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.
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.
Rocket scientist. I wonder exactly how long it is going to take you to realize that we have been making the same argument. That somebody who made the euphism comment was jet. Not me. Which means that the 9th amendment means precisely what I said it did. Thankyouverymuch.
Be that as it may. The Fifth Amendment does not say, Hey Jtur88, you can sue for your rainbow here or hey go pursue happiness. It says to the government, Hey, you have a history of arbitrarily targeting NON-CONFORMISTS, people with differing religions and those who favor free press. These would be those people who are pursuing happiness or you pursuing happiness in the form of a rainbow. Does it have to say pursuing happiness? No, it does not. Double jeopardy-, Hey government, historically those actions represent harrassment that it is arbitrarily targeting NON-CONFORMISTS, people of differing religions and those who favor free press. Does it have to say pursuing happiness? NO, it does not.
Pursuit of Happiness is a consensus phrase that the wise founders used and it is a good one It touches all the bases. It means that person in the USA, absent any constitutional prohobition or regulation, or harm to another person, is free to do whatever he damn well pleases. If he wants to go the mall and not buy anything, and that makes him happy, he is free to pursue it. If he wants to take a walk in the rain. If he wants to wash his car. If he wants to play Twenty Questions with the the kid next door. If he wants to whittle a stick. If he wants to sleep late on his day off. If he wants to take his family to the beach instead of the mountains on vacation. If he wants to listen to the ball game on the radio, while he putters in his shop. What in the hell do any of those things have to do with private personal property? Should the Constitution be construed to prohibit those behaviors and say that no right exists, because no private personal property is involved?
If you want to call whittling a stick "being a nonconformist", and only protected behavior because courts have ruled that whittlers cannot be discriminated against, you have a long uphill logical leap to make.
Pursuit of Happiness is a consensus phrase that the wise founders used and it is a good one It touches all the bases.
Contrary to popular belief, "the pursuit of happiness" was understood to mean absolute ownership of land (dominion). For only upon one's own domain, could one pursue happiness without asking permission from another. Everywhere else, one needed permission (license) lest he commit a trespass.
Unfortunately, this generation of socialists have been indoctrinated to be ignorant of the original meaning.
For the OP, who polices the police? Who holds public officials accountable when they mislead, cheat, misuse public power and the funds at their disposal? I would much rather suffer the consequence of a little too much freedom than a bit too much tyranny.
i think the right to sue for personal injury when you are committing a crime should be taken away. i think if you are attacked by someone and you fight back they should not be able to level criminal charges against you.
Contrary to popular belief, "the pursuit of happiness" was understood to mean absolute ownership of land (dominion). For only upon one's own domain, could one pursue happiness without asking permission from another. Everywhere else, one needed permission (license) lest he commit a trespass.
Unfortunately, this generation of socialists have been indoctrinated to be ignorant of the original meaning.
Thank you for clarifying constitutional law. So now I know that I have no other rights to pursue any kind happiness except becoming a slumlord. You have just explained in lucid detail exactly why slavery existed in this country as long as it did. Slaves could escape if they wanted to, they were perfectly free to go, but would then be arrested for trespassing. Until they owned property, there was nowhere they could legally go. The original meaning that proud socialists are ignorant of, because that meaning brought America to her knees and nearly destroyed her and took the lives of many good people. And you are so damned proud of the stellar wisdom of it. If you are right, which is very very debatable anywhere except in the rolodex of talking points on talk radio.
Contrary to popular belief, "the pursuit of happiness" was understood to mean absolute ownership of land (dominion). For only upon one's own domain, could one pursue happiness without asking permission from another. Everywhere else, one needed permission (license) lest he commit a trespass.
Unfortunately, this generation of socialists have been indoctrinated to be ignorant of the original meaning.
Do you have anything to back up this? Links or something to texts suggesting that happiness in this context equates land ownership?
At the time this country was formed & those guys were writing things down there were literally millions of acres of free unclaimed land that you could use to pursue happiness.
To my mind the pursuit of happiness means the ability to build a life for yourself as you see fit.
Quote:
Huckleberry said;
i think the right to sue for personal injury when you are committing a crime should be taken away. i think if you are attacked by someone and you fight back they should not be able to level criminal charges against you.
Agreed 100%, I just mentioned this on another topic. Death & serious injury should be accepted as an occupational hazzard of criminal activity.
If they wish to recieve compensation for injuries or deaths on the job they should buy their own liability insurance.
Pursuit of Happiness is a consensus phrase that the wise founders used and it is a good one It touches all the bases. It means that person in the USA, absent any constitutional prohobition or regulation, or harm to another person, is free to do whatever he damn well pleases.
That has been my stance from the get go. So, now if your done creating a fictive argument with me, I can return to what I was debating.
Contrary to popular belief, "the pursuit of happiness" was understood to mean absolute ownership of land (dominion). For only upon one's own domain, could one pursue happiness without asking permission from another. Everywhere else, one needed permission (license) lest he commit a trespass.
Unfortunately, this generation of socialists have been indoctrinated to be ignorant of the original meaning.
No, and I am not a socialist. Pursuit of happiness is not understood to mean "absolute ownership of land". This narrow concept is a recent invention. One of the first key things to locate pursuit of happiness is in the hands off government Bill of Rights and you can see that in the 5th Amendment. It will not whistle and say,"Yoohoo, pursuit of happiness, get your pursuit of happiness in what you can do right here. It does not have to, it is shown in what the government cannot do. The Framers were aware that pursuit of happiness could easily wind up in criminal courts. When one pleads the Fifth, what are they doing?
1215 Magna Carta is the document that was used by Coke. Looking at the close of the 16th century, we see competition between accusatory vs inquisational procedures, common law vs royal perogative, and common law vs canon and civil law. What are we looking at? The norm is inquisational procedures, not sanctioned by common law, but used by the High Commission that did not even have to disclose what the charges were, if any or who was doing the accusing. This is the ecclesiastical court at work here.
Once this was initiated, you took the oath. Remember you don't know what you have been arrested for. If you refuse to take the oath or take the oath and refuse to answer you win a sentence of contempt and invite Star Chamber procedings. If you take the oath and answer truthfully, you win a conviction for religious or political views AND you implicate others. If you take the oath and lie, you risk purjury and sin against the scriptures.
I'm not a huge fan of the Puritans but it was the Puritan common lawyers that first said, the oath is unconstitutional because it violates the Magna Carta. Then comes Coke. Coke uses about 20 writs of prohibition to stay the procedings of the Star Chamber. In 1637, a man by the name of John Lilburne refused to take the oath. He had already publicized his opposition to the inquizational procedures. In 1641, the Long Parliamant condemns the sentences John Lilburne and the Levellers and abolishes the High Commission and the Star Chamber. They then state that the ecclesiastical authorities cannot administer an oath, to confess or accuse oneself of a crime. The Levellers then went one step further and said, we do not have to if life or liberty OR property is jeopardized.
It is from that beginning we have what we have. This sets everything in motion. What is the protection against? Guilt of crimes of conscious, of association and of belief.
Originally Posted by jetgraphics Contrary to popular belief, "the pursuit of happiness" was understood to mean absolute ownership of land (dominion). For only upon one's own domain, could one pursue happiness without asking permission from another. Everywhere else, one needed permission (license) lest he commit a trespass.
Unfortunately, this generation of socialists have been indoctrinated to be ignorant of the original meaning.
Do you have anything to back up this? Links or something to texts suggesting that happiness in this context equates land ownership?
At the time this country was formed & those guys were writing things down there were literally millions of acres of free unclaimed land that you could use to pursue happiness.
To my mind the pursuit of happiness means the ability to build a life for yourself as you see fit.
Jefferson was influenced by John Locke's "life, liberty and property".
In addition, you must realize that absolute ownership of land (aka private property) is protected by constitutional government.
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels." - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
If you think about it, the only place where you can do whatever you see fit, without any restraint or control, is upon your own private property, absolutely owned. Ergo, the only place you can "pursue happiness" without needing someone's permission, is your domain.
Sadly, the socialist revolution of 1935 destroyed private property rights.
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
In case you were unaware, both socialism and communism replace private property ownership with qualified collective ownership, where the State has an interest in all property. When you fail to pay your socialist taxes, the State takes your property from you. Obviously, that property cannot be private property, since private property cannot be taken for public use.
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.
