The right to life and constitutional law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you find it perfectly morally acceptable that state governments can completely disregard natural rights such as right to life simply because it's not explicitly written in our U.S. Constitution

Legally acceptable. Stop going into hysterics please.

I would be very much interested in hearing about other lawyers who have a different viewpoint from yours.

Why don't you PM the other few lawyers on the board then? All but one of the people who answered you have told you that natural rights are not part of the law unless explicitly stated in statute.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin


Rights are granted by society and ONLY by society (which in a modern, democratic, common law country means the constitution, the government, and the courts). I deny the existance of "God given rights" because they don't exist, it's metaphysical nonsense.

EXACTLY

we have rights because "society" agrees that we do...

because we have a system of government and a document (Constitution) that outlines what rights we have

because people are willing to fight for these rights

our rights didn't come from any God

when people say "God given rights", it is so offensive, it insults every person that has died in the name of our freedom... it is an insult to everyone alive today who is protecting and guaranteeing and respecting our rights...

if someone wants to believe in a God, that's fine, but don't pretend that he gave us any "rights"... where was God when Democracy didn't exist? Where was God before the Civil War, before the American Revolution?

WHERE HAS GOD BEEN FOR EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LIVED WITHOUT FREEDOM HUH??!??! WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THAT FOR ME BEN KENOBI?!?!

We are the ones who give ourselves our rights. It's our responsibility.

Because if someone tries to take away your rights, GOD IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE FOR YOU!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


[q=Lord of the Mark]Apparently this kind of literalism, and inability to look at larger context and purpose, is now an accepted constitutional legal doctrine.[/q]

For the most part throughout US history it has been. The US Constitution only gives the federal government power to act when it explicitly states it. It's a part of this whole limited government thing.

If you want a natural law system, make one yourself.

The US constitution does not lay down what the principles for its own interpretation should be, and as you know, there are several different schools of thought as to what the best approach is, and how these approaches have evolved over time.

But thanks IS, youve inspired me to go read "Active Liberty" by Mr Justice Breyer I might later go on to Cass Sunstein

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava


EXACTLY

we have rights because "society" agrees that we do...

because we have a system of government and a document (Constitution) that outlines what rights we have

because people are willing to fight for these rights

our rights didn't come from any God

when people say "God given rights", it is so offensive, it insults every person that has died in the name of our freedom... it is an insult to everyone alive today who is protecting and guaranteeing and respecting our rights...

if someone wants to believe in a God, that's fine, but don't pretend that he gave us any "rights"... where was God when Democracy didn't exist? Where was God before the Civil War, before the American Revolution?

WHERE HAS GOD BEEN FOR EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LIVED WITHOUT FREEDOM HUH??!??! WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THAT FOR ME BEN KENOBI?!?!

We are the ones who give ourselves our rights. It's our responsibility.

Because if someone tries to take away your rights, GOD IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE FOR YOU!

obviously someone who missed the point of Jeffersonian deism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

you find it perfectly morally acceptable that state governments can completely disregard natural rights such as right to life simply because it's not explicitly written in our U.S. Constitution

Legally acceptable. Stop going into hysterics please.

I would be very much interested in hearing about other lawyers who have a different viewpoint from yours.

Why don't you PM the other few lawyers on the board then? All but one of the people who answered you have told you that natural rights are not part of the law unless explicitly stated in statute.

rather than do that, he might find it useful to read some of the recent works on Constitutional Theory. He could read the Scalia book, for an originalist/formalist approach, and the Breyer book written as a response. Im aware of recent books by Sunstein and Reed as well. What would you suggest as a lay accesible book on the textual approach that you follow?

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


obviously someone who missed the point of Jeffersonian deism.

I wasn't talking about that

and I fully understand Jefferson's beliefs, deism, etc...

my rant was directed at general concept of "God given rights" that religionistas believe in

obviously you missed the point

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't see why anyone would conclude that the death penalty should be considered unconstitutional because people have a constitutionally guarenteed right to life. Whether or not the constitution does or does not it is also evident that so long as due process is obeyed the law can deprive someone of the so called basic rights. certainly the law may deprive a person of liberty and property. Do you think that convicted prisoners have full rights to liberty, property, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly, and the right to free speech? It has always been accepted that under certain conditions a person may have his rights curtailed.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't see why anyone would conclude that the death penalty should be considered unconstitutional because people have a constitutionally guarenteed right to life. Whether or not the constitution does or does not it is also evident that so long as due process is obeyed the law can deprive someone of the so called basic rights. certainly the law may deprive a person of liberty and property. Do you think that convicted prisoners have full rights to liberty, property, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly, and the right to free speech? It has always been accepted that under certain conditions a person may have his rights curtailed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't see why anyone would conclude that the death penalty should be considered unconstitutional because people have a constitutionally guarenteed right to life. Whether or not the constitution does or does not it is also evident that so long as due process is obeyed the law can deprive someone of the so called basic rights. certainly the law may deprive a person of liberty and property. Do you think that convicted prisoners have full rights to liberty, property, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly, and the right to free speech? It has always been accepted that under certain conditions a person may have his rights curtailed.

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.

[MrFun]

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.

Which reinforces the point I originally made in the first place, with the Declaration of Independence then being part of our organic laws.

This also reinforces my argument against the death penalty.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

you find it perfectly morally acceptable that state governments can completely disregard natural rights such as right to life simply because it's not explicitly written in our U.S. Constitution

Legally acceptable. Stop going into hysterics please.

hysterics?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is why we claim you have no grasp of logic.

Imran shoots himself in the foot.

If there's no right to life, all other "rights" enshrined in the US constitution are meaningless.

I can't stop you from talking, but I can kill you dead. So much for free speech, eh? Same applies to all these other rights.

[Berzerker]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says there is a right to life. All I see is where it says the government can't take away you life, liberty, and property, unless they go through due process, ie, they have to take you to a court to do it.

Those are rights, read the Declaration of Independence (and early drafts) if you need to see how the Framers classified them.

Rights are granted by society and ONLY by society (which in a modern, democratic, common law country means the constitution, the government, and the courts). I deny the existance of "God given rights" because they don't exist, it's metaphysical nonsense.

A right is a moral claim to act, or a greater moral claim to act. If society defines morality then its just majority rule at best and a really dumb majority brainwashed and ruled by a powerful elite at worst. You have to explain why the Nazis didn't violate the right to live of all those people they slaughtered if "society" defines morality and grants rights. You can't, not without looking for a new source for the right to life.

EXACTLY

we have rights because "society" agrees that we do...

because we have a system of government and a document (Constitution) that outlines what rights we have

because people are willing to fight for these rights

our rights didn't come from any God

They came from the creator according to the people who produced that document and system of government. You contradicted yourself, you say "society" creates rights but then point to a system and document invented long ago that seeks to restrain "society" from violating rights.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
A right is a moral claim to act, or a greater moral claim to act.

Moral claim?

[Berzerker]

If there's no right to life, all other "rights" enshrined in the US constitution are meaningless.

Kinda obvious, ain't it?