The right to life and constitutional law.

[MrFun]

I didn't want to go back to threadjacking the sacred, divine Canadian health care thread.


FLASHBACK:

According to Imran, in United States, there is no legal right to life, because it is not stated as such in our U.S. Constitution, and that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing at all, so therefore, the phrase, "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" also has no legal bearing.

If you want, go back to the Canadian health care thread to see exactly what we said at that point. In my opinion, I think people like Imran denigrate too much the moral principles and justice that is implicated in the Declaration of Independence. Not to mention that there are political scientists and others who agree with me, that the Declaration of Independence IS part of our country's organic laws.


Now, to start where he and I left off:

If Americans have no legal right to life, why is murder a crime? Why is there such controversy over abortion? Why is there controversy over euthanasia-assisted suicide?

I'd be very scared if I had no legal right to life.



PS: Imran, if you haven't already in the other thread, please explain to me the concept of organic laws. Because either you're saying that the Declaration of Independence is not part of our country's laws at all, which would include the organic type of laws then, or you are arguing that this document is not part of some other type of laws, but it still is organic law.

[Verto]

stfu

[MrFun]

No need to lash out with childish insults.

[Verto]

Who'se lashing out?

[Guynemer]

I, too, am interested in Stefu's opinion on this, Verto.

[MrFun]

uh . . . . . . .




um . . . . . .






you?



EDIT: x-posting

[Pekka]

so what if there's no paper about right to life? If state can execute you from a crime you commited, basically takign that right away, you know, what do you do with that right to begin with? It can be taken away from you, so what's the big deal about having some letters on a paper?

It's like the freedom of speech thing, which I .. look at you my brave American friends, you take it for granted as in, it's in the paper thus US > the world. I mean, that's like the weakest argument I've ever heard on freedom of speech and how it's implemented . This meaning, you have the paper, it doesn't mean anything more than that, you can always say, well there's this paper, but no one gives a **** if it needs to be ignored, I mean, there are people who care, but at the end, it's really just a paper, nothing more.

But it's a good principle, and only as good as what the people know and want. If they don't want to defend it, if they don't know what it's about etc, except some cop outs from school, you know, it's worth nothing. 0 cents. The worth of it is directly the... spiritual and principle wise.. meaning it gives inspiration to people to learn about it so they can defend it and know what it relaly means. If they don't do that, it's just nothing but a paper.

And so is right to life.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Pekka
so what if there's no paper about right to life? If state can execute you from a crime you commited, basically takign that right away, you know, what do you do with that right to begin with? It can be taken away from you, so what's the big deal about having some letters on a paper?

And so is right to life.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I wager that those who support the death penalty justify it in that the murderer took their victim's right to life, and by taking away that person's right, they committed a crime.

When you commit a crime, the nature of imprisonment is that some of your rights (such as voting, or in case of execution, life) will be taken away.

[Pekka]

Yes, so right to life is not basic right. By basic right I mean rights that can't be taken away, like humane treatment etc.

In theory, and practice, it's a right that can be taken away. It's a matter of principle, the state has been givent he right to take a life of a citizen away. IT doesn't matter if you think it's right or wrong, that's the way it is.

And we all know it's twisted, underaged getting sentenced, people with less mental abilities, under the hammer. Also innocent people. THis would be minority, but if there's a chance of an innceont person getting executed legally by the state, I ask you, why do you want a piece of paper that says right to life? That just makes the paper cheap.

Besides, killing is illegal anyway, no one (oops, except state) has the right to kill you. Unless in self defense. Paper doesn't protect life anyway and makes no changes to practice, so why make that paper, I see no reason for it at all.

[MrFun]

So then why did the Founding Fathers even bother writing in the Declaration of Independence, "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"



They thought the words sounded pretty?

[Pekka]

Maybe they were high. I don't know why they wrote it. If they wrote it, then why do you have DP?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Pekka
Maybe they were high. I don't know why they wrote it. If they wrote it, then why do you have DP?

Because the state can take away the right(s) of convicts for crime(s) they committed.

But why would this mean that law-abiding citizens and foreign residents have no right to life?

[Ramo]

I have no idea what an "organic law" is supposed to be, but the Declaration has no legal authority.

There are similar declarations of rights in the Constitution in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments ("life, liberty, and property").

As for why murder is a crime, those are mostly state laws. Congress was able to federalize it under certain circumstances through common law and the commerce clause.

[Arrian]

Abortion thread in 5... 4... 3... 2...

[MrFun]

This is a basic definition of organic law.


Main Entry: or·gan·ic law
Function: noun
: the body of laws (as in a constitution or charter) that form the original foundation of a government; also : one of the laws that make up such a body