The right to life and constitutional law.

[Krill]

Life is not a right, it is a privilege.

[Pekka]

Ugh, yes I call it an agreement because IT IS AN AGREEMENT by the very definition!

It's what I said earlier, most people, this would include you as well, don't realize, that you are in agreement with those rules and laws if you decide to KEEP your citizenship. Now, you're old enough to know the rules and your personal preferences. YOu agree to those rules by keeping your citizenship. Period.

It doesn't mean you have to like it. You don't have to personally agree on anything, but as long as you keep your contract papers in the club HQ, you are in agreement of it.

You were born into it, so you just didn't see the agreements made, like most likely none of us did.

Power relationship or not, it was still agreed. When people didn't agree, war happened. Even US had civil war. I guess they had some disagreements on things. Powerful wins, but the losing side is in agreement, by submission or some other method, but it is in the agreement.

What you seem to not grasp in my arguments is that you somehow think you persoanlly need to OK and agree when you are in agreement. You are US citizen, yes? You are in agreement. Even fi you don't like it and disagree.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Krill
Life is not a right, it is a privilege.

It is a privilege to live this day and tomorrow.

[Kidlicious]

I'm really trying to say what LotM is saying. I think it's significant that the right to life is declared in the DoI.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Pekka
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.

Wait, so I'd like to know an example of a "basic human right" that can't be taken away.

[Sava]

life is a curse

[Pekka]

Mao, Well, there is human rights deals signed by nations, I'm not sure if your country is it or not.

For example, if you commit a crime, you still have some rights. Some rights that are taken away can be used as privilidges to have the inmates working towards the common goal, but there are rights that inmates have. Like for example, that they are don't become victims of crimes themselves, I don't see how it's legal for guards to beat an inmate. I guess they can't be denied of food for 10 years. Etc etc..

Those are for those who have their rights ... taken away.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
What you seem to not grasp in my arguments is that you somehow think you persoanlly need to OK and agree when you are in agreement. You are US citizen, yes? You are in agreement. Even fi you don't like it and disagree.

It doesn't matter what I personally agree with, however it does matter what is or is not acceptable to society. The fact is that this nation was founded on the idea of individual freedom. Who's going to ever agree that the govt should be able to take our life away for no good reason? Probably no one. My point is that if things ever get to the point where the govt is doing that it won't ever be legal because no one will agree that it is, or should be.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Pekka
Mao, Well, there is human rights deals signed by nations, I'm not sure if your country is it or not.

For example, if you commit a crime, you still have some rights. Some rights that are taken away can be used as privilidges to have the inmates working towards the common goal, but there are rights that inmates have. Like for example, that they are don't become victims of crimes themselves, I don't see how it's legal for guards to beat an inmate. I guess they can't be denied of food for 10 years. Etc etc..

Those are for those who have their rights ... taken away.

Yes, there are human rights deals...like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? These "rights" can still be taken away as well, can't they? So they're not basic, are they? Isnt' that why you said that a right to life wasn't "basic"? Because it can be taken away? So can free speech, freedom of movement, etc. What's a "basic right"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"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.

And we all know that Congressmen know what is constitutional or not .

Representative Lawrence is simply incorrect. Of course, he probably also believed, as Berz most likely does, that the minimum wage was against a shopowner's right to liberty.

You do wonder then whether executions before the 14th would have violated Representative Lawrence's absolute right to life.

[Pekka]

Mao, well a basic right would be something that can't be taken away, I mean not by definition, I'm sure basic right is defined somewhere and it is different. But what can't be legally taken is what I mean. When the means are illegal, by anyone, then that's your basic right according to me.

Kid, no that's not what I mean. I explained it fully already so I'm done with this one.

[lord of the mark]

on the assertion that the ban on govt denial of a right, doesnt imply a guarantee of that right.


Suppose South Dakota, instead of banning abortion, simply decided that abortion clinics were "outside the law" and that one could attack them with impunity. Do you think that would be consistent with the law, as expressed in Roe V Wade? I dont.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Representative Lawrence is simply incorrect. Of course, he probably also believed, as Berz most likely does, that the minimum wage was against a shopowner's right to liberty.

Well it does rather restrict the ability for two entities to enter into mutually agreeable contracts.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

"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."

I hope you realized I was just joking around. I mean, I even included a smiley.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Well it does rather restrict the ability for two entities to enter into mutually agreeable contracts.

Indeed. It restricts a 'right to liberty' (which has only been stated in the DoI... the 5th and 14th prevent taking away liberty without due process, but that's it).