the constitution to find anything they want in it.
Since they are so bond, then I gather you support every single verdict of the Supreme Court since its creation as being in line with you understanding of what the Constitution requires?
Of course not. SCOTUS is wrong constantly. Doesn't change the Constitution one iota.
What it does is determine, through its interpretation of the Constitution, its effect upon the laws of the land...
it may not change what you or I think the Constitution means, but that in reality means squat
Actually, you're wrong. We have, through our legislators, the right to tell SCOTUS to go hang, and to obey the Constitution.
Didn't know that, eh?
the USSC is not my god. They're a bunch of idiots who can't read.
I certainly believe in God but I am rolling on the floor laughing (at your joke)
I also agree with Misha, real freedom comes from within-
And on the other side of that coin, I live in a land that shouts Freedom ,yet seem unhappy.
John, at this point the winners stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La la la la I can't hear you."
When the USA struck down some of FDR's New Deal programs, under a skewed interpretation of the 10th amendment, they applaud that as proper. When a modern court upholds legislation under the Commerce clause or General Welfare, it's unconstitutional.
This has it's counterpart in the drunken baseball fan who expects the umpire to call nothing but balls when the home team is at bat, and nothing but strikes when the home team is pitching.
A SKEWED INTERPRETATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT?!
READ THE DAMNED THING:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
How could ANYONE take that to mean that "Congress can pass any law they want to"?!?! You're a madman, Doug.
You're in good company, Doug... the past 200 plus years of Supreme Court rulings are the results of madmen too
Poor Evan. I make him so angry he swears he won't ever respond to anything I write. Then I mention the 10th amendment, and he bites every time.
The thing is, he's not totally wrong - just 100 years out of date. In 1800, if you asked a gentleman from Richmond traveling abroad his nationality, he would tell you 'Virginian'. The residents of the 13 original states thought of them as nations. In the Civil War, 65 years later, the various armies were all STATE militias. It wasn't til WWI that a national identity overtook the state identities. By the end of WWII, the concept of state sovereignty was all but dead. Supreme Court decisions support my theory. But once upon a time, Evan was right. Today, even the most conservative Supreme Court justice would disagree with Evan's view of the 10th.
hence one of the reasons they call the Constitution a 'living document'
What utter baloney.
the only thing that proves, is that SCOTUS is wholesale corrupt and useless.
No, doug has to prove is idiocy... and he can't.
First, it's written clear and straightforward. NOTHING is "ambiguous". Nothing.
If he has trouble understanding it, it's just his lack of intellect.
I left you a message on AnnCee thread AWOL weholdthesetruths
I'm utterly flabbergasted that the same people who demand that we "keep on educating our youth" are the same people who read the Constitution, and then say "it doesn't matter what is written down, what's important is what 9 jerk-nuggets SAY it means".
It's utterly disgusting.
I'm not wrong at all.
Read the damned document.
like saying black me were only part of a man, in terms of census...
Live and die by SCOTUS' follies? NO thanks. I take the clear, unambiguous word of the Constitution every time.
Unfortunately, the Constitution is an ambiguous document. The Preamble lists as the first goal 'in order to form a more perfect union' while the 10TH amendment sets forth the opposite goal.
LOL, you're truly a putz.
Sorry, your intellect is not up to this conversation.
There isn't anything ambiguous about it.
And for any part you quote as being ambiguous, I'm sure that I could find even the most ardent supporters of a powerful national government arguing against whatever you say the document means.
Hamilton, Adams, and Madison (all pro-powerful government) demanded that "general welfare" did not mean "congress can do anything".
The document is NOT ambiguous, the 10th amendment makes it VERY clear.
by Richard Bivins6 years ago
If you haven't seen the video in the link below then go watch it now. It's only 4 minutes long but it Terminator parody to get out the vote.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP4qZE-HXe8It's definitely a push for Dems to...
by fit2day5 years ago
It seems that people are distracted nowadays by whatever current story is on every news station, what new movie's coming out, or whatever. With everything being done to seemingly make us safer, it seems that nobody...
by Regan Clem6 years ago
Our rights do not come from the Constitution; even our founders knew that. The founders derived their belief in rights from a belief in a Creator. Our rights are given to us by the Creator, they are given to...
by ahorseback3 months ago
The obvious point in this question is -Will he ? Not that he'd become a dictator ! But I wonder where liberals would really stand if the draining the swamp truly became a political reality...
by Josak3 years ago
Happiness? Quality of life? Freedom? Wealth? Safety? Comfort? Trust?All of the above? I am interested in what people think
by Barefootfae4 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/25/m … r-freedom/I think he means more than soda.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.