The right to life and constitutional law.

[Colon™]

"rights" in a constitutional sense are about the relation between the government and citizens, not about relations between citizens. The lack of a "right to life" in no way entails that citizens can kill each other if there are laws that forbid this. It does entail that the gov't can kill citizens which obviously is something that has been happening in the US.
Compare to freedom of speech, it is quarantee for the citizens vs government, not a guarantee applicable to the relations between forum users and forum moderators.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Colon™
"rights" in a constitutional sense are about the relation between the government and citizens, not about relations between citizens. The lack of a "right to life" in no way entails that citizens can kill each other if there are laws that forbid this. It does entail that the gov't can kill citizens which obviously is something that has been happening in the US.
Compare to freedom of speech, it is quarantee for the citizens vs government, not a guarantee applicable to the relations between forum users and forum moderators.

Bingo. A more concise answer to UR than I would have come up with .

And I do wonder about his statement that if there is no right to life then all other rights are meaningless. Does that mean that prisoners on death row (who we all seem to agree have been determined to have no right to life) have no other rights at all? That they can, say, be beaten before their execution? That they can be tortured? After all, they have no right to life anymore. Yet, I see them being treated humanely before their execution. Kind of destroys your point, eh?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Thomas Jefferson refered to an 'inalienable' right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. Inalienable means you can't take them away at all. An alienable right may work with that argument.

To alienate a right had a specific legal meaning. A right received as a result of a contract or deal, could be sold or alienated, as property could be alienated. A king could grant a province the "right" to be exempt from taxation - the provincial parliament could alienate the right in exchange for something else (this was routine post-medieval politics) TJ was trying to establish that these natural rights were of a different order, and couldnt be sold or given up through contractual proceedings, not that punishments for crimes had to respect life, liberty and property. If he meant he latter, he would have had to oppose not only the DP, but imprisonment for crime, or even a fine for a crime. There is nothing in his record as Gov of Va, or President, that i know of, that indicates he thought of inalienable rights that way - nor is there that anyone else at the time did so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

TJ was trying to establish that these natural rights were of a different order, and couldnt be sold or given up through contractual proceedings, not that punishments for crimes had to respect life, liberty and property.

Inalienable means can't be given up. You can spin it in whatever way you want, but that's what it means. Now maybe you mean that Jefferson didn't truly mean inalienable, but inalienable for some purposes and alienable for others. It just backs the view that the DoI was written for propaganda purposes and nothing further.

And of course you can sell your 'right to liberty' for a while. It's called a contract. It constrains your liberty (for something in return). If you violate the deal, you have to pay a penalty.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™
"rights" in a constitutional sense are about the relation between the government and citizens, not about relations between citizens. The lack of a "right to life" in no way entails that citizens can kill each other if there are laws that forbid this. It does entail that the gov't can kill citizens which obviously is something that has been happening in the US.
Compare to freedom of speech, it is quarantee for the citizens vs government, not a guarantee applicable to the relations between forum users and forum moderators.

The question is if the govt has a constitutional obligation to ban murder by a private citizen. Now in its most direct form, this is academic, as no govt that I know of has legalized murder in general. Certainly no state in the US. But many govts have legalized murder of some groups of citizens, or have refrained from enforcing laws against the murder of some groups of citizens. The 14th Amendment to the US constitution addressed this through its equal protection clause, which means that the state cant ban murder of some while allowing it for others. IIUC, the Dept of Justice attempted to invoke this, and a "right to life" interpretation of the 14th amendment, to force states to deal with lynching in the 1930s, but apparently the courts never really bought this.

IS cited a case from a few years back in which a child who had been seen by a state social services agency was killed by a family member. A suit was brought, claiming the state had an affirmatave obligation to defend the childs right to life. The suit was denied by the Supreme Court 6-3. The majority said there is no such right - the right is only against the state taking life without due process. 2 of the three dissenting justices focused on the fact that the child had been seen by the agency, and so this was not simply a case of "the right to life" but that the state was already implicated by its involvement. The third dissenting justice gave an opinion that seems to lean more toward the idea that there there IS an affirmative right to life - one the state is obliged to protect. There are different schools of thought on how the US constitution should be interpretated. There is now an active debate on that matter - IS' POV represents one, but only ONE, of the more influential viewpoints in that debate.

At the moment there is a particular majortiy on the court, and I have little doubt it would rule IS's way. Depending on the longevity of court justices, and the results of the next presidential election, this could change.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

TJ was trying to establish that these natural rights were of a different order, and couldnt be sold or given up through contractual proceedings, not that punishments for crimes had to respect life, liberty and property.

Inalienable means can't be given up. You can spin it in whatever way you want, but that's what it means. Now maybe you mean that Jefferson didn't truly mean inalienable, but inalienable for some purposes and alienable for others. It just backs the view that the DoI was written for propaganda purposes and nothing further.

And of course you can sell your 'right to liberty' for a while. It's called a contract. It constrains your liberty (for something in return). If you violate the deal, you have to pay a penalty.

Can you sell yourself into slavery? Can you forfeit your right to make a contract? Can you enter into a prima facie unreasonable contract?

[lord of the mark]

you can obviously sell your property. Does that mean you can sell your right to own property?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Can you sell yourself into slavery? Can you forfeit your right to make a contract? Can you enter into a prima facie unreasonable contract?

You could at the time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[ It just backs the view that the DoI was written for propaganda purposes and nothing further.

"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Georgetown Republicans, 1809. ME 16:349

"Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376


"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

"Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense and reason of man." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on French Treaties, 1793. ME 3:235


"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819. ME 15:200



The Right to Life and Liberty
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:211, Papers 1:135

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You could at the time.

Indentured servitude was not the same as slavery. An indentee had well defined rights under a contract of indenture.

Also, the indentees normally signed their contracts abroard, to pay for passage to america. Could you sign a contract for indenture here? Was it done?

[lord of the mark]

"It has been argued that the idea of inalienable rights is derived from the freeborn rights claimed by the Englishman John Lilburne in his conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by Oliver Cromwell. Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) defined freeborn rights as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.

The concept of inalienable rights originates from the concept of natural rights formulated during the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. Classical Liberal thinkers reasoned that each man is endowed with (God-given) rights, most importantly, the right to life and the right to liberty. However, they reasoned that the natural state of absolute freedom causes anarchy. Eventually each individual forms an implicit social contract, ceding his or her right to the authority to protect his or her right from being abused. For this reason, almost all classical liberal thinkers, for example, accepted the death penalty and incarceration as necessary elements of government. However, some argued against slavery because there is no way a person can consent to being enslaved in exchange for protection. Consequently, the classical liberals reasoned that people have the right to rebel against tyrants who arbitarily abuse natural rights.

The concept of natural rights played important roles in the justifications for both the French and American Revolutions. 17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". The 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, famously asserts:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote in the case of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that:

"The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property"

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



The question is if the govt has a constitutional obligation to ban murder by a private citizen. Now in its most direct form, this is academic, as no govt that I know of has legalized murder in general. Certainly no state in the US. But many govts have legalized murder of some groups of citizens, or have refrained from enforcing laws against the murder of some groups of citizens. The 14th Amendment to the US constitution addressed this through its equal protection clause, which means that the state cant ban murder of some while allowing it for others. IIUC, the Dept of Justice attempted to invoke this, and a "right to life" interpretation of the 14th amendment, to force states to deal with lynching in the 1930s, but apparently the courts never really bought this.

IS cited a case from a few years back in which a child who had been seen by a state social services agency was killed by a family member. A suit was brought, claiming the state had an affirmatave obligation to defend the childs right to life. The suit was denied by the Supreme Court 6-3. The majority said there is no such right - the right is only against the state taking life without due process. 2 of the three dissenting justices focused on the fact that the child had been seen by the agency, and so this was not simply a case of "the right to life" but that the state was already implicated by its involvement. The third dissenting justice gave an opinion that seems to lean more toward the idea that there there IS an affirmative right to life - one the state is obliged to protect. There are different schools of thought on how the US constitution should be interpretated. There is now an active debate on that matter - IS' POV represents one, but only ONE, of the more influential viewpoints in that debate.

At the moment there is a particular majortiy on the court, and I have little doubt it would rule IS's way. Depending on the longevity of court justices, and the results of the next presidential election, this could change.

I was reacting to the statements of some of the other posters, who seem to be misunderstanding what constitutional rights entail. I don't think you are making that mistake.
The way I read the 14th amandement, I'm inclined to take a literal approach like Imran and read it as it is. However, I don't know much about the jurispredence that has been build around this in the US and I can imagine it's generally not interpreted like that.

[lord of the mark]

THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. THE LIBELLANTS AND
CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, AND
FURNITURE, TOGETHER WITH HER CARGO, AND THE AFRICANS
MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED IN THE SEVERAL LIBELS AND CLAIMS,
APPELLEES.


``It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute, or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court-room), that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case. That law, in its application to my clients, I trust will be the law on which the case will be decided by this Court,''

Mr. John Quincy Adams.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Bingo. A more concise answer to UR than I would have come up with .

And I do wonder about his statement that if there is no right to life then all other rights are meaningless. Does that mean that prisoners on death row (who we all seem to agree have been determined to have no right to life) have no other rights at all? That they can, say, be beaten before their execution? That they can be tortured? After all, they have no right to life anymore. Yet, I see them being treated humanely before their execution. Kind of destroys your point, eh?

Um . . . . . not all of us agree that convicted felons are not entitled to their right to life; hence, my opposition to the death penalty.

Secondly, the fact that you have stated here that even convicted felons need to be treated humanely under the law seems to imply that the right to life is indeed part of our organic laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Lord of the Mark][/q]

Jefferson's personal views have absolutely no bearing on the intention of the Declaration of Independance. The fact that it was sent to a subcommittee to write up in flowery prose rather than a parliamentary committee indicates its use, to use for public relations.

[q=MrFun]Secondly, the fact that you have stated here that even convicted felons need to be treated humanely under the law seems to imply that the right to life is indeed part of our organic laws.[/q]



Your capability for strawmen astounds even me.

Convicted felons are to be treated humanly under the 8th Amendment's dictate that 'cruel and unusual punishment' be avoided. As well as the various treaties the US has signed which state so.

It is according to the WRITTEN LAW, not some natural law that prisoners are to be treated humanly.