An UNALIENABLE Right

If a right is unalienable....how can it not apply to most of the people in the country?

 

It's working for me.

 

I certainly agree with your right to life. How do you defend it? As we speak, there are people who would just as soon end your life to support their drug habit for the day.

Is having the right to your opinion more important than a woman's right not to be raped or murdered by someone twice their size?

 

Well, I guess I can make the people on the right as equally mad as the left has gotten, but somebody has to say this.

6Gunner made the very applicable point that we are always striving to live up to the ideal. That puts us in a precarious situation - one I have been beaten down for the past 15 years for acknowledging.

The courts are legislating from the bench and judicial activists are setting us up for serious defeats in the future. An article I ran across does the concept better justice than I can. Here are some excerpts:

"The Tenth Amendment is largely ignored today, as politicians all too conveniently assert that Congress has unlimited powers in pursuit of "the general welfare." They're wrong. James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, stated in Federalist 45 (written during the ratification process) "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Nor did he change his mind in his later years, writing that "With respect to the two words "general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson saw it this way as well: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

http://articles.mcall.com/2003-09-17/opinion/3483740_1_constitution-powers-congress

Now, what do you think the Supreme Court is saying today?

 

Answer the original question, but you can't can you?

 

I can not find a question or question mark anywhere in the OP? Am I missing it?

 

Again, please name ONE people group or nation that had MORE freedoms and civil rights for their citizens than Americans did back in 1789.

Then back it up with evidence.

 

I know of none off hand though I am sure an argument could be made for some nations that did not have slavery. But lets say none. Now.....will you answer my question?

 

spell check changed ASK your self to AS YOURSELF

 

Your hypothetical right to life applies only with regard to actions taken by government against the people. However there is no legal standard under which one private citizen can be held responsible for violating the constitutional rights of another private citizen. The united states constitution restricts and lays out government authority, it does not control and restrict the people.

 

Firearm-related restrictions have led to the deaths of private citizens, by making it legally impossible for them to protect themselves from harm by outside parties in a timely manner.

 

America rocks!
No majority African nation had the abolition of slavery back in 1789, nor did almost all nations in the world at that time.

As far as women's rights, America was a worldwide leader in allowing women to vote. New Jersey first allowed women to vote in 1776.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage

All all other nations were ruled by kings, chiefs or other thugs. What other nations had ex post facto laws and habeas corpus?

 

The Founders' determined that creating a unified country was more important than solving the slave issue, yet in their infinite wisdom created the very mechanism necessary for future generations of said unified country to rectify the problem themselves in a Constitutional manner. Either way the very mention of the slave issue at all is disingenuous, as it places undue and biased constraints upon the Founders that do not reflect the world in which they resided and decided upon matters...

 

This was part of an answer I was about to post. You are correct in my opinion, a standing on ending slavery would have divided support for adopting the Constituion as a framework for government as it divided states nearly 100 years later. However, what many that attempt to discredit the Constitution and it's authors by bringing up the slavery issue seem to forget is the very provisions of the Constituion carried the remedies for correcting itself. While it took time, Amendments were made using the Constitution as the framework. There is little that cannot be addressed using it's framework, including gun control if the left were able to get the votes...but, they can't because the majority of Americans tend to oppose limiting individual rights, won by the sacrifice of so many these last two hundred years. The left will not be able to convince he majority of Americans to surrender their rights without deception and without cloaking their intentions. Then too, there are those dedicated to the preservation, against any threat from the left or right, of the fundamentals for governing laid out in the Constitution, that creates a government of the people, one that protects basic rights of the individual, and a government that serves at the will of its citizens.

 

So they did not believe all people held unalienable rights at the time of the constitution. My point all along

 

Did you know you did not answer my question? I think you did. It must be a hard one. LOL

 

At the end of the day, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper. I do believe it lists the rights that we are supposed to hold as sacred, uninfringible, 'unalienable,' but its really only good as a reminder, or possibly as a moral justification to resist legislative encroachment. The more we let it be 'redefined' into meaninglessness, the less 'moral high ground' we have to stand on in physically resisting the laws made according to these 'redefinitions' and 'reinterpretations' (or more accurately, the less that moral high ground will matter). The mob will eventually rule if it gains enough of a majority.

Fortunately, its a long, long way from that.

 

Who is the they? Not all delegates attending the Convention in 1787 were in agreement.

Your point is to weaken the argument of unailienable rights, specifically that of self defense and RKBA. Yet, weaken any right and you lose your right to speak.

It is worthwhile, but I know, VG won't do so, to go back through the notes, some by Madison, of the daily debates during the Convention. Emerging with a document all states could accept for a central government was a monumental task, but, a government was created under a framework that eventually ended slavery and extended protected rights unequivocally to all.

 

If a right is unalienable....how can it not apply to most of the people in the country?

 

I tried to make a point earlier and it got lost in the other posts. Can I show all of you something?

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Now, watch an activist court spit on the American people:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

Did you see what happened? The United States Supreme Court over-turned standing precedent all the way up to previous Supreme Court rulings in order to claim that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over unalienable Rights!!!!! Oh, they're going to pretend we have a "right" to keep and bear Arms, but that "right" is one they think they granted.

Those of us on the right side of the political spectrum are inadvertently helping the courts and the left wingers to expand on this usurpation of power.

 

Thankfully virtually everyone agrees with this statement

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

 

So, for you, 50%+1 of those within a tax jurisdiction who are allowed to participate and do participate decide what is right and what is wrong? If not, by what principle would measure the wrongness of a democratic outcome?

 

Well it has to be within the context of what SCOTUS rules is constitutional for a simple majority to rule on something

 

Ok. So it's government that, for you, ultimately decides right and wrong?

 

No the people do. Government should be of the people