The Bill of Rights PROTECTS Rights, it does not GRANT them as government NEVER HAD THEM TO GRANT. (Congress, ethics)

[alphamale]

Thoughts?

[Cavaturaccioli]

The Bill of Rights does not grant, but recognizes and guarantees some, but not all, G-d given Rights that inhere in all human beings.

You are correct, sir.

[lycos679]

You are correct. It's just some people that want permission slips from the government stating what they can and cannot do.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli

The Bill of Rights does not grant, but recognizes and guarantees some, but not all, G-d given Rights that inhere in all human beings.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but which g-d?

[HistorianDude]

There are no such things as "god given rights." To the extent that anyone or any group has rights, they were taken, not given. We chose as a nation to take our rights and secure them under the authority of a Constitution. That Constitution created a government tasked to secure and protect those rights and most importantly to manage their conflict. This was done under the certainly correct understanding that without the coercive power of a government such rights soon destroy each other. We are therefore a nation of laws, not of men.

Though uneven and imperfect (as all human endeavors are) our system has worked for almost a quarter of a millennium.

[mb1547]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

There are no such things as "god given rights." To the extent that anyone or any group has rights, they were taken, not given. We chose as a nation to take our rights and secure them under the authority of a Constitution. That Constitution created a government tasked to secure and protect those rights and most importantly to manage their conflict. This was done under the certainly correct understanding that without the coercive power of a government such rights soon destroy each other. We are therefore a nation of laws, not of men.

Though uneven and imperfect (as all human endeavors are) our system has worked for almost a quarter of a millennium.

Eloquently said!

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

Just playing devil's advocate here, but which g-d?

Perhaps all of them, maybe: Brahma, Allah, Buddha, YHWH, Ahura Mazda, Serapis, Mithra, Zeus, Amon-Ra???

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

There are no such things as "god given rights." To the extent that anyone or any group has rights, they were taken, not given. We chose as a nation to take our rights and secure them under the authority of a Constitution. That Constitution created a government tasked to secure and protect those rights and most importantly to manage their conflict. This was done under the certainly correct understanding that without the coercive power of a government such rights soon destroy each other. We are therefore a nation of laws, not of men.

Though uneven and imperfect (as all human endeavors are) our system has worked for almost a quarter of a millennium.

Exactly the point, Mr. Dude!!! You articulated in a few short sentences the truth in all it's splendor and majesty.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

There are no such things as "god given rights." To the extent that anyone or any group has rights, they were taken, not given. We chose as a nation to take our rights and secure them under the authority of a Constitution. That Constitution created a government tasked to secure and protect those rights and most importantly to manage their conflict. This was done under the certainly correct understanding that without the coercive power of a government such rights soon destroy each other. We are therefore a nation of laws, not of men.

Though uneven and imperfect (as all human endeavors are) our system has worked for almost a quarter of a millennium.

Almost everything our government "does for us" is by coercion.

They cannot do what they do unless they take from one to give to another.

Where does the government get the authority to coerce me into paying for my neighbors rent?

SS is certainly a coercive action....also not a function of our government.

I could go on and on.......

[Nonarchist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Almost everything our government "does for us" is by coercion.

They cannot do what they do unless they take from one to give to another.

Where does the government get the authority to coerce me into paying for my neighbors rent?

SS is certainly a coercive action....also not a function of our government.

I could go on and on.......

Doesn't the constitution say that Congress has the power to provide for the entire welfare of every single body?

[Biz901]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

Just playing devil's advocate here, but which g-d?

Which g-d indeed?

I often hear that the rights - such as the right to life - come from the creator. In other words, from God. Yet, the problem is that God does not enforce such rights, e.g. 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis -
No, God does not intervene, stop the killers and save the victims.

In fact, if you were asked to get God Himself to come and confirm that He gave such rights, will He come? You know the answer to that.

This viewpoint, that these rights come from God, might be useful in a theoretical, theological discussion. But in practice, people need to concentrate more on what actually produces results - and in that sense, all these rights come neither from the government nor from God, but from people's willingness to take up arms and defend their basic rights.

It can be said that the people would first have to know what their rights by ethics and morality are, if they are to shoot at (and kill) those who would take the rights from them - after all, if you are about to use potentially lethal force against another human, you should be damn sure that it's justified; and in that sense, discussing what rights come from God is useful.

But sometimes it seems that people turned it into waiting for God to do something about violations of these rights.

How did all the constitutions came to be? Not because God gave the Constitution - any constitution - to people; but by people willing to fight to the death for what they considered to be their basic right.
Take for example Magna Carta. You have a king that behaves like everything is for him to plunder, and then when people had enough - or at least, when barons and such had enough - they rebelled. The king was forced to give to the people some rights. And later, as soon as he could, he reneged on it.. and over centuries, much of it was repealed.

So as the next step, when people see that the government - the king, in that case - could not be trusted to keep to his word - after a few centuries - what do you get? Oliver Cromwell, rebelion, king loses his head. You can bet that the kings after that time remembered it. And what else you get? In the colonies, people decide that they can do without the king, and that they can pull off a rebellion, and they do so.

This principle is not just about rebellions; imagine two countries, sharing some border, and having disputes. Eventually they go to war, neither can clearly win, the war weakens them both, so they stop, make peace, and make some document about how are these disputes going to be worked out.
It is not the document itself that guarantees jack **** there; it is the fact that each side know that if they push too far, the other side will take arms, and the outcome will be more expensive than if they simply stop pushing. And the document serves as a guideline, so that everyone knows where the limits are - the limits of patience of the other side.
The document itself is not a guarantee. A peace treaty, Magna Carta, Constitution, you name it. Same thing.

Paper does not stop bullets.

A constitution, therefore, depends on there being two sides, each willing and able to take arms in the defense of their half of the deal. This means that each side has to enforce their half.
But nowadays, somehow, it turned out to a different and in my opinion an impossible system - one side, the government, is supposed to uphold both sides of the deal - their side and the people's side? Yeah, right. The proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

Imagine two street gangs making a deal - our turf is up to this block, yours is on the other side. Then one of them disarms itself and expects the other to police itself, while the other is still being armed. What will be the outcome? The armed gang will slowly take all of their turf. Any street kid could tell you that.
Yet we have disarmed citizens and we expect the armed government to keep itself in check.
Nope, not gonna work. Same principles of human behavior work for everyone.

Someone can say that the government would not do it because it's from the people and for the people. This is like the armed street gang claiming they found Jesus. All well and good, but not a solid basis for trusting them to the point of throwing away our guns.

The rights start from people's will to defend them. God does not do people's homework for them, pretty much like a truly wise parent does not do homework for his school-age kids - they have to do it themselves.