Libertarianism

[MrJonno]

Why does it matter what someone long dead thought about anything unless you happen to be a historian

[Coito ergo sum]

So that the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented every generation.

[Seth]

No, it's not. You have it exactly backwards. The Founders of the US Constitution viewed rights as natural, inherent, unalienable and preexisting any government and, according to their religious beliefs, granted by God, not man. They say "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men" which clearly expresses the idea that government serves the rights, the rights do not serve government.

Spelling founder with a capital F doesn't make those 18th century savages any less wrong,

It's a proper noun identifying a specific group of people instrumental in the formation of the United States, so its use is appropriate, notwithstanding your objections.

It's really rather annoying. It's a way to homogenize a heterogeneous group of people, in order to make it easy to say "the founders" wanted this or "the founders" wanted that, when in reality they almost all had fundamental disagreements with each other.

And yet despite their disagreements they (and the mass of people who ratified the Constitution) ultimately agreed on a form of government that acknowledges the fundamental, natural, inherent and unalienable character of rights and which is constructed as a charter of negative liberties in which permission is NOT granted to do things by the government, but rather the document expressly limits what the GOVERNMENT may and may not do by way of interfering with the natural and unlimited panoply of rights that may be asserted by the individuals who comprise the society.

Unlike Communism, where it's "everything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden," the Constitution, and therefore the Founders who wrote, debated and approved the document formulated the basic principle as "everything that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted."

It's hardly irrational to refer to the Founders as a homogenous group when discussing the RESULTS of their many and varied personal viewpoints, which is the document they produced and ratified. It's a shorthand reference to the group of people who created an entirely new system of government, not an expression of absolute solidarity on every issue among them.

Mr. Jonno is merely insultingly nitpicking because he doesn't like our form of government and prefers a totalitarian society that protects his interests as one of the dependent class.

[Seth]

So that the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented every generation.

And so that we can remain as close as possible to the original vision for this nation by using the writings of the Founders tnto inform our analysis and interpretation of the document they left to us.

If, after considering carefully the original intent and the ramifications of changing the meanings of that intent, we, the People, decide to amend the document to better suit our needs as a nation, we have full authority to do so. The catch is that the Constitution may not be "reinterpreted" by either Congress or the Supreme Court, it must be AMENDED by a vote of the people, using the prescribed process, which is intentionally cumbersome, slow and deliberative.

It is perfectly acceptable, for example, for a constitutional amendment to be proposed, circulated and ratified as per the Constitution to remove the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to an abortion. What is not acceptable is for the courts or the legislatures or anyone else to subvert that due process and "reinterpret" the Constitution as a "living document" to suit their particular contemporary ideology or ideas just because they happen to be in power.

You want to change it, then do it the right way. Otherwise original intent rules constitutional interpretation, period.

[Seth]

I've mentioned before the first time I ever heard of inherent rights was in Mein Kampf and Lebensraum not the Magna Carta or the US constitution. That makes me highly suspicious of inalienable inherent rights

No, it makes you an ignoramus.

[MrJonno]

So that the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented every generation.

Since when do politicians acting as politicians invent anything (a few but not many were however great scientists and engineers)

[MrJonno]

like Communism, where it's "everything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden

Is that in Das Kapital wikipedia edition? or just pulled out of your arse like 'hot' burglaries

[JimC]

like Communism, where it's "everything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden

Is that in Das Kapital wikipedia edition? or just pulled out of your arse like 'hot' burglaries

I think it's a quote from Orwell, but I'm not sure...

[MrJonno]

Failed in a google to find who first used that phrase there is even a wikipedia entry for it but that doesnt say either

[JimC]

Failed in a google to find who first used that phrase there is even a wikipedia entry for it but that doesnt say either

Funnily enough, it occurs in a book by T. H. White, "The Once and Future King"

[rasetsu]

The language about a creator and unalienable rights is in the Declaration of Independence, and thus has no legal standing, and certainly no constitutional standing. And even at that, the creator language was a compromise among several members, some wanting a more secular declaration, others religious (I believe the original wording used was "God," but I'd have to double check that). The constitutional authors were so concerned about inalienable rights that they deferred the passage of a comprehensive Bill of Rights until after the passage of the constitution. But surely, the constitution was meant to enshrine the principles of the Declaration of Independence? Well if it was, they took a roundabout way to implement it, by passing the Articles Of Confederation first, articles which say close to diddly about individual rights, and then ten years later going back to the drawing board to start again from scratch.

If one is going to toss around words like "ignoramous," it's generally wise not to be acting like one at the time.

[MrJonno]

There is a difference between have a 'mission statement' on what you would like your country to be like , bouncy happy free people etc and trying to turn such a thing into the law which needs to be far more precise

[Wandering Through]

The language about a creator and unalienable rights is in the Declaration of Independence, and thus has no legal standing, and certainly no constitutional standing. And even at that, the creator language was a compromise among several members, some wanting a more secular declaration, others religious (I believe the original wording used was "God," but I'd have to double check that). The constitutional authors were so concerned about inalienable rights that they deferred the passage of a comprehensive Bill of Rights until after the passage of the constitution. But surely, the constitution was meant to enshrine the principles of the Declaration of Independence? Well if it was, they took a roundabout way to implement it, by passing the Articles Of Confederation first, articles which say close to diddly about individual rights, and then ten years later going back to the drawing board to start again from scratch.

I'm a looong way from any sort of constitutional scholar, but I really don't understand what you are getting at here. I don't recall seeing anyone in this thread arguing for rights granted by a creator, and I'd be a little surprise to see it, given the venue (come to think of it, Seth may have mentioned creator language a few pages ago, not as a source of rights but an historical reference). As far as the authors being "so concerned" about inalienable rights, you seem to imply they were either so loathe to recognize them or dubious of their existence that they postponed their enumeration until the Bill of Rights. I might be totally misreading you, if so I apologize...sarcasm is so hard to pick up in print.

As I understand it, the Constitution was written largely by the same people operating under the same beliefs, as the Declaration, i.e. that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights (as you point out, the source of those rights (natural/supernatural) may have been a matter of contention). It was written explicitly to spell out the rights (powers) being granted to, not to list the rights (powers) to be granted by the new federal government. As they eventually did spell out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Just because we listed a bunch of rights specifically, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of all the rights retained by the people (get it, retained - you can't retain what you don't already possess); and, if a power isn't expressly granted to the United States, or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (because, once again, the people are where the power comes from, therefore they aren't granted the power, it is reserved to them).

Alexander Hamilton laid out some pretty compelling reasons not to include a bill of rights in The Federalist Papers No. 84:

...I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed[Emphasis Added]? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights...

Here's a little more background that I found interesting, but is probably grade school stuff for most of you (which is why I like lurking here, I get to see opinions I agree with and disagree with argued by smart people who can back up their positions)

[Seth]

The language about a creator and unalienable rights is in the Declaration of Independence, and thus has no legal standing, and certainly no constitutional standing. And even at that, the creator language was a compromise among several members, some wanting a more secular declaration, others religious (I believe the original wording used was "God," but I'd have to double check that). The constitutional authors were so concerned about inalienable rights that they deferred the passage of a comprehensive Bill of Rights until after the passage of the constitution. But surely, the constitution was meant to enshrine the principles of the Declaration of Independence? Well if it was, they took a roundabout way to implement it, by passing the Articles Of Confederation first, articles which say close to diddly about individual rights, and then ten years later going back to the drawing board to start again from scratch.

If one is going to toss around words like "ignoramous," it's generally wise not to be acting like one at the time.

I'm a looong way from any sort of constitutional scholar, but I really don't understand what you are getting at here. I don't recall seeing anyone in this thread arguing for rights granted by a creator, and I'd be a little surprise to see it, given the venue (come to think of it, Seth may have mentioned creator language a few pages ago, not as a source of rights but an historical reference). As far as the authors being "so concerned" about inalienable rights, you seem to imply they were either so loathe to recognize them or dubious of their existence that they postponed their enumeration until the Bill of Rights. I might be totally misreading you, if so I apologize...sarcasm is so hard to pick up in print.

As I understand it, the Constitution was written largely by the same people operating under the same beliefs, as the Declaration, i.e. that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights (as you point out, the source of those rights (natural/supernatural) may have been a matter of contention). It was written explicitly to spell out the rights (powers) being granted to, not to list the rights (powers) to be granted by the new federal government. As they eventually did spell out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Just because we listed a bunch of rights specifically, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of all the rights retained by the people (get it, retained - you can't retain what you don't already possess); and, if a power isn't expressly granted to the United States, or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (because, once again, the people are where the power comes from, therefore they aren't granted the power, it is reserved to them).

Alexander Hamilton laid out some pretty compelling reasons not to include a bill of rights in The Federalist Papers No. 84:

...I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed[Emphasis Added]? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights...

Here's a little more background that I found interesting, but is probably grade school stuff for most of you (which is why I like lurking here, I get to see opinions I agree with and disagree with argued by smart people who can back up their positions)

Well said, and well researched. Well done!

[pErvinalia]

I stopped reading after my last post at the point where Seth proclaimed that "America is the greatest nation on the earth" or something like that. I get so tired of debating with idiots.