Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And who would that 'higher party' be?
You scare me.
Took the words right out of my mouth! At the end of the day I think the person best qualified to make decisions for me is ME. I don't need a government nanny cramming what THEY think is right down my throat. I kneel to no one, I bow to no one and I certainly will not defer my personal principals and the way I live to some politician who thinks he/she 'knows whats best for me'. Thats WAY to much power for the government to be handed. Our rights are ours, how we use them is a personal choice, if you abuse your rights, well, you lose them, but everyone cannot be judged by the standards of the abusers and have our rights limited because of them. Thats just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Especially when the decision to limit rights is left up to a government which can use any arbitrary standard they choose to 'keep us in line'.
You will not find it in a rainbow. You will find it in Due Process of Law. This is where it counts.
Neither the Constitution nor the Amendments limit the application of pursuit of happiness. Nor do they "redefine" pursuit of happiness as being narrowly restricted to only personal private property and/or 5th Amendment rights. In fact, the Amendments explicitly, in their preamble, place restrictions on any future government's attempts to make exactly the misconstructions you've just made.
If I pursue happiness in a rainbow, it would be unconstitutional for you or anyone else to say "I cannot find it there".
Thats not true. It would be unconstitutional to not let you pursue it there, but folks can say what they please. People, legislators especially, preach against freedom all the time. Its not unconstitutional until implemented.
The basic premis of a free society is you can do as you please as long as its not hurting or depriving others of their freedom. Nobody cares if you seek a fantasy, until you try to force your fantasy upon them.
Neither the Constitution nor the Amendments limit the application of pursuit of happiness. Nor do they "redefine" pursuit of happiness as being narrowly restricted to only personal private property and/or 5th Amendment rights. In fact, the Amendments explicitly, in their preamble, place restrictions on any future government's attempts to make exactly the misconstructions you've just made.
If I pursue happiness in a rainbow, it would be unconstitutional for you or anyone else to say "I cannot find it there".
I didn't say that they were restricted to only personal private property. I am saying that they are not. And I believe that I stated that this narrowing to only personal private property was a recent invention. I believe that there was a book that came out in the early 1900's that led to this only personal private property crap.
You said:
Quote:
I doubt if there has ever been a court ruling in the United States in which "property" has been construed to mean anything anywhere near that broad. Call your car insurance agent and ask him what "personal property" coverage includes.
Libertarians can call it whatever they want---I cannot sue for "property damage" if you stand between me and a rainbow and obstruct my view of it, which is my "pursuit of happiness".
In United States law, fully based on the Constitution, "Property" has never been held to mean that
I stated that you will find that in the fifth ammendment. Meaning that your not going to call your insurance agent or sue for "property damage" You will find that broad interpretation of what constitutes property in the fifth and the ninth.
Further, I like Madison. He repeated that all encompassing nature of property.
I didn't say that they were restricted to only personal private property. .
You (or somebody) said "pursuit of Happiness is a euphemism for "personal private property". You also said pursuit of happiness does not include going outdoors and looking at the rainbow,(which means you think that is not protected activity under the constitution) since doing so can be restricted in any other application not covered by the Fifth Amendment.
I suggest that you and jetgaphics and kb09 get together and form a unified argumemt, instaead of sniping at me from different directions every day, and then saying "I didn't say that".
From Wikipedia: The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.",
However, you have interpreted the Constutution so narrowly as to mean that an American citizen does not have natural and self evident liberty, endowed by his Creator, to step out doors to view a rainbow.
You (or somebody) said "pursuit of Happiness is a euphemism for "personal private property". You also said pursuit of happiness does not include going outdoors and looking at the rainbow,(which means you think that is not protected activity under the constitution) since doing so can be restricted in any other application not covered by the Fifth Amendment.
I suggest that you and jetgaphics and kb09 get together and form a unified argumemt, instaead of sniping at me from different directions every day, and then saying "I didn't say that".
From Wikipedia: The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.",
However, you have interpreted the Constutution so narrowly as to mean that an American citizen does not have natural and self evident liberty, endowed by his Creator, to step out doors to view a rainbow.
Please, do not whine when you get all confused. Perhaps you should kiss your grandpa and kitty good night and say your prayers. I'm sure someone will tuck you in, leaving the rest of us to debate intelligently.
Please, do not whine when you get all confused. Perhaps you should kiss your grandpa and kitty good night and say your prayers. I'm sure someone will tuck you in, leaving the rest of us to debate intelligently.
At least I have the right to. I don't have to wait until I am accused of a crime, and my Fifth Amendment rights kick in, before I have the right to pursuit of happiness, as you would wish to be the case.
The fifth amendment says nothing more than that you cannot be executed, incarcerated of made to pay a fine without due process, recognizing the three principle forms of punishment that the courts customarily exact. Perhaps you've noticed that a person convicted by due process of a crime, generally does retain certain constitutional guarantees, including the freedom of speech, press, religion, and pursuit of happiness.
The Ninth Amendment says exactly the opposite of what you say. The Fifth Amendment, by mentioning property, does not disparage the right of the people to enjoy pursuit of rainbows.
Last edited by jtur88; 04-19-2009 at 04:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
