NEW - 11-14-08 - "U.S. unemployment claims hit 7-year high" yet we "need" 25+ million illegals?????

"Scout" wrote
>
>>> Note that word "inalienable." "Inalienable" means exactly
>>> what it would seem to: "incapable of being alienated," or
>>> in other words, "incapable of being taken away." If something
>>> is truly "inalienable," then by definition it cannot be infringed,
>>> denied, etc...
>
> Oh, it most certainly can be infringed or denied.
>
You miss the point.

It is not that "rights" do not exist in a practical sense; it
is that the notion of "inalienable" rights, while certainly fine-
sounding rhetoric, is fundamentally nonsense.

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
> "Scout" wrote
>>
>>>> Note that word "inalienable." "Inalienable" means exactly
>>>> what it would seem to: "incapable of being alienated," or
>>>> in other words, "incapable of being taken away." If something
>>>> is truly "inalienable," then by definition it cannot be infringed,
>>>> denied, etc...
>>
>> Oh, it most certainly can be infringed or denied.
>>
> You miss the point.
>
> It is not that "rights" do not exist in a practical sense; it
> is that the notion of "inalienable" rights, while certainly fine-
> sounding rhetoric, is fundamentally nonsense.

Oh, so you don't have any rights, and I can do anything I want to you?

"Scout" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scout" wrote
>>>
>>>>> Note that word "inalienable." "Inalienable" means exactly
>>>>> what it would seem to: "incapable of being alienated," or
>>>>> in other words, "incapable of being taken away." If something
>>>>> is truly "inalienable," then by definition it cannot be infringed,
>>>>> denied, etc...
>>>
>>> Oh, it most certainly can be infringed or denied.
>>>
>> You miss the point.
>>
>> It is not that "rights" do not exist in a practical sense; it
>> is that the notion of "inalienable" rights, while certainly fine-
>> sounding rhetoric, is fundamentally nonsense.
>
> Oh, so you don't have any rights, and I can do anything I want to you?

You're really not getting it, are you?

There being no such thing as INALIENABLE rights does not
equate to not having any rights at all. The point is that in any
practical sense of the word, you or I or any other individual
is assured of only those rights which our society (i.e., all the
rest of us, as a whole) has agreed it will defend on behalf of
the individual. You have those rights, and you have them
precisely as long as said society continues to believe that they
are worthy of defending. Once that belief ends, you can
yell all you want about your rights being "inalienable," and it
won't change one whit the hard fact that those rights are
GONE.

Clearer, now?

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" > wrote
> There being no such thing as INALIENABLE rights does not
> equate to not having any rights at all. The point is that in any
> practical sense of the word, you or I or any other individual
> is assured of only those rights which our society (i.e., all the
> rest of us, as a whole) has agreed it will defend on behalf of
> the individual. You have those rights, and you have them
> precisely as long as said society continues to believe that they
> are worthy of defending. Once that belief ends, you can
> yell all you want about your rights being "inalienable," and it
> won't change one whit the hard fact that those rights are
> GONE.
>
> Clearer, now?
>
Perhaps some examples would help.

Originally, Anerican citizens could own slaves. After all the Constitution
clearly prohibits the federal government any power not specifically granted
it by said constitution - and nowhere does it say the president can ban
slevery. Yet Lincoln did precisely that by executive decree, later voted
into law.

The Fifth amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury ...." so, well into the 1900s, citizens had the right to
resist arrest just as though it was a kidnapping - even killing the
officer - if no indictment had been issued. Today "resisting" is a crime in
itself. So much for inalienable.

One would think the right to enjoy sex is "inalienable". The Constitution
gives the government no authority to control our sex lives and it initially
did not. But(Wikkipedia) the Comstock Act was enacted March 3, 1873 making
it illegal to send any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through
the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to
banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information
on abortion for educational purposes. Twenty-four states passed similar
prohibitions on materials distributed within the states.[1] Collectively,
these state and federal restrictions are known as the Comstock laws. So,
for nearly 100 years, it was illegal to even mention birth control let alone
practice it, meaning sex was for making babies - period!. These laws are
still on the books but in 1965 were ruled unconstitutional so we can again
engage in recreational sex. The lord givith, the congress takes away, but
the court gave it back. Can you imagine life with no birth control?

"Vito" > wrote in message
ng.com...

> Perhaps some examples would help.
>
> Originally, Anerican citizens could own slaves. After all the
> Constitution clearly prohibits the federal government any power not
> specifically granted it by said constitution - and nowhere does it say the
> president can ban slevery. Yet Lincoln did precisely that by executive
> decree, later voted into law.

Not quite.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, to which I presume you are
referring, actually did not ban slavery in the U.S.. If you read what
it actually says, all it did was to free slaves in those states *still in
revolt against the U.S. government* as of Jan.1, 1863. Since
those states where it would be effective WERE still in revolt, they
would not have been under the U.S. Constitution anyway, had the
Confederacy succeeded. It was therefore mostly a gesture putting
the Union on a course to abolish slavery, while at the same time
serving as an enticement for slaves to attempt to escape to (and
fight on) the Union side.

Slavery was not abolished in the U.S. by a simple law, but by
a Constitutional amendment (the 13th) - which of course overrides
any previously existing text in the Constitution.

> The Fifth amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for
> a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
> indictment of a Grand Jury ...." so, well into the 1900s, citizens had the
> right to resist arrest just as though it was a kidnapping - even killing
> the officer - if no indictment had been issued. Today "resisting" is a
> crime in itself. So much for inalienable.

The key words here, though are "capital or otherwise infamous crime."
A "capital crime" is one for which the death penalty may apply, so this
amendment is quite clearly referring only to very serious offenses; it
in no way permits a citizen to resist arrest by legitimate authorities, nor
was such resistance ever commonly permitted on these grounds.

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" > wrote
> Not quite.
>
> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, to which I presume you are
> referring, actually did not ban slavery in the U.S.. ...

Pretty convoluted legal reasoning .....
>
> Slavery was not abolished in the U.S. by a simple law, but by
> a Constitutional amendment (the 13th) - which of course overrides
> any previously existing text in the Constitution.
>
> The key words here, though are "capital or otherwise infamous crime."
> A "capital crime" is one for which the death penalty may apply, so this
> amendment is quite clearly referring only to very serious offenses; it
> in no way permits a citizen to resist arrest by legitimate authorities,
> nor
> was such resistance ever commonly permitted on these grounds.
>
You are mistaken or maybe playing on "legitimate". Until cicra 1920 SCotUS
and lower courts held that one had exactly that right unless the arresting
officers held a court issued warrant. Of course, sans warrant, the arrest
was illigitimate.

"Vito" > wrote in message
ng.com...
> "Bob Myers" > wrote
>> Not quite.
>>
>> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, to which I presume you are
>> referring, actually did not ban slavery in the U.S.. ...
>
> Pretty convoluted legal reasoning .....

Not at all. Slavery remained perfectly legal in several
states, right up to the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
These were generally the "border states" which had
never seceded from the Union (Kentucky, Missouri),
Delaware, and Maryland) but also included New Jersey.
In the rest of the Union outside the Confederacy, slavery
had either already been abolished by state law or was
never legal in the first place. So slavery was NOT
abolished in the U.S. either by executive order or through
any federal law.

>> The key words here, though are "capital or otherwise infamous crime."
>> A "capital crime" is one for which the death penalty may apply, so this
>> amendment is quite clearly referring only to very serious offenses; it
>> in no way permits a citizen to resist arrest by legitimate authorities,
>> nor
>> was such resistance ever commonly permitted on these grounds.
>>
> You are mistaken or maybe playing on "legitimate". Until cicra 1920
> SCotUS and lower courts held that one had exactly that right unless the
> arresting officers held a court issued warrant. Of course, sans warrant,
> the arrest was illigitimate.

The Supreme Court has often upheld the right of a citizen to
resist an *unlawful* arrest, but the arresting officer not having a
warrant does not automatically make the arrest unlawful. The Court
has also long upheld the right of law enforcement officers to arrest
citizens when there was clear evidence of a crime having been
committed or the person in question being a danger to the public - for
instance, an officer witnessing a robbery would be completely within
his or her rights to arrest the robber without first having a warrant
issued. . It would be absurd to require an arrest warrant to be issued
prior to the arrest in such cases, don't you think?

In short, not having a warrant is a necessary condition for
an arrest being unlawful, but is not by itself sufficient for that call


Bob M.

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scout" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Scout" wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that word "inalienable." "Inalienable" means exactly
>>>>>> what it would seem to: "incapable of being alienated," or
>>>>>> in other words, "incapable of being taken away." If something
>>>>>> is truly "inalienable," then by definition it cannot be infringed,
>>>>>> denied, etc...
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it most certainly can be infringed or denied.
>>>>
>>> You miss the point.
>>>
>>> It is not that "rights" do not exist in a practical sense; it
>>> is that the notion of "inalienable" rights, while certainly fine-
>>> sounding rhetoric, is fundamentally nonsense.
>>
>> Oh, so you don't have any rights, and I can do anything I want to you?
>
> You're really not getting it, are you?
>
> There being no such thing as INALIENABLE rights does not
> equate to not having any rights at all.

Oh, so they aren't rights, merely "permissions", and if the government
decides you, say, have no right to life and starts killing you off then
that's not a problem because after all it's not like they are violating your
rights or anything.

So tell me, if there are no rights, why do people get all upset when they
are oppressed by a tyrannical government? After all what's their beef?
Violating their rights? They have none, according to you.

"Bob Myers" > wrote
> Not at all. Slavery remained perfectly legal in several
> states, right up to the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

I'm aware of that.

> ..... So slavery was NOT
> abolished in the U.S. either by executive order or through
> any federal law.

But if the "states" wherein slavery was abolished by Lincolin executive
order were not 'in the US' then federal troops had no business invading them
(as many Southerners claim). Obviously, the US Government considered them
part of the US because it was striving to quash a rebelion vs invade a
foreign state.
>
> The Supreme Court has often upheld the right of a citizen to
> resist an *unlawful* arrest, but the arresting officer not having a
> warrant does not automatically make the arrest unlawful.

Yes it did - until well into the last century.

> The Court
> has also long upheld the right of law enforcement officers to arrest
> citizens when there was clear evidence of a crime having been
> committed or the person in question being a danger to the public - for
> instance, an officer witnessing a robbery would be completely within
> his or her rights to arrest the robber without first having a warrant
> issued. .

That has only been true for less than 100 years.

>It would be absurd to require an arrest warrant to be issued
> prior to the arrest in such cases, don't you think?

Sure - today. That's why SCotUS reversed a century of jurisprudence - circa
1920 IIRC. That's why this is a good example of an "inalienable" right
getting "alienated" by a simple court decision.
>
> In short, not having a warrant is a necessary condition for
> an arrest being unlawful, but is not by itself sufficient for that call.

Only because the courts changed their minds as society changed.

"Scout" > wrote
> Oh, so they aren't rights, merely "permissions", and if the government
> decides you, say, have no right to life and starts killing you off then
> that's not a problem because after all it's not like they are violating
> your rights or anything.
>
> So tell me, if there are no rights, why do people get all upset when they
> are oppressed by a tyrannical government? After all what's their beef?
> Violating their rights? They have none, according to you.
>
Nobody said that there were NO rights, he said that none are INALIENABLE.

In other words, nothing stops government from destroying those rights except
peoples willingness to fight and even die to preserve them. Americans have
proven pretty unwilling since the 1960s. For example:

The Constitution specifically states that the federal government has no
powers except those given it by the Constitution and that all others are
reserved to the states and people and the Constitution confers no right to
regulate agriculture or medicine. At least one state has legalized Cannabis
for medical use but DEA, et al, will arrest anyone who ignores federal drug
laws - laws that cannot constitutionally apply to cannabis grown and used
inside a state. But no resistance similar to the Boston Tea Party has
materialized, encouraging ever more unconstitutional actions. But why
should I care - I don't use drugs?