Rights - god given? inalienable? self-evident? natural? WRONG

No, you just aren't willing to accept the answer. You won't even go read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention. They *are* on-line you know. It just takes a while to read them.

Again, our nation was founded as a Federated Republic. It's why it is called the United States of America instead of just America. At its founding the states delegated a very limited range of responsibilities and powers to the federal government while retaining all others. It's why Amendment 10 was included in the Bill of Rights: "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."

What *YOU* think the newly formed federal government should have been responsible for is meaningless and basically unimportant.

ROFL!! So you think the Founding Fathers should have been perfect? Excuse me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my face!

Really? I gave you three states that had already banned slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention. What makes you think the majority of the states would not have followed suit?

You said: "The federalist papers could've convinced the states to ratify this as a amendment"
I said: " Nor were the Federalist Papers written to convince the States to do anything. They were written to defend the Constitution as proposed. The Bill of Rights were added *after* the Federalist Papers were written. The Federalist Papers were written in 1787 and 1788, the Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights wasn't even written until 1791 and was not ratified until later in 1791!"

I said "do anything", not "of anything". The Federalist Papers were written to defend the Constitution as written. No amendments were even proposed for four years after the Constitution was written! The Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution, as proposed, was even ratified!

 

it's not what i think, why were Bill of rights ratified a few years after constitution was ratified? why was 13th amendment passed much later? because the newly formed government failed to address what it should've.

i didn't say this or claimed it, just stated what was evident, the constitution had flaws, which were later addressed with amendments.

you think so? almost 100 years after constitution was ratified we had a civil war, in large part, because the southern states didn't want to abolish slavery. The 'majority' would've followed suit? doesn't look like it, MANY states didn't want to end slavery, they were FORCED into it by the Federal government. You would've preferred if it would've been left to states, leaving door open for continued slavery and segregation today?

I'm well aware of when constitution was ratified, when Bill of rights were ratified, this is all irrelevant. My point is simple - the original constitution should've included bill of rights and language explicitly abolishing slavery and the federalist papers could've promoted all of it. Instead, the original constitution had language in acceptance of slavery and deferring to states was later recognized as a mistake; hence, 13th amendment was passed. Why did we have to wait almost 100 years for 13th amendment? The fact is that the founding fathers and many more back then were complacent in the slave trade, heck, George Washington, Jefferson (although he promoted freedom of slaves) and Madison were slave owners! Madison even advocated for slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person.

exactly, to promote constitution, convince states to ratify it. Not sure why you get confused here.

the main point i make is that talking about the constitution (and founding fathers) as if it supports or produces evidence of natural rights is just BS. All these rights and morals are unnatural and subject to change as man sees fit, this is why slavery was abolished almost 100 years after constitution was ratified and segregation continued for long after this.

 

Because of the efforts of the anti-federalist forces, not because of the anti-slavery forces!

QED!

Because the Civil War had just been won! It *still* took six months after the end of the war for the amendment to be ratified!

The FF's had their hands full trying to formulate a base for this nation that everyone would vote to ratify. You simply don't seem to understand the ramifications of this. They had to make decisions on what were to be federal responsibilities and duties and what were to be State responsibilities and duty. The fact that they made a choice you disagree with is meaningless in the scope of history. That may be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it's the truth nonetheless.

But yet you keep whining "why didn't they do this"! What *you* see as important today simply wasn't to be back then. You even refuse to go read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention to find out what the FF's actually had to say on the issue.

Maybe you should go take a look at the Northwest Ordinance of 1789. You just continue to confirm my suspicion that you don't actually know much of US history, you just have an agenda you want to grind!

Why? Because *YOU* say so? Pardon me while I snicker!

 

Yes Jack, that is correct. There is an effort to diminish the fact that natural law imparts natural law rights. Everything yo post supports that our very natural instincts give us an unspoken agreement of sorts upon rights that are a part of being human.

People do not realize it but the First Nations people fully understood this and were more astute that the white fathers, the framers of the founding documents.

~~~~~Prior to 1871 the United States participated in a treaty making process with the First Nations because this technique was the obvious "legal" answer to westward expansion. Treaties, as defined by the Supreme Court did not incorporate a "grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them." Originally treaties were contracts between sovereign nations and accordingly were "the supreme law of the land." If Wasichu wasn't smart enough to think of everything he wanted and get same into the relevant treaty then "any right not expressly extinguished by a treaty...is reserved to the tribe." This is known as the "reserved rights doctrine." (Pevar)
As time, disease, despair, genocidal activity, public opinion and overwhelming superiority in terms of combatant bodies took their toll, the need for defining the First Nations as sovereign passed. "It was at this point that an effort to reconcile official terminology with the semantics of the general public began to emerge" and the "word 'tribe' completely [displaced] the word 'nation' in the legal discourse [which] lead to congressional termination of treaty-making with Indians in 1871." (Churchill) The First Nations:~~~~~

"...at one time had had enough power to make a favorable cession of lands a diplomatic triumph for the United States. But from the early nineteenth century on, perceptive men had seen the incongruity of treating Indian tribes as equals, and as demands for reform in Indian affairs grew during and immediately after the Civil War, the treaty system came under increasing attack." (Prucha)~~~~

What that shows is that the most dynamic of our rights, the 9th Amendment was the concept of the Indigenous people.

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
​

Lincoln knew of a way to show and make "the people the rightful masters of the court". It is not recorded in history, but it is done through state Citizens use in a majority, of the 9th amendment over their state legislations, then compelling them to their duty of participation in conventions that are directed at use of Article V.

Under the 9th, we logically have a right to PREPARE for Article V, in order to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent, as Article V requires. The first logical element of preparation is to end the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech.

Yes, it constitutionally has a purpose that is seen through these two definitions of the most prime constitutional intent and right.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that Americans use the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech to enable the unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Therefore, if a majority of state Citizens agree upon 2), and demand that the state organize a convention to propose amendments to the constitution, then the state legislation must comply. It is there duty.

All of the worthy things you suggest we do, can be done through that process. Here is a page about the legal process.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

Here is an audio presentation that gets into some of the other aspects.

http://algoxy.com/poly/polypods/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.ca.brown6_17.mp3

 

The anti-federalists looked upon the bill of rights as a double protection against federal overreach, while the federalists pointed out, quite correctly, that they were redundant as the constitution sans the bill of rights grants none of those powers to the federal government anyway.

If we look at the constitution the way it was originally intended, we can see just how bizarre and crazy things have gotten. The bill of rights is now seen as something that limits state rights, rather than the federal government's authority. There's nothing in there that gives the federal government the authority to tell us we can't have machine guns. Not a damn thing. That was originally something that states could limit, but not the federal government. Further, if there is something like freedom of speech. this is seen as a right that the federal government can demand states provide, despite there being no authority to do so.

As for slavery, it was a terribly contentious subject at the time, and for good reason. The admission of California as a free state is a great example of how that weighed on the minds of people back in the day. The discovery of gold pushed congress to act, and act quickly, but the miners (the vast majority of CA's population were miners) were fearful that allowing it to become a state would make slavery legal, thus creating unfair competition against free miners. The slavers would bring their slaves and then it would be all over for free miners. So California was created as a free state making slavery illegal upon acceptance into the union.

 

Your post is quite accurate and complete. However, the original constitution reads "united states for America"

From my reading the Federalist Papers predated the constitution, and were written because Franklin was so impressed by Chief Casatanango of the Six Nations demonstration in 1744 of exactly how the 13 colonies could be strong enough to resist the tyranny of England.

Of course the torys were determined to socially sabotage the inclusion of concepts that would make America so strong it could never be regained, either by war or stealth and infiltration. Simply by removing the first 70% of a Seneca philosophical doctrine called "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech".

It was communicated successfully to the framers of Americas founding documents who had to fight a psychological war with infiltrators of the English crown in the ranks of the powerful and influential also demanding a role in creating the framing documents. When all else failed, they covertly purchased that role through others. There was intense competition for inclusion/exclusion of concept in the proposed documents. In that competition the entire doctrine was fragmented and the notion of free speech was separated from the rest of the concepts of the doctrine.

The entire doctrine undoubtably was deemed to long and philosophical to be included in the Declaration of Independence, so "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was broken off from the rest for inclusion in the Declaration.

The complete concept of "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is as follows:

"The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is or was, an actual, practiced philosophical doctrine. The "meaning" is derived from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The torys have enough power and influence as well as infiltration into American society to completely remove this from our history.

What this amounts to for us is that free speech has a PURPOSE, and it is widely abridged, even wholly perverted. Therefore we need to use our right to a lawful and peaceful revolution through Article 5.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

so you agree, constitution was influenced by ant-federalist forces that supported slavery, okay.

it took almost 100 years for the federal government to do what it should've done from the beginning - abolish slavery.

okay, so you agree the FF's caved in to pro-slavery, anti-federalist powers.

so you agree that they didn't do the right thing initially

huh?

huh?

 

what are you complaining about? you can buy pretty much any type of gun out there, you want more? Would you like fully automatic guns? perhaps a tank? an F-22 raptor? how about a nuclear bomb? where do we put limits on what anyone can get?

what are you trying to say? that slavery should've been left to the states? Many states didn't want to abolish slavery, thank god for the UNION. Civil war, remember?

 

The Federalist Papers were written *before* the Constitution was ratified but appear to have been written *after* the Constitutional Convention.

 

ROFL!!!! If the Constitution had nothing in it about slavery as you claim then why would the anti-federalists forces be considered as being pro-slavery?

You didn't even bother to go look up the Northwest Ordinance, did you? Willful ignorance is *not* a survival trait!

 

nothing you have said has refuted the fact that the FF's and constitution (article 1, article 4 and bill of rights) were complacent in the slave trade and thus failed to abolish slavery for almost 100 years. Only after a war was fought was this issue resolved and answering with 'it was left to states' is not an acceptable answer.

It all makes sense, after all, some of FFs were slave owners and the main author of the constitution (Madison) proposed that slaves should count as 3/5th of a person. What this supports is what many in this thread believe in, that natural law, natural rights, morals are nothing more than concepts that have changed through time and subject to change, unnatural and man made.

 

They were *NOT* complacent! I keep telling you to read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and you continue to refuse to do so. Your comments are based on ignorance of actual history! You even refuse to look up the Northwest Ordinance that was passed just a few years after the Constitution was ratified!

You've been educated on the issue of the 3/5 clause in the Constitution. It was *NOT* in support of the slave states, it was a measure AGAINST the slave states! It was put in to limit the power of the slave states in the House of Representatives. You can't even get this one correct after having the truth pointed out to you!

And, ONCE AGAIN, natural rights cannot be taken away by government, they can only be suppressed. If natural rights can be taken away then you could never "free" a slave. The slave's rights would be gone forever, never to be again!

 

I recognise no man's authority to offer me "rights".
I have no rights but plenty of abilities.
You do not grant me dick. You are not able to grant me dick.
Much as you may wish to be.

 

Regarding the last comment on The New Testament. That's a shallow use of that Bible verse. The New Testament doesn't explicitly condemn slavery, but it also doesn't explicitly condemn taking a chainsaw and cutting down your neighbor's favorite tree either. There is much the New Testament does not say explicitly.

Over time, Christians came to believe that slavery wasn't good. Why? Because we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's why Lincoln said that as he would not be a slave, so he would not be a master. It's kind of hard to love your neighbor and then enslave him. Paul never said slavery is good and it was good for the Roman Empire to have it. Even St. Augustine (who lived during the time of the Roman Empire) had thought slavery a bad institution, but we think that because the Bible nowhere says "Slavery is evil so don't do it" that it is some kind of an endorsement. Paul addresses the slave. If you happen to be in a nation that has slavery, and you end up a slave, be a good one. That is showing love to your slave-owner, loving them as you would want to be loved. Now, of course, you could say the slave owner ought to love back and free the slave. Sure, But in Christianity, you are to even love your enemies, not "I will love them once they start loving me". No, you love them now. Whether or not they love you back is between them and God. Jesus commanded his followers to lover their enemies. Period. Being a rebel is a failure of loving one's slave-owner. Being a slave-owner is a failure of loving your slave. You are responsible for your behavior, not someone else's. Their failure doesn't excuse yours.

In Christianity, God's primary concern is the heart. Not outward external behavior. True change--the kind God wants--starts on the inside and works out A change of nature, not a change of rules to follow--some new teaching. As humans, we have a tendency to want to create lists of do's and do-not's for people to follow, and we think people are good to the degree at which they follow society's rules. Christianity, if you read the New Testament, makes it clear that that leads, at best, to outer conformity only, and not true change. God wants inner change NOT outward conformity. The people in Jesus' time who were good at outer conformity were the Pharisees, and Jesus harshest words were aimed toward them. They thought they were good because they kept the rules outwardly. Jesus called them "white-washed tombs"--meaning they look good on the outside, but were dead on the inside. They were good at conforming. God wants to change people on the inside. This is what Jesus referred to as being "born again." The inner change, over time, leads to a change in outer behavior.

Slavery has never really been the problem. Slavery was a symptom of a problem. Why did slavery happen in the past? Greed for one, and a lack of love for certain people being the other. Have we solved these problems? No. We got rid of slavery, but the problems remain even though the actual institution has been done away with. I suspect, from God's point of view, he would see us as having made little, if any, true progress. We've changed our outward behavior a bit, so that we can pat ourselves on the back and feel good about ourselves, but we remain as greedy as before, and we fail to love our fellow man the same as before. God would rather we change on the inside so that we stop being greedy and love our fellow man as we ought (then problems like slavery, and a host of other problems, would take care of themselves). Stopping slavery while continuing to be greedy and hateful is like bragging that you've gotten rid of the headaches your cancer is causing without curing the cancer.

 

it's becoming a bore when you always respond with totally irrelevant responses and flip the debate into 'us civics school' as a way to appear to be the man that knows it all. Once again, this is irrelevant and doesn't answer my question. The NW ordinance was nothing of significance as it did nothing to actually abolish slavery. Under the articles of confederation, no authority (government) had the actual power to end slavery in southern states. Remember, the articles ensured the independence and sovereignty of all states, therefore, states in the south knew no-one would actually end slavery. We had to wait almost 100 years for the right thing to be done and it required a civil war.

funny how you flip this as a 'good' thing, almost as if it were an anti-slavery measure. No, no! It was actually agreed to in order to actually empower southern states that relied on slavery the most. Instead of a slave being worth 0, now southern states could increase their influence in congress (more seats). It was kept at 3/5 though as to ensure the slave owners had more influence and congress largely represented their interests. Nice try.

the only natural rights we have are to stay alive and procreate, everything else is man made and subject to change.

 

1. History is important in understanding why things happened.
2. The NW ordinance *banned* slavery in that territory. So your claim that the FF's did nothing concerning slavery is just so much ignorance of history!

The new Constitution was no different in that it did *NOT* make the federal government sovereign over the states. The federal government was only delegated to act on those issues involving inter-state relations and on national interests such as national defense! The new Constitution was an evolution of the Articles of Confederation but it had the Articles as a base! That is why it was so hard to get it ratified! The States did not willingly give up any of their soverignty!

The southern states wanted to count slaves as ONE (1). The same as everyone else. The rest of the states did *NOT* allow that to happen. They limited them to being counted as only 3/5ths in order to limit the power of the southern states.

This isn't flipping *ANYTHING*. The southern states wanted to count the slaves as a full person. For Pete's sake - READ THE MINUTES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! You are arguing from ignorance!

 

Yes, and there was good justification for a number of states holding back their ratifications. They knew the tory was influencing the creation of the document too much. I think they felt better when the BOR included the original 13th Amendment, which of course was promptly removed just before the civil war so Lincoln could be made president. English/European armorers and bankers supplied the union army indirectly for the war they wanted to divide the nation. The debt put them in control and it remains that way today, explaining why America has dominated the world with an empire. It is an extension of it.

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States​

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]

 

I even acknowledged that Jefferson did at times advocate for the freedom of slaves but he also owned slaves. Washington and Madison also owned slaves. It's very hard to argue that framers did enough to address slavery when they themselves owned slaves and slavery was 'left to the states'. It is clear that if the framers really considered slavery to be a violation of basic human rights and something unacceptable, the original constitution or at the very least, Bill of rights, should've taken this power from states and abolished such violations of rights. After all, this is what happened later with the 13th amendment so i ask you for the 100th time, why did we have to wait almost 100 years for the 13th amendment?

i agree with this and this doesn't refute anything i have stated; in fact, strengthens the argument i make that neither the articles of confederation nor the constitution did enough to abolish an abhorrent violation of human rights - slavery. This should HAVE NOT been left to the states, this is my point. I understand why it was extremely hard for the framers to come together and abolish slavery at a national level but this is irrelevant. My core argument is that irrespective of the challenges back then, the mere fact that it was left to the states showed that there was no unity back then when it came to abolishing slavery. Why is this relevant to the OP? cause it shows what Americans have considered 'right' or 'wrong' has changed through time, thus - rights = social constructs, man made, subject to change. There is no universal list of natural rights other than stay alive and procreate.

The problem is that you somehow try to spin this as something that was morally justified, as if it was some anti-slavery compromise. Most people look at this as simply a power struggle between southern states and other states. It wasn't that the northern states wanted to penalize the southern states for owning slaves, NO, they simply didn't want the southern states to have more representation in congress, nothing more, nothing less. This was purely about state power and property, don't spin it as some anti-slavery, moral push from the northern states.

Anyway you look at it, the 3/5 compromise was abhorrent as it is restricting the rights of a slave to that of 3/5th of a man. It doesn't matter what the north or south wanted or thought, there is simply no good excuse to ever come to such a compromise, doesn't matter what anyone says.

 

No it is *not* clear. Except to you I guess.

1787 was not 2017. It just that simple. That does *NOT* mean that most of the FF's didn't consider life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be natural rights for EVERYONE. Their actions and their discussion during the Constitutional Convention show that they *did*.

[/quote]The problem is that you somehow try to spin this as something that was morally justified[/quote]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have *continually* said that most of the FF's did *NOT* consider slavery to be morally justified. The fact that they limited the power of the slave states and passed the NW Ordinance shortly after the Constitution was ratified show that htey didn't consider slavery to be morally justified.

You just have to keep making claims like this to rationalize *your* position, no matter what evidence you are given otherwise!

Keep thinking about it! You are getting closer to the truth. It's within your grasp! Not wanting the slave states to have more representation *was* placing a limit on the southern states based on their use of slavery. If it was anything else *all* of the states would have imported as many slaves as possible in order to have as much power in Congress in possible!

Oh, malarky! Doing anything else would have given the slave owners in south MUCH more power and would not have helped the slaves one iota!

 

Because the southern states would not have adopted the Constitution if the northern states had insisted on freeing the slaves and there would have been no union. The northern and southern states were about equal in size and power and neither could dictate the terms of union. That's why slavery continued even though most of the northern states opposed it and some had even outlawed it by that point. By the way, neither of you have the full story behind the 3/5ths rule correct. The southern states wanted not to count the slaves as persons for the purposes of taxation but do count them as persons for the purpose of representation. The northern states wanted just the opposite, to count them for the purposes of taxation but not representation. The 3/5ths rule for slaves counted them as 3/5ths of a person for both taxation and representation, increasing the population size of the southern states for representation purposes but also increasing their tax burden. At the time of the Civil War, the southern states still weren't ready to give up their slaves, so we had a war over it.

You seem to think that makes natural rights not real, but it doesn't. Natural rights can be man-made, social constructs, and subject to change and still exist, just as our notions of values, beauty, and justice are man-made, social constructs, and subject to change (look at beauty through the centuries and across cultures and see if you don't agree), but still exist. Staying alive is a right, procreating really isn't, just a very highly developed drive, since not everyone gets to procreate in a natural state, but liberty is, since humans have an innate desire to be free, to not have to obey the whims and dictates of others. Liberty is a natural right, one that cannot be taken away without violating the innate sense of justice we all have. Property is a natural right, one that cannot be violated without violating the innate sense of justice we all have. If I have it, it's mine, it's not yours.

Again, the 3/5ths compromise wasn't about slave rights at all, it was about taxation and representation. Slaves actually had far fewer rights than 3/5ths of a man would, since you could not beat a free man, separate a free man from his wife or children, or sell a free man to another, but you could do all those things with slaves. Your outrage is fine, but misplaced, since the Founding Fathers could do nothing about slavery without undoing the union. If the northern states or the FF's had insisted on banning slavery in the new Constitution, the southern states would have rejected it and formed their own, competing country in which slavery was legal. And who knows how long slavery would have continued under those circumstances. 200 years?

 

In other words you argue that the state is justified in doing whatever is necessary to preserve the state. That is disgusting and dangerous.

 

to a degree but stop being disingenuous, back then slavery wasn't condemned enough, even the FFs didn't consider it as such a bad thing, some of them owned slaves! Once again, the point is that times change (and you agree with me here) and this is precisely my point - what people consider morals and rights changes through time.

once again, the NW ordinance didn't do much of anything, you keep mentioning small stuff here and there but slavery continued for another 80 years. I keep repeating myself, it's not that 'some' didn't make some efforts, it's that the states and newly formed government simply didn't do enough, the actions were small and largely ineffective.

again, other states simply didn't want the southern states to have more representation, it was a power struggle. The states played around with what slaves were worth, even before constitution was drafted. Remember, this was hotly debated within continental congress years before 1787 when Madison proposed 3/5th as a way to apportion taxes by population. The northern states wanted slaves to count more back then as they just simply wanted southern states to pay more taxes. Then, in 1787, it was the opposite, northern states wanted slaves to count less, as now they were fighting for representation. It is disingenuous to look at this and make it seem as if the good old northern states just thought slavery was abhorrent and wanted to punish the south. This was mainly just states fighting for representation and taxes.

and what exactly did it accomplish? nothing...

 

You have an agenda to push and nothing will stop you from pushing it. You refuse to learn history and put yourself in the shoes of a Founding Father. You insist on looking at 1787 as if it was 2017.

You are going to remain in a fit of rage until you wake up and actually try to understand life and politics in 1787.

Pathetic!

 

you are immature and it is you that has an agenda to push. You haven't refuted anything i have said, just go back and read. All along, i have stated that the framers simply didn't consider slavery that big of an issue and didn't do enough. The whole point of stating this is because it is directly related to the OP; i.e., given what people consider right and wrong changes through time, 'natural rights' are just man made social constructs that change through time.

You haven't produced one ounce of historical fact or evidence to prove otherwise. All you have done is rant and rave and change the debate to a debate about whether anyone made any effort to address slavery (efforts that clearly didn't come close to abolishing slavery, weak attempts as i argue) and then you end by twisting this into me claiming 2017 = 1787.

you are immature and a complete waste of time.

 

you need to explain your line of thinking first... this makes no sense