The right to life and constitutional law.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Actually since he said theres no practical way to free them, and he didnt free them, i see no contradictions between his words and his actions.

S'truth! It was illegal to free slaves in Virginia except under certain circumstances. If it were otherwise, slave owners would have been freeing their slaves which had grown old or were sick or injured.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sigh. because forfeiting it as an individual is not alienating it.

But it is. If I have an inalienable right to life, then it cannot be taken away from me. It is my 'natural' right. But, the government arbitrarily has decided to alienate my natural right by declaring those that do X crime will be killed.

Why don't you explain what alienating a right to life is, if it doesn't mean the exact same thing as forfeiting that right?

So far, only MrFun is consistant on this point.

since he said theres no practical way to free them, and he didnt free them

Please... if they have inalienable rights as well then it is immoral to not free them. It doesn't matter if it isn't practical, it's evil to continue doing the same thing. Does practicalness win out over immorality? If that were the case, the slaves never would have been freed in 1865. It wasn't very practical then and many of them returned to similar conditions after freedom because they had no where else to go.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I never knew you to be such an apologist for hypocrisy before, MrFun. Or is it just because these are your sacred cows?

TJs definitely not one of my sacred cows. I think much of his behavior during the 1790s was highly irresponsible. On slavery, I think he was too constrained by the assumption of his place and time, and was not willing to see beyond them, as Franklin and Adams were. In terms of his own slaves, the man was addicted to spending money (albeit mainly on art, literature, science and culture) and that was certainly a failing, and one that constrained him in matters financial. He was no saint, and was not my favorite founding father, by any means.

But to imply, as you have done, that his tortured stance on slavery means he was not serious when he wrote the DOI gives the impression of a deep historical ignorance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=LOTR]But to imply, as you have done, that his tortured stance on slavery means he was not serious when he wrote the DOI gives the impression of a deep historical ignorance.[/q]

Do you usually engage in such amazing examples of strawmen?

All I'm trying to show is that the DOI was Jefferson's Utopia. How things should be. But his actions show that he didn't think that's how things actually were at the moment.

[Zkribbler]

I pulled out Garry Willis's Inventing America last night. In this book, Willis analyzes the origins of various parts of the Declaration and explains what they mean.

The "inalienable rights" phrase, Jefferson got from a philopher named Henderson. Henderson's point was that human beings must act morally, thus they cannot give up their lives (e.g. suicide) or their freedom (e.g. sell themselves into slavery), because both death and slavery deprive a man of the freedom he needs to act morally.

There was no discussion on the state's power to take away life or liberty as punishment for a crime. My best guess is that Henderson/Jefferson would explain that taking a man's life or liberty is a proper punishment for one who has proven he cannot act morally.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=LOTR]But to imply, as you have done, that his tortured stance on slavery means he was not serious when he wrote the DOI gives the impression of a deep historical ignorance.[/q]

Do you usually engage in such amazing examples of strawmen?

All I'm trying to show is that the DOI was Jefferson's Utopia. How things should be. But his actions show that he didn't think that's how things actually were at the moment.

A statement of rights, or any ethical statement is not a statement of how things are at the moment, nor is it a statement of utopia. Rather its a statement of ethical and philosophical principle. Are you saying the DOI is not positive law = now thats a straw man, even Mr fun isnt arguing for that. Rather what we're saying is that these principle, included in the DOI, but not found there exclusively, in fact common currency among the founders, are useful as a background in interpretating the constitution and its amendments.

As, indeed, is English Common Law.

BTW, you havent replied to my Blackstone quote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rather what we're saying is that these principle, included in the DOI, but not found there exclusively, in fact common currency among the founders, are useful as a background in interpretating the constitution and its amendments.

No you aren't. MrFun has asserted on numerous times that the right to life in the DOI is part of the 'organic' law of the US. In fact he is asserting it is positive law. Not as a background, not as a guide, but that he does indeed have a right to life under US law. Go back and read his opening post.

BTW, you havent replied to my Blackstone quote.

You mean the one asserting religious law is above all? I think you'll find that in both English and American common law that that is no longer the case, not even in Alabama.

[lord of the mark]

"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone"

This quote, which asserts natural law as the basis for all positive law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Rather what we're saying is that these principle, included in the DOI, but not found there exclusively, in fact common currency among the founders, are useful as a background in interpretating the constitution and its amendments.

No you aren't. MrFun has asserted on numerous times that the right to life in the DOI is part of the 'organic' law of the US. In fact he is asserting it is positive law. Not as a background, not as a guide, but that he does indeed have a right to life under US law. Go back and read his opening post.

I think hes stepped back from that.

[lord of the mark]

this one is actually better and more relevant

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."
--Sir William Blackstone

It also clarifies the distinction between being "inalienable" (no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them) and being subject to forfeiture.

I think you will see now that I didnt make up this distinction, nor did Jefferson, it goes all the way back to Blackstone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It also clarifies the distinction between being "inalienable" (no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them) and being subject to forfeiture.

Which is highly disingenious. How can you claim that God and nature (which presumably flows from God) has given you natural rights, but that you can forfeit them by commiting a seperate act, one which does not explicitly disavow such a right? And contrary to what Blackstone may say, death penalty laws ARE indeed human legislatures abridging a person's inalienable right to life. The human legislature is DECLARING X act to be a forfeiture.

So, to summarize, a 'forfeiture' of your 'inalienable right' is decided by the human legislature, but "no human legislature has the power to abridge or destroy" your inalienable rights?

Riiiiiiiight.

And like I pointed out, in both English and American common law, rights from the Creator (based on religion) are no longer in vogue.

Furthermore in Blackstone's time, the King and Parliament with the King's approval had the power to do what they wished. So they did have the power to abridge or destroy whatever right they wanted. Unless you consider every act of religious freedom or free speech to be "forfeiting" those rights?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It also clarifies the distinction between being "inalienable" (no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them) and being subject to forfeiture.

Which is highly disingenious. How can you claim that God and nature (which presumably flows from God) has given you natural rights, but that you can forfeit them by commiting a seperate act, one which does not explicitly disavow such a right? And contrary to what Blackstone may say, death penalty laws ARE indeed human legislatures abridging a person's inalienable right to life. The human legislature is DECLARING X act to be a forfeiture.

So, to summarize, a 'forfeiture' of your 'inalienable right' is decided by the human legislature, but "no human legislature has the power to abridge or destroy" your inalienable rights?

Riiiiiiiight.

And like I pointed out, in both English and American common law, rights from the Creator (based on religion) are no longer in vogue.

Furthermore in Blackstone's time, the King and Parliament with the King's approval had the power to do what they wished. So they did have the power to abridge or destroy whatever right they wanted. Unless you consider every act of religious freedom or free speech to be "forfeiting" those rights?

1. Im not a lawyer. With all due respect, given a choice between Mr Imran Siddiqui, Esquire, telling me the distinction makes no legal sense, and Sir William Blackstone telling me it does, for the moment I'll assume Blackstone to be correct. IIUC his views are still considered crucial to interpreting American law, including constitutional law. Perhaps someday your views will be.

2. WRT to law based on religion - the point was the assertion of natural rights, not their basis in a creator. Certainly TJ didnt get his concepts of what natural rights included from reading the bible - I dont think Blackstone did either. Im really dont think the whole doctrine relies on deism.

3. What to do when the king violates the natural rights - well thats where the Americans part ways with Blackstone. Or move beyond him. THAT is what is the next step in Jeffersons syllogism - he takes the idea of unalienable natural rights, already accepted by Blackstone - and then moves on the logical conclusion, that there is a right to revolution.

Of course, AFAIK Blackstone didnt think the 1689 revolution was a mistake.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


S'truth! It was illegal to free slaves in Virginia except under certain circumstances. If it were otherwise, slave owners would have been freeing their slaves which had grown old or were sick or injured.

I don't think that those laws were enacted until after Jefferson's death. They certainly were not around during his Presidency. Come to think of it, did not Robert E. Lee free his slaves upon entering a career with the US Army? That was certainly after Jefferson's death. Furthermore, Jefferson could have moved to a free state where he could have freed them. All he needed was to free himself to his addiction to the life of a Virginia aristocrat.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


I don't think that those laws were enacted until after Jefferson's death. They certainly were not around during his Presidency. Come to think of it, did not Robert E. Lee free his slaves upon entering a career with the US Army? That was certainly after Jefferson's death. Furthermore, Jefferson could have moved to a free state where he could have freed them. All he needed was to free himself to his addiction to the life of a Virginia aristocrat.

TJ was definitely an addict, but it wasnt quite to the typical VA aristocrat life. A few months ago I visited Gunston Hall, the home of George Mason. He had a nice house, servants , good meals, yadda yadda. Few books, little decent art, no scientific paraphenalia, etc. The contrast with Monticello was striking. Mason was rather more typical I think (though atypical in actually staying out of debt)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
... [Blackstone's] views are still considered crucial to interpreting American law, including constitutional law.

No they're not. I've never heard Blackstone quoted once during my 12 years with the court.

Moreover, IIRC, Blackstone advocated in the case of accidents that each party should pay for his or her own injury. Such a position, if adopted, would have put most plaintiff attorneys out of work.