Has the USA changed its original priorities?

What does "the pursuit of happiness" mean and does the USA still guarantee the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

 

"the pursuit of happiness":


Its a good question, I just don't know where to start.

 

A few of thoughts.

There are a number of ways we can go about determining the 'US priorities'. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America can be mined for a list, though such a list may be open to discussion. That's one way.

Another is to recognize the effect on US priorities of our two party system of federal government. The specific party in power at a given time sets, to some degree, the priorities du jour. Lists of those priorities can be winkled from the party convention platform documents. These can then be compared over time.

And, of course, there are public opinion polls, but they have the disadvantage of being a relatively recent process.

So, at the end of the day it appears that the tools used to determine changes also have an effect upon just what changes fall under consideration.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

I am going to bump this for two reasons.
ISTM there is a stout group of Americans who refer to the DOI and the Constitution as the definitive word in a changing world.
And there is a noticeable lack of reference to The Pursuit of Happiness.
(I am assuming this means individual happiness...national happiness is unachievable).
For example, personal happiness has been ignored in every piece of legislation concerning abortion, gay + rights, conversion therapy and zoning laws, off the top of my head. If you know of any court case pleading this guarantee against state or religious bodies, I would be interested because I know of none.
ISTM that this "right is an important tool in preserving the personal lives of citizens.
Why has it fallen into seeming oblivion?

 

The Constitution guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It did not guarantee life, liberty, and happiness. The framers felt that if people had an inalienable right to life and liberty their pursuit of happiness would automatically and naturally follow. It is and has been changing as more and more politicians are wanting more of a guarantee of happiness per se (of course as defined by the politicos.)

 

You still haven't said what pursuit of happiness means. It is not IMO just the fulfillment of life and liberty.
And while we are on the subject, how does right to life square with capital punishment and the current interpretation of the second amendment?
And when liberties are severely curbed by racist cops and black demonstrators who object to their attitudes? Or when a woman's liberty to have an abortion (pursuit of happiness) is denied by law?
ISTM the pursuit of happiness has become the assumed pursuit of money, which is never challenged, especially by the wealthy legislators.

 

I would simply say this. The right to life, consider the baby/new life perhaps? The use of capital punishment, try not breaking the laws like taking the lives of others. The second amendment, have you ever experienced crime? You seem to see only one side of the coin. A land where convenience for a woman outweighs her responsibility for her own decisions as well as the life she terminates from her decision. You abhor capital punishment seemingly support government withdrawal of police, you want to remove the ability of the citizens to actually defend themselves from the tyranny that crime creates, and you'd doubt down somehow success in life is a burden. Don't know what to say other than maybe look at the macro view here.

 

The pursuit of happiness is defined by different people in different ways. For most I think it means fulfillment. That may be hearth and family, or it may be riches, or it may be a certain career, or it could be giving to others, or it could be a combination of all of the above.

Does the U.S. still guarantee the pursuit?

It does. I don’t mean to say the country is perfect, and I don’t mean to say that happiness is found by all. But we are some of the luckiest people to have ever walked the earth. We should not get so caught up in our political battles that we forget that.

 

I suggest you stop guessing about what I support and what I don't. What you CAN be assured of is that I do not nor never did subscribe to your designed pigeonholes.
Nor is this thread about me.
And finally you haven't defined or even discussed "pursuit of happiness".
Try again.

 

OK. At least you are discussing the issue.
However I do question what I read as an assumption that you in the USA are exceptional in honouring this idea. So I will read your comment as including all modern democratic and/or constitutional countries which are rooted in the European tradition.
OK?

 

I wonder what the Jefferson's slaves thought about the words he wrote, because that piece of paper didn't mean squat to them.

Pursuit of happiness means you are free to pursue whatever makes you happy. Happiness is not guaranteed, only the pursuit of it.

 

I would proffer that you’re misunderstanding his meaning.

So what happens if your idea of happiness and my idea of happiness are mutually exclusive? For instance to me happiness might be hunting and providing meat for my family. While your idea of happiness is that no animals are “cruelly” killed for meat.

What if my happiness is I like driving a massive gas guzzling big wheel truck that burps huge amounts of pollution into the air. While your idea of happiness is a “clean environment” with no gas cars?

Whose happiness trumps the other when our happiness is mutually exclusive?

 

They are not mutually exclusive. You can still hunt and pollute, while others can pursue whatever makes them happy.

 

No they can’t. Because what if I want to make it legal to hunt and pollute and they want to make it illegal to do so?

For instance California is banning gas cars. Which, according to her interpretation, would be violating my constitutional right to happiness.

 

Maybe you don't see the difference between "guaranteed happiness" vs "pursue happiness". Its absurd to assume everyone will be happy.

Maybe your idea of happiness is to dump chemicals like mercury into lakes and rivers.

Maybe your idea is to drive a nuclear powered car, but you'll probably get voted down.

Well, you are free to pursue that, but don't be disappointed if you don't get your way. In the end of the day whiners will always whine and never be happy, but they are free to pursue happiness nonetheless.

You can freely pursue happiness, as long as you don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others.

 

So does that same claim hold true for homosexuals and trannys?

Let’s use trannys as an example. They demand I use compelled speech, that makes them happy. I don’t want to use compelled speech and be forced to use my speech in a manner which they approve, that makes me unhappy.

Can I say, as you just did, “Well, you are free to pursue that, but don't be disappointed if you don't get your way. In the end of the day whiners will always whine and never be happy, but they are free to pursue happiness nonetheless.”

Or do my children get booted out of public schools and i lose my job for not doing so?

 

Its interesting that you bring homosexuality into every discussion.

You can say whatever you want. You can even scream BOMB in an airplane, or call your boss an idiot, but you might be held accountable for it.

You can freely pursue happiness, as long as you don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others.

 

Lol so they can violate my rights by compelling speech but I can’t violate their rights by calling them something they don’t want to be called? lol the double standard is hilarious.

For the record, the OP brought up homosexuals and trannys not me. Which is really her entire point of this thread. She doesn’t give a fat babies ass if people like me have happiness. She’s only concerned with making sure the homos and trannys are happy. Peoples happiness who disagree with them or don’t want to partake in their delusion are irrelevant.

 

First of all, the "pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution. Secondly, there are vehicle restrictions all over. Seat belts, collapsible engine compartment, air bags, etc. None of these affect your happiness or rights.

 

You can all them anything you want or nothing at all. What are you talking about?

 

I keep a Webster's dictionary close by, and English is my primary language. So for me it's not difficult to understand what the pursuit of happiness is, what the term means.

 

True, it is not in the USC, but it IS in the Declaration of Independence. Both those documents are considered to be founding documents for the United States.

 

It is a founding document, but not legally binding. Not that I see anyone not being allowed a pursuit of happiness by the government.

 

Perhaps you wear blinders? Maybe you don't pay attention to what's been going on in this country and around the world for the last 2 years?

If one's pursuit of happiness involves not being injected with experimental drugs, there are many boatloads of individuals who have been denied that pursuit by the Imposter Biden.

 

Vaccine mandates have been around long before Biden entered public office. At least I think so, he is pretty old.

And no one is forced to take one. You are just not allowed to be around other people in many ways without one. It kinda affects everyone else's pursuit of happiness if you get them sick.