Your "rights"

Well, that is what the courts are for and there is a whole slew of lawsuits against mostly democrat governors.

 

10 points for ironic projection. The second was ratified into the Constitution. You might look it up and learn something about rights.

 

Closing our border would have been the smart thing but of course, that be wayciss.
How so? What he said was rather brilliant, first he declared he had ultimate authority and all these petty tyrant Democrat governors said BS. Well, now when THEY open their states, no one can blame Trump for what happens in those states.

 

When I was in college, we had an assignment: Demonstrate that the Constitution is a counter-revolutionary document.

The entire point was to recognize that rights are limited and the government can suspend them in times of crisis.

 

Yep, But it isn't about flushing rights down the toilet. It is because there are times when the government has to take over for the good of everyone. It is necessary or you end up dealing with mob rule.

 

You mean you never figured this out before?

It never occurred to you when you saw a speed limit sign, a crosswalk, a Ladies room symbol, a no smoking sign, that your rights were never unlimited? That government, acting on behalf of all of us can limit your individual rights? Even rights you might consider inviolable?

Let's assume for the sake of argument you're what they call a "conservative." That would be someone who's in favor of restricting, by law, a woman's access to abortion and restricting, by law, a person's use and possession of drugs.

So how is it you never before realized that "rights" could be limited by law when you've knowingly supported limiting other people's "rights" all along?

Unless, of course, you're a "Libertarian" in which case you're unqualified to participate in the conversation to begin with.

 

Ratification isn't incorporation.

You really don't know your rights do you?

 

I'm not the one posting ignorant comments. Do you imagine we have no second amendment rights or rights to assembly? I would recommend you read the Bill of Rights but if the Constitution is not able to be understood by you, I have no reason to believe the Bill of Rights would be any different. The amendments were ratified.

Ratified | Definition of Ratified at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com › browse › ratified
verb (used with object), rat·i·fied, rat·i·fy·ing. to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction: to ratify a constitutional amendment. to confirm (something done or arranged by an agent or by representatives) by such action.

 

"The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporation+(Bill+of+Rights)

Ratification isn't incorporation.

All you had to do was cite that and you would have won the debate. I mean you're still clinging to the 2nd amendment which is a negative right but you're acting like it's a positive right. It's not a positive right, it's a negative right.

 

You can believe in a creator. My parents created me. Their parents before the.

And in some ways they are giving me rights. I had to live by their rules when I was living in their house.

But there isn't 1 creator for the entire world. At least not one everyone believes in. And note the word, Belief.

So we'll disagree. But that also means we have different beliefs on what the constitution says and means. And what are and are not rights.

 

You are the one who absurdly claimed, we have no such right. I must assume you live elsewhere.

 

How asinine. You're using examples of oppression by govt to try and discredit claims of other oppression by govt...

 

No, I just know what a negative vs positive right is. Negative rights make the assumption you have rights and the government limits them. Positive rights acknowledges you don't always have rights, so the government will make sure you have rights. Both are found in the bill of rights. The government can't infringe on your right to own a gun if you have the right to own a gun. The government must provide you with a trial with a jury if certain conditions are met.Do you see the difference between the two?

 

NO. I'm using an example of cooperation among citizens to realize a goal (win a war) that benefits everyone in that
community. Government, at it's heart, is a social contract.

 

Then explain how people opposing property taxes and opposing laws mandating mask wearing leads to legalized enforced slavery and restrictions on being able to marry another skin color. Or is that not what you were inferring when you said: "Right. We need to go back to the good old days when human beings could buy each other, women were barred from owning property or voting, and a Chinese man couldn’t marry a white woman."

Because slavery, property taxes, mask mandates and marriage restrictions are only possible when made into law.

 

Bill of Rights. Unless they just "suspend" them, at their own dictates and mandates. You and I have no say, when that happens. Simply expected to comply.

 

So as per this exercize - What are the limitations to Gov't power - once the crisis has subsided ?

 

So basically declare it an invalid document. And folks wonder why the concern for indoctrination in higher learning...

 

Even freedom has limits. Much has been written on this subject in law. It seems that the truth of this is in that nether region between yes and no.

Try:
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3591&context=wmlr

 

But they are not "rights" when they can be suspended and we have zero say, just expected to comply.

 

Trump could declare martial law, and many of your rights will take a back seat. Just be happy that we don't have a guy like Trump declaring martial law.

the cup's half full, therefore.

 

I dont care who is in office, we dont have rights, we have conditional rights, so long as Gov can suspend them with zero input from us.

 

The political pressure would be extremely great to return to normal. Are you afraid Trump is going to take a shot at becoming dictator?

I thought that he, if he were presented with the opportunity to declare martial law, he'd do it, and once he started seeing how much power kicks in for him, he'd get used to it and never want to let go.

But the more I thought about it, I doubt he could get away with it.

 

Sure - but what are the limitations to Gov't power that one might learn in the class the poster was referring to ?