If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

You talk out both sides of your mouth. The courts ruled that unalienable Rights are above the reach of government. You should not sweat it. There are no such things in the legal lexicon any longer. The Bill of Rights is pretty much as George Bush described the Constitution, "just a G.D. piece of paper" (and he didn't abbreviate it.) Those who sought an end to our Rights wanted a god-government. Of course, it will not last. The truth is self evident so America will fall by the wayside due to the corruption and the cycles of history. But, what is equally true, when those who want Liberty are ready to fight for it, the reign of tyranny comes to a close.

 

You realize I quoted the same thing you did. I guess not.

So I guess you don't even believe what you post.

Natural rights needs ZERO legal authority. They belong to all humans by nature.

 

Courts would not need to rule on natural rights. They are natural and belong to all humans.

 

You post so as to give something legal authority; I post definitions so as to give context. Then I let the courts tell you their interpretations (even when I disagree with them, I still quote them.)

 

Courts don't "need" to do a lot of things. They should apply the law, not legislate from the bench or grant powers to other branches of government and find novel ways to screw you out of Rights that they never gave you and are above their jurisdiction.

 

Sure.

However, that original derivation of principles by our founders doesn't validate a religious view, doesn't include all principles that could be derived (just those our founders chose to derive), doesn't indicate the degree to which the principles must be required (as our founders KNEW they are not absolute), etc.

Their analysis of the nature of man concluded that exclusion of religion from government is a principle requirement that must be made explicit in the constitution.

 

So what the court says on Natural rights is irrelevent.

Because Natural rights are rights we get from nature. And every human alive gets those rights.

 

Man what a word salad to say nothing! You're just addicted posting apparently. Perry Mason you ain't. but if you are going to stay IN this discussion, you should get the proper information:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/LawSchoolTutorials/20120619103358_large.pdf

https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/legal-research-sources/

https://www.peoples-law.org/understanding-legal-research

What do undocumented foreigners have in common with sheriff's who refused to conduct a Brady background check on American gun buyers?

 

We no longerhave those Rights (insofar as Uncle Scam is concerned) because the liberals and Republicans helped repeal them

 

Natural rights can't be repealed. Since they'd be natural.

 

still pedaling the same despite being corrected countless times.

Hey R101, now he can read the minds of the founders, this gets better all the time!

 

Are you switching to gun rights now?

Are you going to continue to try to argue what rights are absolute (or however you want to put it)?

Are you going to try to say something about how the constitution addresses citizens vs. people, and how it applies to all who are within our borders?

Are you just trying to post veiled insults - since that's the only possible interpretation of you "cites" - LOL!

I'm leading to this last one, but if you want to discuss something else, please state your concern.

Your issues, whatever they might be, aren't going to be solved by general moanig about how bad our governmnt is or by your continuing and constant ad hom.

 

Our founders clearly expressed their thinking and how they arrived at it.

You don't have to guess.

 

and the rest of the world simply dont understand you, tough life.
Citation?

 

You insult me and then cry ad hom (sic.) You're not qualified to debate law with me. What did you do, if anything, for a living? I'm writing what I know about. I'm not switching the argument to guns. That is what you don't understand. I'm talking about a principle of law. The fact is, there is NO correlation between sheriffs who fought against being compelled to enforce federal laws and do background checks on potential gun buyers and sanctuary cities; however, the courts sided with the government on protecting sanctuary cities. The precedent used was the same one the United States Supreme Court used to protect the sheriffs who said they could not be compelled to enforce federal law under the anti-commandeering doctrine. In Baty, it does not matter what the peripheral issues were. What mattered was the HOLDING.

The holding is that very narrow question the courts set out to determine for themselves. Common sense dictates that if one unalienable Right is treated a certain way then ALL of your Rights are subject to the same standard. If the government can outlaw guns, they can outlaw books, movies and music. All of those are covered in the Bill of Rights. They cannot (legitimately) treat any one Right differently than the other Rights you have.

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

When you examine the Baty decision in light of one's Right to keep and bear Arms or any other unalienable Right, you see a theme begin to emerge about unalienable Rights. The same principle of law continues to emerge. Unalienable Rights are those natural, inherent, God given, irrevocable, absolute Rights (whichever word tickles your fancy) that are above the government's reach. Unless your actions violate the Rights of another (like shooting someone without just cause or yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire), you should be good to go. WillReadmore, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the federal courts. How the government took everybody's Rights and made us a dictatorship is another thread.

 

The reason for "sanctuary city" policy is clear. Policing breaks down when there is a lack of trust and cooperation between the police and those being policed. The police can't be effective AND be the enemy of the people. The many millions of undocumented aliens are mostly living in cities. Thus cooperation and trust between the police and the population can't include that the police will treat all contact as an extension of federal immigration enforcment. That problem extends beyond the police as well.

Plus in general you've been arguing for rights and freedoms of people over and above the law. That's not a strong position from which to argue for dissassembling families and sending them to foreign countries.

The Baty case was about compensation for property loss and whether it was legal to write laws against railroads that didn't apply to other businesses or individuals. The principle in question was equal treatment under the law. The fact that the long winded argument started by identifying rights doesn't change that.

I doubt the 2nd amendment is an adequate example of overall court direction on rights.

It's more complex than simply being a case of guns being some sort of fundamental and absoltue right.

I'd note that the constitution doesn't suggest personal defense as a justification for gun ownership - the reason given is a "well ordered milittia". We don't have any well ordered militias.

Also, every one of our bill of rights has exceptions made for reasons such as (but not limited to) public safety. We have many regulations on guns that are there explicitly for public safety and pass SC muster on those grounds.

Some mention that the 2nd is there to protect our ability to hold a new revolution. But, if that's the justification then the arms we need have to include high explosives and other tools not envisioned by our founders. Like with communications and other areas governed by our constitution, our interpretation of the constitution can not be limited to the precise technologies available in the 1700's.

I'd also point out that our defense against our government is our democracy, NOT our guns. Ask Minneapolis. There is NO chance that more publicly owned guns would achieve the outcome that is being achieved through democracy.

 

Our 'rights' in the BoR are all on the same footing. Since you think you are the superior court con law genius see if you can even tell us what sense our rights are written in and explain its purpose for being written in that specific context.

Im giving you the chance to demonstrate your knowledge of the core principles behind the constitution here

 

That is absolute nonsense. Good try at amateur psychology. Our country was founded on the presuppositional thinking that you have unalienable Rights. You have a Right to Life. Does that mean someone cannot kill you? Of course they can. So, the government (i.e. the judicial branch) exists to be an arbiter to make sure that if you're murdered, the person who took your Life is punished. The government today is claiming that they dole out your Rights - and some of us are more equal than others.

The two guys that are here every day seem to be wasting their time arguing rather than doing a little legal research that easily refutes their positions.

 

Sure there are a lot of areas where adjustments can be made, but since the tax system is what creates the areas where adjustment is required, it must be altered to end poverty or issue a minimum standard of living.

It does that now via taxes, but the standard is too low.

Regards
DL

 

In today's economy, one of the primary factors in determining likelyiood of significant income is education.

Cutting taxes works AGAINST that.

Also, those who are struggling today already pay NOT income tax. So, adjusting income tax rates for these people is NOT going t to make any differece at all.

I'll leave it with those two as concrete argument that adjusting income tax is related to generating revenue, not solving the problems of ever increasing income disparity, homelessness, generational poverty, etc.

 

That is why my point is the only true right anyone has is might.
Might makes right.

Any others are granted by someone or something. Typically a gov't.

What rights did the Natives have when white people started settling in the country now known as USA?
What rights do the natives have now, and why do they have them?

 

Legal research? On Natural Rights?

If they're legal, then they'd be legal rights. Not Natural rights. I guess that's why we in the USA have more than one in NK. We have the legal rights granted and enforced by our gov't. NKoreans, not so much.

 

Its only required when corrupt tyrannical barbarians feel the need to rule by corruption.

what about human rights? They arent legal?

 

for all intents and purposes those posts have a strong jtrig MO.

 

Yes, when push comes to shove, might make right.

In civil societies, a legal entity must grant and enforce rights. Like we have in USA.

Basically making most all rights, legal. If not all.