The right to life and constitutional law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Pawned, my friend, pwned you are.

"John Locke (August 29, 1632 – October 28, 1704)"

John Locke DIED 72 years before the Declaration was written. They had long since become the basis of whiggish political thought, and were generally accepted in the colonies - though of course anti-whig elements in Britain didnt accept them, and of course the continental monarchies didnt.

Jefferson didnt put them in cause they were novel but cause they werent, and they were the basis of a logical proof of the right to revolt. Notice he spends very little time defending his assertion of rights - he spends most of the document defending the assertion that the king HAD violated those rights, and in ways serious enough to justify revolution. That was what was at issue.

72 Years is much after now?

Yes, he said the King has violated these novel rights. Articulated maybe a 100 years ago, if not less. A belief in rights that had not been adopted by any European country.

It's like saying a 'right to health care' isn't novel in the US because it is generally accepted by those on the non-moderate left.

How could the right not apply to them at the time?

Rights are specific. They either don't apply to certain acts (like yelling "Fire" in a theater isn't a free speech issue, because it simply isn't speech, at least not the definition of speech the 1st Amendment was designed to protect) or certain people (prisoners and non-citizens have never been given full rights).

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

72 Years is much after now?

Yes, he said the King has violated these novel rights. Articulated maybe a 100 years ago, if not less. A belief in rights that had not been adopted by any European country.

72 years is two generations. more than enough time for it to be taken for granted. which it was.

And of course it wasnt adopted by any european country. It was a revolutionary doctrine. Which was taken for granted among the patriot party in the colonies, despite being rejected by govts in europe (though many thinkers accepted it, and in 1789 this would prove important)


"It's like saying a 'right to health care' isn't novel in the US because it is generally accepted by those on the non-moderate left."

In the US today the right is still part of the political process. The guys in the colonies who rejected this kind of thinking simply werent present at the Continental Congress in the summer of 1776. The better analogy would be that the right of the proletariat to eliminate private property wasnt considered novel at the meetings of the central committee of the Communist Party of SU in 1925 (despite Marx having been dead less than 70 years)

IS - Im getting the impression you dont read alot of history of this period, or have a very good idea of what the intellectual climate was.


"Rights are specific. They either don't apply to certain acts (like yelling "Fire" in a theater isn't a free speech issue, because it simply isn't speech, at least not the definition of speech the 1st Amendment was designed to protect) or certain people (prisoners and non-citizens have never been given full rights). "

But if its an absolute right, how can a prisoner not get it? He had it before he became a prisoner? How does he lose it? He loses it, it seems to me, only by losing his liberty.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


72 Years is much after now?

Yes, he said the King has violated these novel rights. Articulated maybe a 100 years ago, if not less. A belief in rights that had not been adopted by any European country.

It's like saying a 'right to health care' isn't novel in the US because it is generally accepted by those on the non-moderate left.

actually im having trouble seeing how that right is 'novel" Novel != not universally accepted. Rather novel = not old. Much that is old is not universally accepted.

Would you say that belief in God is novel?

[lord of the mark]

"However, I think that Jefferson & Madison also believed in an absolute right to free speech, but they specifically wrote that in there, where they didn't wright in the right to life."


Actually they only wrote in an absolute denial of the congress right to restrain speech. What prevents a private citizen from restraining speech by force? Only the right to liberty which govts are formed to protect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And of course it wasnt adopted by any european country. It was a revolutionary doctrine.

Is not revolutionary a similar thing to novel?

Im getting the impression you dont read alot of history of this period, or have a very good idea of what the intellectual climate was.

You do realize that 1/3rd of the population were loyalists and were not swayed by this unalienable rights idea, for instance. Because a few intellectuals believed a certain ideal was obvious, does not indicate any general acceptance. I'd say the greatest beef of most people was the fact they didn't get their own say in governance, not that they didn't have a right to life, liberty, and property.

And to this day, there is no right to life for American citizens. There are laws against murder. If a state decided to abolish all its laws against murder, it wouldn't be struck down by any court as being against some "right to life".

But if its an absolute right

You've missed the whole point. It ISN'T an absolute right. It is alienable and has always been.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"However, I think that Jefferson & Madison also believed in an absolute right to free speech, but they specifically wrote that in there, where they didn't wright in the right to life."


Actually they only wrote in an absolute denial of the congress right to restrain speech. What prevents a private citizen from restraining speech by force? Only the right to liberty which govts are formed to protect.

What prevents a private citizen from restraining speech peacefully (through media boycotts or whatnot)? NOTHING.

Rights are only things you can claim against a government. You can't claim a right to life violation against a murderer. It doesn't work that way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
actually im having trouble seeing how that right is 'novel" Novel != not universally accepted. Rather novel = not old. Much that is old is not universally accepted.

Would you say that belief in God is novel?

That right is novel, because its a fairly new claim in mainstream US politics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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).

It's still illegal for govt to deny people the right to liberty just like it's illegal to deny them the right to life. The govt can do both within reason though. It's not an absolute thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's still illegal for govt to deny people the right to liberty just like it's illegal to deny them the right to life. The govt can do both within reason though. It's not an absolute thing.

If there is such a thing as a right to liberty. The government has denied liberty so much, I don't think 'right' is the propert term to use for it. I mean what good is a 'right' when the government can ignore it seemingly at random.

Now granted, there are other actual rights which are under the umbrella of 'liberty', but then I think we have to speak of a so-called 'right to liberty' as being an amazingly overbroad characterization (as opposed to a right to sexual privacy).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If there is such a thing as a right to liberty. The government has denied liberty so much, I don't think 'right' is the propert term to use for it. I mean what good is a 'right' when the government can ignore it seemingly at random.

The govt still has a legal duty to protect personal liberty, but it also has a duty to promote the general welfare. Just because we don't have the same liberties as before doesn't absolve the govt from it's duties.

Now granted, there are other actual rights which are under the umbrella of 'liberty', but then I think we have to speak of a so-called 'right to liberty' as being an amazingly overbroad characterization (as opposed to a right to sexual privacy).

You're probably right there.

[Zkribbler]

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

The right to due process and the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment pop to mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And lest we forget, Jefferson spoke of an INALIENABLE right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness in the DOI. That means no death penalty, as you cannot alienate that right to life from the prisoner.

The govt still has a legal duty to protect personal liberty, but it also has a duty to promote the general welfare. Just because we don't have the same liberties as before doesn't absolve the govt from it's duties.

A legal duty means you can enforce the 'right' through the legal system. Aside from what is stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and the USSC's interpretation of those), can you enforce a personal liberty right?

[Zkribbler]

How about a common law suit for false imprisonment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
How about a common law suit for false imprisonment.

Are you suing under a right to liberty or false imprisonment?

[Zkribbler]

It a flop-sde thing....you infringed on my common law right of liberty by falsely imprisoning me!