What is to prevent any 'abused' group from following the Gay marriage example?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But you yourself have argued that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision, so why would you use it now as an example of law making?

Because it is an example of law making. Why should that keep him from saying it was a bad decision?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said many found it immoral, but didn't oppose it because it was seen as a "necessary evil." That's an important distinction.

See, I don't think so. They believed that people didn't have a right to not be enslaved because it was a 'necessary evil'. They get to the same end point but by different means.

certainly societal opinion of the West as a whole was anti-slavery.

That is another question. What is our society? How do we decided which 'society' decides our 'rights'? When I'm in Georgia am I in another society and thus have different rights than when I am in New Jersey? And how is it divided? Not by state, right?

So there has yet to be a societal consensus on the right to an abortion, at least in any circumstance.

Over 60% believe that abortion should be leagal, at least, in the 1st trimester. It was closer to 40% in 1973. Society shifted after the granting of a new government right.

But you yourself have argued that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision, so why would you use it now as an example of law making?

Horrible decisions or not, doesn't change the fact that it was law making and right making.

Even you have to admit that the 'right to abortion' was something created by the government and not by society, because a majority of society did not agree with it and, as you said, a large portion doesn't agree with it now. So is there NO right to an abortion even though the government has said there is and enforces it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Because it is an example of law making. Why should that keep him from saying it was a bad decision?

But it doesn't really support the notion that law making determines rights, and by being a severely flawed decision, it underscores my point that what is right and what is legal aren't necessarily coincidental. That our government can produce laws that even Imran will acknowledge are bad does not bode well for the notion that government determines what our society views as a right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it doesn't really support the notion that law making determines rights

Of course it does. It is one of the best cases for showing that law making determines rights. We have a 'RIGHT' to abortion now!

it underscores my point that what is right and what is legal aren't necessarily coincidental. That our government can produce laws that even Imran will acknowledge are bad does not bode well for the notion that government determines what our society views as a right.

How does it do that? Just because our government can produce bad laws doesn't mean it cannot define what rights people have. Just because the government may be wrong, doesn't mean it hasn't declared a right. Obviously plenty of people (a minority) liked this new right to abortion and used it. The right was born in 1973 and continues to this day to be considered a right.

Remember, I'm the one that said Nazi Germany defined what were the 'rights' for its state, and I definetly see them as bad laws.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
See, I don't think so. They believed that people didn't have a right to not be enslaved because it was a 'necessary evil'. They get to the same end point but by different means.

This is a bizarre way of looking at it, and defies reality, IMO. In fact, I'm not even sure what this means...

That is another question. What is our society? How do we decided which 'society' decides our 'rights'? When I'm in Georgia am I in another society and thus have different rights than when I am in New Jersey? And how is it divided? Not by state, right?

There are no hard boundaries on any society, and they flow from region to region, jump across areas, etc. But in general, it has to do with mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

Over 60% believe that abortion should be leagal, at least, in the 1st trimester. It was closer to 40% in 1973. Society shifted after the granting of a new government right.

Society shifted after the law was changed, but that doesn't refute my points, because there's no reason that a law can't influence the way society thinks about something, certainly. But had the law NOT done so, had public opinion not changed, I guarantee you the law would not have stood for long, because it is ultimately the will of society that maintains the law, not vice-versa. So you will, on occasion, find a law that influences society, but that doesn't change the fundamental point that the law's legitimacy is entirely predicated on the society's acceptance of the law. If society collectively decided to ignore the law, it would cease to have any effect. This can be seen with any number of laws to date.

Look at Alabama's ban on interracial marriage, which wasn't stricken officially until a few years ago. The law was ignored, and interracial couples married in the state with impunity. Ergo they excercized a right to get married that, while technically illegal, they had because the majority of society said it was okay.

Even you have to admit that the 'right to abortion' was something created by the government and not by society, because a majority of society did not agree with it and, as you said, a large portion doesn't agree with it now. So is there NO right to an abortion even though the government has said there is and enforces it?

No, the government created a legal ability to have an abortion, but the concept that it is a right has yet to be fully accepted by society--that's why there's such a conflict over it. Since there is a real possibility Roe v. Wade might be overturned, the jury is very much still out on this issue.

Without popular mandate and/or acceptance, laws simply won't last. Look at prohibition. A minority of moralists passed a law that society as a whole did not agree with. So society circumvented it, rendering the law inoperable. Government was forced to respond to society and return to the status quo. If government determines rights, why doesn't prohibition stand today?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it does. It is one of the best cases for showing that law making determines rights. We have a 'RIGHT' to abortion now!

Yes it does! No it doesn't!

Urgh. See above.

How does it do that? Just because our government can produce bad laws doesn't mean it cannot define what rights people have.

Just because out government can produce good laws doesn't mean it bestows rights. Both situations only mean that government is an agent of society for enforcing rights, not that it determines them. If a government can make bad and unjust laws, then by definition it isn't the determiner of what is good and just.

[QUOTE]Just because the government may be wrong, doesn't mean it hasn't declared a right. Obviously plenty of people (a minority) liked this new right to abortion and used it. The right was born in 1973 and continues to this day to be considered a right.

Remember, I'm the one that said Nazi Germany defined what were the 'rights' for its state, and I definetly see them as bad laws.

Yet to see them as bad laws, you must acknowledge a higher authority that makes those laws bad. If government is the ultimate authority, by definition it can't make bad laws. So what determines a law to be bad, Imran? Hint: begins with an "S..."

[Lincoln]

Me thinks Imran is a lawyer.

Boris is basically correct. "Natural rights" however you difine that has nothing to do with laws or government. The basis of American law is "God given" or natural rights that transcend government. That was one reason for the second amendent so that the People had power over the government and existing laws that may in time violate the natural laws. Sorry I don't have more time to debate this but I must agree with Boris generally.

So the question remains. What is to prevent a radical gun rights advocate who finds himself in authority within the government from defying the laws now in effect which he believes are unconstitutional? Whatever one answers should be the same answer for the issue of gay marriage and the rebellion now taking place in the United States.

[GePap]

On slavery: How deepfelt Northern opposition to slavery was in 1860, I do not know. At most you can claim 40% of the total populace, or maybe 55% of the North, thought voting for a party that stood against expansion of savery, thought not its abolition, was worth electing.

IF by 1865 opinions had changed radically, it was due to the war that happened to occur in the middle there, and government actions taken during that time-you say most people in the north thought slavery immoral-yet there was no widespread public pressure on Lincoln to pass the Emancipation proclamation- people lauded it AFTER the fact, not before. Thinking slavery immoral, and putting pressure to ake steps to end the insitution against entrenched sectors who demand its conitnuation are not the same thing. HOw do we measure a "societal value?" HOw do you even know what the boundaries of the society were? In the entire US, maybe in 1865 a large majority saw slavery as immoral. IN a large portion of the US slavery was illegal already anyways. BUT in the areas were it was legal, there certainy was no majority opinion to remove it.

This is a major problem with "society" being the driving force behind rights. HOw do you define the borders of this society? Maybe most people in Mass. saw slaery as evil-and you can even say that the proof of this was that in 1860 slavery was illegal in Mass. But in Miss. in 1860 slavery was most certainly popular and legal- I would say in 1866 slavery was still popular in Miss. , though now illegal. So why did Mass. society get to talk for Miss. society? The reason why the opinions of someone in Mas.. might have bearing on the lagl rights of someone in Miss. is that both happened to be included within the same POLITICAL STRUCTURE, a singular state, with a set of laws and regulations that set the rules by which legitimate actions could be taken. ONLY becuase the US GOVERNMENT had the legitimate right in both Mass. and Miss. to set down the law, and delianite rights, did somoene in Mass. have the right to have a say in the rights of human beings in Miss. In fact the whole point of the Civil War was southern society, seeing its values threatened slowly by a changing NOrth, trying to separte and create a new sovereign independent goverment. The route towards the south keeping slavery was NOT convincing Northern society slavery should be kept, it was removing itself from the power of the Federal state, creating and independent sovereign and legitimate entity, and thus doing as they would.

This, to me, shows that in the end, when it comes to rights, it is GOVERNMENT, or again, the legitimate authority, whatever that authority claims legitmacy from, that deliniates rights, NOT some amorphous "society".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Boris is basically correct. "Natural rights" however you difine that has nothing to do with laws or government. The basis of American law is "God given" or natural rights that transcend government. That was one reason for the second amendent so that the People had power over the government and existing laws that may in time violate the natural laws. Sorry I don't have more time to debate this but I must agree with Boris generally.

Boris is not arguing for any sort or natural right whatsoever, certainly NOT a "god given" one. God never said crap about democracy-interestingly, he had a thing for absolute monarchies. It was those licentious-gay loving Greeks and those brutal, murderous Romans that had these notions of representative governments and rule of law. What Boris argues is that social opinion drives what rights are enumerated.

So the question remains. What is to prevent a radical gun rights advocate who finds himself in authority within the government from defying the laws now in effect which he believes are unconstitutional? Whatever one answers should be the same answer for the issue of gay marriage and the rebellion now taking place in the United States.

Such an advocate could give out licenses-then his actions would be challenged in court. If the courts ruled against him, then he would have to cease and desist-any licenses he gave out would be seen as invalid and taken away form those he gave them to.

Which is the same thing that has happened with giving out same sex marriage licenses.

So there really is 0 mystery to your question, nor any real deep moral question to it.

[Ned]

As to the original post, I believe any individual can decide to not obey a law he or she feels is unjust, so long as they understand that they may be arrested and charged with a crime and may have to defend their views in court.

On the flip side, just because someone believes their cause is just does not give them a right to break it with impunity. Authorities must continue to enforce the law until and unless a court orders them not to or declares the law unconstitutional.

As to Roe v. Wade, that decision was correctly decided because of Griswold. If there was an error, it was committed in Griswold.

I have always had two views on Griswold and the validity of substantive due process. But it is clear that the doctrine allows the Supreme Court, with no ascertainable framework or limits, to impose its views about right and wrong on America without a constitutional convention. This is wrong in concept.

[Dis]

I just want 7 wives. Is that too much to ask for?

[DinoDoc]

You can not even manage to get one.

[Dis]

that doesn't stop me from wanting it.

[DinoDoc]

You have to be able yo walk before you can run.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just because our government can produce bad laws doesn't mean it cannot define what rights people have. Just because the government may be wrong, doesn't mean it hasn't declared a right.

The government defines what legal rights people have, since laws are the only possible source of legal rights and you can't have laws without government. However, you admit that law and morality are not necessarily equivalent by stating that laws can be "bad" or "wrong" or whatever, and the primary definition of a "right" as given earlier was something along the lines of "That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting," that is, rights can be derived from morality or from law (ignoring the extraneous terms in the definition, though if anybody wants to split hairs then they're more than welcome to ***** me out for "so brazenly dismissing our rights that are derived from propriety and fittingnessnessness" or whatever), with the resulting non-disjoint sets of rights being, let's say, the set of "moral rights" and the set of "legal rights." The origin of legal rights is no great mystery, and the origin of moral rights isn't germane to the discussion.

Come to think of it, I'm not really sure what is germane to the discussion anymore. As far as I can tell the original thread topic was "Now that the mayor of San Francisco has broken the law, what's to stop other people from breaking the law?", but I'm just not seeing the slippery slope. Then there was some kind of bizarro Natural Rights tangent, which has nothing to do with anything, seeing as how marriage isn't "natural" by any reasonable definition of the word (though I suppose that Tass or another one of our forumgoers from Utah could possibly make the case that polygamy is "natural," if it came down to it). So, umm, I guess what I'm asking is, who won the debate, and what were you debating?