The right to life and constitutional law.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Abortion thread in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Terry Schiavo reference in 5....4.....3.....2.....

[Pekka]

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

So it's not a basic human right then. Life that is. It's not the biggest commodity. There are rights that can't be taken away. Life is not one of them. I mean, that even if you murder someone, you still have some rights left in you. Except life.

So it's not the biggest right to begin with. Why make a paper about it?

Why do you need a paper to state that you have a right to life? Should we start making papers for other unwritten rights too? And indirectly you have a right to life, since if your life is taken away, it's by crime, or by state. So there's always foul play involved, or you committed a crime. Why make a paper about it, it doesn't change anything. And because it doesn't change anything, I just don't see what the point is.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Pekka
"Because the state can take away the right(s) of convicts for crime(s) they committed."

So it's not a basic human right then. Life that is. It's not the biggest commodity. There are rights that can't be taken away. Life is not one of them. I mean, that even if you murder someone, you still have some rights left in you. Except life.

So it's not the biggest right to begin with. Why make a paper about it?

Why do you need a paper to state that you have a right to life? Should we start making papers for other unwritten rights too? And indirectly you have a right to life, since if your life is taken away, it's by crime, or by state. So there's always foul play involved, or you committed a crime. Why make a paper about it, it doesn't change anything. And because it doesn't change anything, I just don't see what the point is.

So then the Founding Fathers were stupid for declaring that we have "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

These are just meaningless, trivial things.

[Zkribbler]

IIRC, Jefferson was anti-death penalty because he believed that life is a fundamental right which cannot be taken away by the government.

Why is murder a crime? Because leglislatively passed statutes that say it is. Revoke those laws, and it's open season.

Imran pointed out in the Canadian thread the life can be taken away by the state...but only if due process is satified.

[Ramo]

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

That would be the US Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence isn't law.

[Kidlicious]

I think we have the right to life in this country, and so if it's only written in the DoI, then the DoI must be a law.

[Pekka]

MrFun, yes they are meaningless on paper. The principle counts. If no one knows what they mean, if no one defends it, if it becomes a viable strategy to attack those principles, yes, just words on paper. In real life too, just words on paper.

What matters is what happens in practice. A paper guarantees you nothing in itself, but the principle, if followed by men and agreed upon, then you are guaranteed that as long as there is an agreement. And it can be taken down in one night when you sleep.

That's why you must remain vigilant, armed and ready.

And trust no paper, no man, but your 12 gauge shotgun. And landmines.

What the Founding Fathers did was not write the most expensive paper on history of the US. No no no... they agreed on principles. Chose the principles that the country should be lifted upon.

I mean come on, I shouldn't be the one teaching you guys about this, no? yes?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
MrFun, yes they are meaningless on paper. The principle counts.

Right. So if the govt violates the principles that it was founded upon then there is no justification of its rule. The principles must be the law.

[Pekka]

Not necessarily but it makes sense if it was so. But not necessarily. Everything, the laws, the borders, the rules of nations, UN, everything, is just an agreement made between the people. Most people had nothing to do with it, since some of the agreements are so old, that they were born into it.

Most people don't realize that by keeping their passport, their citizenship, they are in formal agreement of those rules. If they disagree, they can give up the citizenship, passports etc. That's like the member card to the club. And because you have chosen to keep that membership, those rules do apply on you. Because we have agreed so. But a way to get out of the touch of the local rules is to give up the membership, however you have really slim or none choises after that.

But that's why they don't understand necessarily that they are just agreements. Even laws are just agreements in a way. What's legal today might be illegal tomorrow, and there are some things that are sure to be illegal tomorrow. And vice versa, rarely this way but happens sometimes.

Even the court of law is just an agreement, that we have given the power to it. THere can always be revolution. We will have some kind of rule system in society or we will have anarchy and chaos, but the rules will be unwritten or written. Which one is more powerful? Which ones are more followed by men? Tough to say.. it's like asking, which one is more powerful, the law of the books or the laws of the street. They are, in nature, the same thing.

So, you know I just don't see any worth in paper, written agreements etc, made in such ... high abstract level as this, I consider it meaningless.

[lord of the mark]

Mr Fun

Ever see the musical "1776"?


The actual law passed was the Virginia resolution, which declared the 13 colonies free and independent states, period. The declaration was a document to explain to the world the causes of the declaration. It was not binding as law. We hold these truths to be self - evident was to make a case for independence, not to establish them as law. Of course the rights to life, liberty, and property (generally not the pursuit of happiness) were established in most state constitutions immediately after July 1776.

[Odin]

The DoI has no force of law, it was simply a declaration of seccesion, as well as declaring the reasons for seccesion for use as propaganda.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Think about this: If there was a Constitutional 'right to life', why is the Death Penalty allowed?

Anyway 'organic law' sounds like 'common law' and under the common law there was no right to life. The Declaration did not change the common law. As LOTM said, it was an explination to the world... a PR document as it were, and also to rile up people in the home country.

edit: though it seems Ramo dealt with it, because MrFun says 'organic law' is the law to create the government.

You may be scared that you have no right to life. I'm MORE scared that someone who studies history like yourself had no idea of this.

[Arrian]

A piece of propoganda, even.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Not necessarily but it makes sense if it was so. But not necessarily. Everything, the laws, the borders, the rules of nations, UN, everything, is just an agreement made between the people. Most people had nothing to do with it, since some of the agreements are so old, that they were born into it.

I don't agree that the law is an agreement, but that's another issue. Taking people's life is only acceptable in certain situations, and so we say that people have the right to life. I believe it's enough that it states this in the DoI that the govt could be held accountable for violation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think we have the right to life in this country, and so if it's only written in the DoI, then the DoI must be a law.

This is why we claim you have no grasp of logic.