TheScout Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Packsaddle, I must write that I do not think I am an advocate of subordinating individual rights to the government. I am simply writing of the right of certain governments to do such things. Not the propriety of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 How do we know when majority rule applies and when it doesn't? Well, the constitution does spell out how laws are made, and most are passed by a simple majority. However, it also limits the government's powers, which is where the courts need to decide if legislation improperly infringes on rights and is invalid. And, do you trust the American people to make wise decisions in legislatures through their elected representatives? About as much as I trust them to make wise choices in the makeup of the judicial and executive branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 I stand before all of you and confess...by my own curiosity I am a slave to horrified fascination. The Scout, you advocate, in theory, the 'right' of a government (by virtue of a one vote margin), to subjugate half (minus one vote) of a nation to slavery. To me that seems to have a certain impact on individual rights and freedoms. If this is actually neutral to or an ENHANCEMENT of individual rights and freedoms in some way, I'm interested in learning how that is. But you just mentioned "certain governments". Which ones? State? County? Parish? Territory? City, etc.? And why certain ones and not the others? Explain please. Please forgive me, fellow forum members, I can't help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Merlyn, you forget my friend that legislatures are the purest form of the people's will. Packsaddle, I will oblige. Though I do not favor the curtailment of freedoms. (I consider myself quite a liberatarian, I dislike the Patriot Act) To me it is a question of states rights. Whether a state has the right to limit the freedoms if it wishes. Not really because I think it should, but because I think that it is just one symptom of how our states our losing their powers and becoming mere administrative agents of Washington. Again, I do not endorese one half of the population enslaving the other half. I just state in a pure democracy, one must believe the people have such a right. Denying me the ability to own slaves I guess is denying me freedom, though admittedly it takes more from someone else. In many cases one persons rights infringe on another. It is just an extreme case. I write of "certain governments" because they all have different powers, delegated to them by the people. As Merlyn correctly points out, the powers of our federal government are very limited in scope (at least according to the Constitution). Article I, Section 8 gives Congress only certain powers. The power to enslave people is not one of them. Territories are mere creations of the federal government and are bound by the same limitations. So they can not do so either. That brings us to states. I am not an expert on all state constitutions. I know mine would not allow half the people to enslave the others as it copies the federal Bill of Rights almost verbatim and adds to it. I assume most other states have similar guarentees. Then countys, parishes, cities, etc all gain their powers from the state, so therefore they can not either. So guess no government in the United States has such a power or right to make slaves. It would take a constitutional amendment to enhance the powers of whatever government we are talking about in its respective constitution. I'm suprised someone has actually read all this. YIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Merlyn, you forget my friend that legislatures are the purest form of the people's will. I DON'T forget; that's why I think it's important to have a constitution that limits what the legislature can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Merlyn, good thing that you think the most important thing a constitution does is limit the people's legislative powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Limits it against abridging other citizens' rights; what does a "right" mean if other people can just vote to take it away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 To return to a more realistic topic instead of slavery, lets use putting the 10 Commndments in courthouses for instance. You dislike the fact that in some jurisdictions people may choose through their elected representatives to put the Commandments up in courthouses. I think it is the right of the people to do so if they wish. You seem to think there is some sort of natural right that is being violated by seeing there. I do not. Personally I think a local government should be able to decide either way if it wishes. You don't. I support local self determination. Other question. In your logic, is there a right to freedom of religion? You write, "The 5th amendment states what powers the government has to hold you; it does not have the power to hold you without an indictment. The 5th is stated in terms of what powers the state has, not in what rights citizens have. While the 5th could have been written in terms of what rights citizens have, the authors decided to write it in terms of what powers the government has instead -- that's what it doesn't use the term "right" in the text, because the government doesn't have rights. That's what I keep trying to explain to you." As the First Amendment says in the part regarding religon, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So I guess there is no right to freedom or religion? Seems to me it is just saying what the government can and can not do. I knew you never seemed like a literalist . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 And, do you trust the American people to make wise decisions in legislatures through their elected representatives? About as much as I trust them to make wise choices in the makeup of the judicial and executive branches. That's interesting. Maybe if the USA were a dictatorship you would like it better. Let's build a wall! Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Personally I think a local government should be able to decide either way if it wishes. You don't. I support local self determination. I support religious freedom, which includes keeping the government out of business of promoting or supporting it. Other question. In your logic, is there a right to freedom of religion? Yes. As I said in what you quoted, sometimes the constitution says what rights citizens have, and other times it says what powers the government has. Kind of like two sides of the same coin. Ed, I agree with what Churchill said about governments. If you want someone who has made favorable remarks about dictatorship, try President Bush: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Rights can conflict. We all know that. I find it interesting that while I place a higher standing on the right of the people to legislate, you place a higher standing in the whims of one individual. I do not think it is a question of either of us not believing in either of the "rights" or whatever you wish to call them. It just seems to be a question of which should properly and constitutionally should take precedence. Arguments like this reveal many different things. It reveals differing morals and views of government. Good people can strongly disagree on what seems to be mundane questions. I would say this is the reason why we have a federal system and not a one size fits all national solution. People in different parts of the country can therefore decide the same questions differently. One state can allow abortion if it is consistent with the values, traditions, and histor of its people. Another can not. It seems like you are the only one trying to impose a view upon other people. I am simply arguing for the courtesy of a local government option. I still wonder? What is school of constitutional interpretation do you subscribe to? It seems to subscribe to several. Also, it would have been much nicer if you included the whole quote from President Bush that you provided. The clip from the transcript is quite short. This was from December 2000, just after Bush won the election and met with the top Congressional leaders. "I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -George W. Bush It doesn't seem flattering to dictatorship to me. He stated that decisons would be made easier if one man was in charge (obvious). He also stated that they will nonetheless disagree, but that is "ok." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 TheScout writes: Rights can conflict. We all know that. I find it interesting that while I place a higher standing on the right of the people to legislate, you place a higher standing in the whims of one individual. I do not think it is a question of either of us not believing in either of the "rights" or whatever you wish to call them. I think it does; in your above example, there aren't any conflicting rights, because legislation isn't a right, it's a power. It seems like you are the only one trying to impose a view upon other people. From my point of view, it seems like you're the only one trying to remove the rights of other people (in that you would allow legislation to remove or abridge their rights). I am simply arguing for the courtesy of a local government option. That isn't a "courtesy", that's a power. I don't consider allowing local governments to infringe on civil rights to be courteous, I consider it an abuse of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 "Legislation isn't a right" So you are saying the people do not have a right to make rules for their society. I think we both agree rights can not be taken away. So who then takes away the right of a society to create rules to govern itself? Hypothetical question then. If any state, say Montana for instance holds a referendum on whether to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted to schools, and 100% of the people vote yes, should that not be allowed. That seems an awful horrible intrusion of the central government if that is struck down. I still wonder? What is school of constitutional interpretation do you subscribe to? It seems to subscribe to several. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 TheScout writes: "Legislation isn't a right" So you are saying the people do not have a right to make rules for their society. No, I'm saying "Legislation isn't a right". It's a power, and it's limited. I think we both agree rights can not be taken away. We do? You don't seem to. As far as I can tell, every right can be eliminated by passing a law in your view. So they can be taken away. Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away? Using your previous reasoning, if X is such a right, suddenly everyone else has lost the "right" to outlaw X through legislation. So who then takes away the right of a society to create rules to govern itself? The rules that the US uses to govern itself do not allow for any and every law to be passed; unconstitutional laws are thrown out, for example. Hypothetical question then. If any state, say Montana for instance holds a referendum on whether to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted to schools, and 100% of the people vote yes, should that not be allowed. No. It's a violation of the first amendment. That seems an awful horrible intrusion of the central government if that is struck down. Such a law is a horrible intrusion by the state government. I still wonder? What is school of constitutional interpretation do you subscribe to? It seems to subscribe to several. I don't subscribe to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 The people don't have a right to make rules for their society, interesting. Where do these government powers come from then? "Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away?" Yes. You have missed a fundamental distinction of my argument. There is a great differcnce in what: 1. What a state is constitutionally authorized to do under our system, and 2. What rights are inalienable and endowed to us by God Example. For abortion. I think a state has a right to allow abortion in all cases. I also believe however that this violation of an individals inalienable right to life. If 100% of the people of Montana vote for the 10 Commandments it is not a horrible intrusion by the state. It seems like it is following the will of the people. I find it quite fascinating that you do not subscribe to a school of constitutional interpretation. And with all do respect, it makes your arguments in some cases seem a bit hypocritical. (I may be wrong, thats just what it seems to me). It almost seems like you subscribe to any theory which can get you to your desired ends. You preached literalism with your view of the 5th Amendment. Then your 10 Commmandment ideas certainly are not. Seems a literalist would say the only thing Congress can not do in regards to the 1st Amendment would be to establish a state religion. It seems like there you are preaching a more Living Constitution approach. Then when it comes to the 14th Amendment, you were telling me what the original intent of the Congress was in passing it. Just seems funny. So how do you decide how to interpret phrases of the constitution then if you do not subscribe to any theory of interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts