The right to life and constitutional law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by 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.

If Odin and Imran agree, it must be true

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

Claim?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

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

Because the Death Penalty is an exception that is acceptable to society (at least to many). People believe that the right to life can be taken away in this context.

[Pekka]

Kid, when laws were made, or we saw that we need laws, it's a good thing in society, it was agreed on. When people first were on earth, they were no laws. Thus it was agreed on. Consitutions were agreed on. The idea of laws were agreed on. When we change laws, it must be agreed on within the rules, that we have agreed on earlier.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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

What does politics have to do with logic. It's about power.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, when laws were made, or we saw that we need laws, it's a good thing in society, it was agreed on. When people first were on earth, they were no laws. Thus it was agreed on. Consitutions were agreed on. The idea of laws were agreed on. When we change laws, it must be agreed on within the rules, that we have agreed on earlier.

Only the people in power "agreed" to the laws.

[lord of the mark]

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

"AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


There is a right to life, but its not in the DOI. Its in the 14th amendment. Of course it only explicitly protects you from state actions, and it allows the state to take your life with due process of law (thus the DP) Im not sure what the constitutional consequences under the 14th amendment of a state deciding to legalize murder would be. A rather academic prospect, I suspect.

[Pekka]

So? it doesn't make it any different than agreement based deal, still. Who let those people in power? You don't have to agree with the agreement personally.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


If Odin and Imran agree, it must be true

[Arrian]

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Not depriving life =! guaranteeing life

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
A piece of propoganda, even.

-Arrian

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Not depriving life =! guaranteeing life

-Arrian

I think the framers of the 14th amendment, and of the many state constitutions with similar guarantees, (And the framers of the constitution) envisioned that it was the essential duty of all states to protect life, liberty and property - the reason to institute a liberal state was to prevent the state itself from endangering what it had been formed to protect. They explicitly banned the state from endangering life, liberty and property, as they saw the danger of the state doing that. I dont they considered it possible that the state would fail to guarantee these from private violation.

Note that the 14th amendment is a civil war amendment, designed among other things to prevent the reimposition of private servitude under a new name. They do this by establishing the equal protection of the laws - if a state is going to protect the liberty of white citizens, it must do so for blacks as well. The notion that a state would NOT protect the liberty of at least some citizens was not something they considered worth considering, as it was not possible, in their way of thinking.

Again, I think a state that failed to protect any one of those from private violation, would have difficulties under the 14th amendment.

[Odin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


"AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


There is a right to life, but its not in the DOI. Its in the 14th amendment. Of course it only explicitly protects you from state actions, and it allows the state to take your life with due process of law (thus the DP) Im not sure what the constitutional consequences under the 14th amendment of a state deciding to legalize murder would be. A rather academic prospect, I suspect.

That just says you cannot be deprived of your life except by due process of law, not that people have a right to life.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
So? it doesn't make it any different than agreement based deal, still. Who let those people in power? You don't have to agree with the agreement personally.

I just don't think you should call it an agreement when one person, or a group in power says if you want to live in this country you will do things this way. That's a power relationship.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin


That just says you cannot be deprived of your life except by due process of law, not that people have a right to life.

"Representative Lawrence made the same arguments in the House override debate on April 7 as Trumbull had made in the Senate. Quoting the same passage from Kent on the rights of personal security and personal liberty, Lawrence explained:

It has never been deemed necessary to enact in any constitution or law that citizens should have the right to life or liberty or the right to acquire property. These rights are recognized by the Constitution as existing anterior to and independently of all laws and all constitutions.

Without further authority I may assume, then, that there are certain absolute rights which pertain to every citizen, which are inherent, and of which a State cannot constitutionally deprive him. But not only are these rights inherent and indestructible, but the means whereby they may be possessed and enjoyed are equally so.[79]"

These are basic common law rights, the protection of which by law had been part of English law in modern times, and was part of the laws of every state from independence onward. (the South allowed SOME people to be enslaved, but there were still laws against enslaving a citizen) It simply didnt occur to them that such a provision would be needed.