Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

It wasn't the "belief" but instead the compelling arguments that established the political ideology of the United States. The compelling arguments for the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person have never been disproven and have always been reaffirmed.

It's very much like a scientific theory that is repeatedly subjected to tests where the tests always confirm the theory and none ever dispute it. We can be almost certain, for example, that gravity exists because every time we drop something it falls to the ground. You can call "gravity" a belief but the emperical evidence exists to show that the "belief" is not misplaced.

Everyone could stop believing in gravity tomorrow but gravity would still exist and the compelling arguments for the natural (inalienable) rights of the person will exist regardless of whether people know or accept those arguments. Pandora's Box was already opened when it comes to the Rights of the Person and it cannot be closed. It would be like trying to un-invent nuclear weapons. We can destroy nuclear weapons but we can't un-invent them.

 

Property rights collide with personal rights every time. You have to decide what is more important to you, property or humanity. If you answer property, then you are paving the way for a roll back of 200 years of history. In reality, the Civil War was a war about this issue. Property rights lost.

 

In fact it has the opposite effect of what you believe. The only power of the Court is nullification. It doesn't "create laws or actions" but merely nullifies them (or allows them to continue). By allowing even one judge to "nullify" it empowers that one judge to stop something from happening that would negatively affect us as individuals. It is a protection against tyranny as tyranny always relates to an act and by nullification under my proposal a single Supreme Court justice could prevent an act.

The 9th Amendment was based upon a couple of simply facts. First and foremost not all of the Inalienable Rights of the Person could be listed in the US Constitution and both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on that. Second was the fact that the founders were not so arrogant to believe they even knew all of the Inalienable Rights of the Person which would have been required to enumerate them. The understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person did not stop in 1776 but instead it was a task that the founders handed down to future generations. That is the paramount responsibility of every generation since the founding of America. To identify and protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Sadly few Americans take that responsibility seriously and we don't even teach "Inalienable Rights" in our schools. We mention them but don't teach them.


It, in fact, removes any "political" consideration from the Supreme Court decisions. It doesn't matter if 8 our of 9 of the justices are "conservative" or "liberal" justices (which, by the way, has nothing to do with Republican or Democratic political ideologies but instead refers to how the justice interprets the Constitution) because a single justice would have the power of nullification to stop an "act" which would violate the Constitution. Individual judicial nullification based upon the US Constitution is the greatest pragmatic protection of our Rights under the US Constitution.

 

Were all the books and belief in gravity to evaporate tomorrow. I could pluck an Apple from a tree and drop it, to show some force -- consistent, reliable, and reproducible -- existed and was acting upon the apple. I could measure the rate at which that force accelerates an object and rediscover the value of 9.81 m/s^2. I could observe it's effects on planets and stars and rebuild the laws of planetary motion which perfectly predict where each will appear in tonight's sky.

If the same happened with these rights, what observation or experiment could you point to that would demonstrates these rights continued to exist?






​

 

.
I can't believe you believe this post. It is wrong on so many levels that it is almost silly. By forcing unanimity on the court, you give one Justice supreme power over the other eight. Say you had 8 members think that part of our inalienable rights is the right to marry the person of our choice. One justice is a fundamentalist Christian who does not believe this is a fundamental right. Game over. The 9th amendment merely claims that the possible set of inalienable rights is not limited by those the government chooses to protect at any ONE time. As for nullification, that is a term that does not apply to the courts. The courts merely decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. The term only applies to non-judicial efforts to ignore the law based upon their own PERSONAL opinion about the constitutionality of a law. Nullification is really about stripping the courts of their sole power to determine what is legal and what is not legal in federal courts.

 

Well, I could hold a gun on you, take your wallet, and rape your wife and it would either be acceptable based upon the understanding of "might makes right" or it would be unacceptable based upon understanding the "Inalienable Rights" of the Person. I'd say that would be a fairly good experiment demonstating the difference between the law of the jungle based upon might makes right and modern civilized laws based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Wouldn't you?

 

You're referring to statutory ownership of property and not the Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property.

Slavery, for example, cannot exist based upon a natural (inalienable) right as a natural (inalienable) right cannot conflict with the natural (inalienable) rights of another person and the slave is a person with the Inalienable Right of Liberty.

In the United States today we have "statutory ownership of property" that is in direct in conflict with the natural (inalienable) right of property when it comes to the land and the natural resources of the United States.

 

Unanimous consent is only required for confirmation that an act or law is Constitutional. In short all of the Supreme Court justices would have to agree that something is actually Constitutional. My logic is really founded in an understanding of split-decisions by the Supreme Court that upheld the Constitutionality of an act or law where the minority opinions always raised serious issues of why the law or action wasn't Constitutional.

It is always better to error on the side of caution when it comes to the protections of our Rights under the US Constitution because once a "right" is lost because of Supreme Court precedent it's virtually impossible to regain that right. Normally it requires a Constitutional Amendment to reinstate a Right that has been lost due to Constitutional precedent established by Supreme Court decisions. Constitutional Amendments rarely happen and it typically means that entire generations are subjected to the abuse of government violating their Rights even if someday an Constitutional Amendment will correct the problem.

 

I have no idea what you are afraid of that is avoided by unanimous decisions but if you support an amendment that forces the court to provide full agreement, then you are demanding stasis. The court is and always has been a political tool of whatever party put a justice on the court.

 

baloney. Up until the Civil War, the same constitution gave property rights control over personal rights. If you think that the era prior to the Civil War is preferable to the post-Civil War, then I cannot support your proposition. Property rights are a function of the state. Personal rights are an abstract notion of the nobility and value of each human being regardless of place, status, race, gender or any other trait. If the struggle is between property and people, I pick people. For instance, a strict view of property rights would allow a man who owns river front property to pollute that river at will. If you live downstream, your personal right to a clean and vibrant river are abridged. Now some may argue that there is no right to clean water, clean air and a healthy environment. To those people I give you China.

 

We are not discussing the differences between those two philosophies. There are many differences between those two (and any two) philosophies. So the demonstration you offer isn't particularly useful.

We are discussing your assertion that the philosophy of self you are advocating is something other than belief. That, like gravity, your philosophy is scientifically demonstrable and exists regardless of belief. Do you see why someone might suggest that isn't true?





​

 

Excluding the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" there are no philosophies that effectively prevent the use of force in a nefarious manner against another person. It is only when the use of force is expressly limited to the "defense of the self from acts of aggressions by others (i.e. the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense)" that the use of force is limited where it cannot be used nefariously.

That is not just a "belief" but instead a compelling argument for the Inalienable Right. It was demonstrated by my example because my actions would have been violating your (and your wife's) "right of self" which is the foundation for all Inalienable Rights.

The "self" is the foundation for all inalienable rights and we can certainly prove that the "self" exists by simply looking in a mirror. The physical existance of the "self" is beyond any dispute just like an apple dropping from the tree.

 

Please show me where in the US Constitution it stated that one person could "own" another person.

You confuse the interpretations of the courts and statutory laws with what the US Constitution actually states. Perhaps you refer to the following:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1.html

Nothing it this statement referring to "free persons" or 3/5ths of all other persons indicates that not all "persons" should be free nor does it grant the "right of ownership" of a person to anyone under the US Constitution. In fact, the 9th Amendment expressly protects the unenumerated rights of all people (persons) and that would include the Right of Liberty for every "person" requiring the freedom of all "persons" which is referred to above in Article I. Every person should have been a "Free Person" under the US Constitution once the 9th Amendment was ratified.

Sadly the Supreme Court has rarely embraced the 9th Amendment except in rare cases. Had the Supreme Court enforced the 9th Amendment upon ratification then slavery would have been immediately outlawed in the United States.

 

No philosophy prevents the use of force. But many discourage or speak against using force. Pacifism for one.

There is a difference between a person's self and the rights you ascribe to it, just as there is a difference between the Bible and the beliefs that are ascribed to it. The Bible certainly exists and is beyond dispute. That the religious beliefs associated with It are as real as gravity is less certain.

Gravity does not exist because apples exist. It exists because we can observe, measure, test and predict the force that acts upon the apple. That doesn't seem to be true of the rights you believe act upon yourself.

Gravity does not exist because of a compelling argument that it should exist, it is shown to exist by observation and experiment. Your belief in rights of self are not.





​

 

The "Pacifist" doesn't believe in the use of force for self-defense against acts of aggression against them as they abhor all violence even as an act of self-defense. There is also nothing that prevents them from exploiting others so long as it doesn't involve physical violence. In short it is an extremely limited philosophy that would not prevent the abuses of others.

The "self" is a physical entity and it is the "self" upon which inalienable rights are established. Enumeration of the logical arguments for the inalienable rights of the person is identical in virtually all respects to the enumeration of the logical arguments for the theory of gravity. Both are based upon a natural laws. The enumeration of the natural law of "gravity" and the natural law of the "self" are basically indistinguishable.

 

The abuses of others, according to your beliefs. Other philosophies may prohibit abuses of others, according to their beliefs. You can't really argue that your belief system is the best ... because it's most consistent with, well ... your beliefs.

Your self is a physical object, the rights your beliefs attribute to it are not. A tarot deck is a physical object, what someone else's beliefs attribute to it are equally questionable.

Gravity was not established because of a logical argument... enumerated or otherwise. It was established by observing it's effects, measuring them, testing, and using the rules revealed by those observations to successfully and reliably predict future events.

The distinction between the natural law of gravity and your philosophy of self is that the former can be demonstrated with observation and experiment. The latter cannot. The two are easily distinguishable.





​

 

This is identical in all respects to the understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the person. An Inalieanble Right is fundamentally established by "observing it's effects, measuring them, testing, and using the rules revealed by those observations to successfully and reliably predict future events."

For example I've provided the "scientific criteria" for determining what an Inalienable Right is. (i.e. An Inalienable Righit is that which is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not violate the Rights of another Person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person.) It is not arbitrary or subject to belief but instead it is the "Law of Inalienable Rights" and is a Law of Nature just like the "Law of Gravity" is also a Law of Nature.

 

Eminent domain would have been more necessary and more proper.

 

The United States were formed as a country where every man had the same rights as kings, and they do not in any way interfere with a citizens inalienable rights.

 

The problem with socialism is that social contracts also require social morals for free.

 

They do not, unless you consider socialism of private property as a human right.

 

Yes, socialism does recognize social contracts which may recognize the concept of natural rights.

 

OK, maybe I missed something. If all the books and belief in gravity evaporated today, gravity would still exist. I could demonstrate gravity.

I could pluck an Apple from a tree and drop it, to show some force -- consistent, reliable, and reproducible -- existed and was acting upon the apple. The same observation, with every apple, every time. I could measure the rate at which that force accelerates an object and rediscover the value of 9.81 m/s^2. I could observe gravity's effects on planets and stars and rebuild the laws of planetary motion which perfectly predict where each will appear in tonight's sky.

If the same happened to these rights... could you do the same? What observation would you point at to show me they still existed? What would you measure and test to rediscover it's limits? How would that knowledge allow you to reliability and reproducibility predict future events the way we predict the position of Jupiter in the night sky?






​

 

The concept of natural rights is a form of Nurture for political animals simply due to that bailout by socialism of capitalism.

 

Socialism is contrary to natural rights in almost every aspect.