The right to life and constitutional law.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

Then prison should be illegal shouldn't it? Heck, just about any law could interfere with somebody's pursuit of happiness, so are all laws constitutional?

Imran, you're a real lawyer now, so you should know that convicts don't quite have all the rights that non-convicts have. Their rights are covered in the Constitution under the due process clause.

Mind you I'm not arguing for the death penalty. I just don't think it's unconstitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AFAIK the justices who dont much like natural rights, dont much like substantive due process either. There hostile to the whole string of cases starting with Griswold v Connecticut, and only stare decisis, and the political reality of what going all the way back on those would mean, holds them back.

That's probably true. To tell you the truth, I can't stand substantive due process either. I understand the argument for it, but it simply isn't in the Constitution, and in the case of Roe v. Wade was bad law. The Court seems to pull it out from the common law (as in a right to privacy).

However, even then, they conformed negative rights... a right against the government. Not a right to force government action. Indeed the concept of positive rights is entirely missing from the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Then prison should be illegal shouldn't it? Heck, just about any law could interfere with somebody's pursuit of happiness, so are all laws constitutional?

Imran, you're a real lawyer now, so you should know that convicts don't quite have all the rights that non-convicts have. Their rights are covered in the Constitution under the due process clause.

Mind you I'm not arguing for the death penalty. I just don't think it's unconstitutional.

EXACTLY! That's precisely my point. The reading of Jefferson's clause as 'law' would lead to absolutely silly results. The proto-government of the United States wrote this document in flowery language to convince European states to either back their plight or not to back the English. No more, no less.

[flash9286]

Natural law

[Urban Ranger]

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.

So a right to property means the government can't take your stuff away? That doesn't seem to be the case, though. If nothing else (most) citizens are required to pay taxes.

Originally posted by Colon™
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.

Still, if the government can take away your life, that makes all these other rights kinda hollow, doesn't it?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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?

They aren't dead yet. Technically they still have a right to life, up to the point when they are executed. A death sentence permits the government to take away somebody's life, but he's still got the right up to the point when the government acts to take it (the right) away.

Furthermore, you are confusing two points. Even if I concede you the point that a prisoner on death row no longer has a right to life does not mean said person should not be treated humanely. Consider that, a prisoner who is not on death row can be tortured, etc. The question is not whether you can or not, but whether you should or not.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


They aren't dead yet. Technically they still have a right to life, up to the point when they are executed. A death sentence permits the government to take away somebody's life, but he's still got the right up to the point when the government acts to take it (the right) away.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


EXACTLY! That's precisely my point. The reading of Jefferson's clause as 'law' would lead to absolutely silly results. The proto-government of the United States wrote this

You can't draw the distinction between convicts who, by necessity for the interest of enforcing our laws, must have some rights taken away, from law-abiding citizens?

And you're a lawyer??


Even with my opposition to the death penalty as an unjust law that infringes on the right to life, I can still find acceptable other rights that convicts can rightly be denied, such as suffrage, freedom of movement, employment, and so forth. So as far as I am concerned, I am as consistent as one can be in arguing the importance of right to life in our organic laws -- if only we could abolish the death penalty.

Now, those who find the death penalty acceptable as a form of justice might still be able to argue in the importance of right to life from a different approach, but it would be ineresting what kind of reconciliation they would have to make in their argument for the importance of right to life while still approving of the death penalty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=MrFun]You can't draw the distinction between convicts who, by necessity for the interest of enforcing our laws, must have some rights taken away, from law-abiding citizens?[/q]



Pick up a dictionary, look up the word "inalienable" and get back to me.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think it has something to do with screwing Mexicans.

[Berzerker]

EXACTLY! That's precisely my point. The reading of Jefferson's clause as 'law' would lead to absolutely silly results.

Only by silly people

Madison wanted a right to life and liberty in there, and it didn't end up there. Obviously that meant the convention wasn't sold on them.

The people writing the Constitution did not believe in a right to live? Or they just saw no reason to state the obvious? I mean, why mention a right to speak if you dont first take for granted a right to live? Hamilton didn't even want a Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean he didn't believe in rights. He saw no need to state the obvious, that we have rights, because enumerating some rights would lead silly people to argue we have only those rights enumerated in the Constitution. It was this critique that led to the 9th Amendment, an amendment reflecting the Framer's belief in "organic" or natural rights.

C'mon Imran, look at the rights that are mentioned, they are spoken of as already existing, not inventions by gov't. The right to this or that shall not be infringed. If you want to be technical, not even the 1st Amendment says we have rights. It says Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech, freedom of religion, etc. If freedom (or liberty) dont = rights, then how do you interpret the 1st Amendment wrt rights? The same way the 5th Amendment should be interpreted when it refers to life and liberty... You dont find it peculiar the people writing the Declaration of Independence mentioned life and liberty as rights but the Framers forgot all that?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=MrFun]You can't draw the distinction between convicts who, by necessity for the interest of enforcing our laws, must have some rights taken away, from law-abiding citizens?[/q]



Pick up a dictionary, look up the word "inalienable" and get back to me.

Just for you, Imran.

Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: in-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred —in·alien·abil·i·ty /-"Al-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, -"A-lE-&-/ noun —in·alien·ably adverb


However, even given the use of the word inalienable by our Founding Fathers, it would be absurd to think that they thought they could never, ever allow for exceptions when it comes to enforcing necessary, just laws such as laws against murder, theft, and so on.

[fed1943]

An inalienable right knows no exception.But,to that make sense,one must know the technical meaning of "right".An american citizen has the right to life.And he cannot alienate that right.Nevertheless,the state can put he to death,can conscript him and then send him in a death mission or he can kill himself.That is not agains the quality(inalianabless)of the status(subjectiv right to life).Easy to understand if first you spent some years of your life learning Right(if really interested study one continental european law and one anglo one).
Afterall,may be not worth.
Best regards,

[Kidlicious]

Imran, you've been pwned so hard it isn't funny. You have to pay attention to the context that the documents were written in. If you don't you just look stupid.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by fed1943
An inalienable right knows no exception.But,to that make sense,one must know the technical meaning of "right".An american citizen has the right to life.And he cannot alienate that right.Nevertheless,the state can put he to death,can conscript him and then send him in a death mission or he can kill himself.That is not agains the quality(inalianabless)of the status(subjectiv right to life).Easy to understand if first you spent some years of your life learning Right(if really interested study one continental european law and one anglo one).
Afterall,may be not worth.
Best regards,

It would be absurd to the point of extremity if we tried to create a legal system that was ironclad and absolute when it comes to principles and ideas.

And besides, I disagree with you arguing that the state can legitimately put a citizen to death in regards to convicted felons -- sanctioning of the death penalty is based on unjust laws.