Well yes, rights are absolute... unless you throw away the founding of the USA and prefer to live in tyranny where some people have more rights than others. (The) Biden (administration) has no comprehension of the founding of the USA (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), he is a tyrant that believes he can tell you what you can do and what you can't do.
Perhaps I should elaborate as ONE of the issues with out government currently. We certainly could go on and on about (major) details that are broken in government.
According to commie wingnuts, the Constitution is fluid, outdated, and obsolete. These are the same wingnuts that demand exclusive new "Rights" because they're men who cannot succeed BEING a man and suddenly decide that they're women so they're finally "special."
Get geeked up because stuff is happening that is being ignored, deliberately. Like a SUDDEN influx of............people who do not belong here in the rural Endless Mountains of Pennsylvania. Oh, like Syrian military-aged men in sparkling New name-brand clothing..........
I am still trying to understand how Jumanji Jackson ever got onto the SCOTUS. She couldn't define what a woman is. How does that work when you're a judge??? I'M SO CONFUSED.
Seriously, the government trying to say that NO rights are absolute is their attempt at grabbing MORE POWER and CONTROL over We the People. OR, as they would like to call us, their SUBJECTS.
Affirmative action, DEI, etc. Take your pick. Qualifications do not matter. The only thing that matters is that you check a few prerequisite boxes and you're the nominee!
For example, prior to the 19th Amendment, women didn't have the right to vote. Or...did they, but the government, the People, didn't take steps to protect it until 19A was adopted? So women couldn't exercise an absolute right because government didn't protect it?
And why is 18 the age at which that right begins? Who gets to decide that? And how, if a right is "absolute", if a right to vote is absolute...why is there an age restriction on it? Can't be "absolute" then, can it?
Why is 13A an absolute right...well, absolute except for those who are punished for a crime whereof he has been duly convicted?
I think you first must address what is a "right". Is voting actually a "right" granted by our Creator as the founders would see it? Perhaps not. Voting may be a responsibility, but I don't believe the founders saw it as a right (which is why who was permitted to vote, and for what purposes, was limited).
How does the thirteenth amendment, to you, equate to a "right"? Unless you are seeing it as a right to freedom from slavery (which, in America, all people have a right to be free). As for the punishment clause, that is precisely the *only* authority government has in limiting rights - as punishment for the commission of a crime (i.e. violating someone else's rights), which I stated in the post. Incarceration is intended to rescind the rights of the one being incarcerated for having violated the rights of another. Of course, our penal system no longer practices removal of rights via incarceration, which is why it is no longer an effective deterrent. That was, however, the original intent. Then, once the convict is freed from incarceration, all rights are restored.
Maybe the mistake inherent in my premise is treating Constitutional amendments as "rights". Perhaps the inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator or, for those who don't believe in a Creator, simply by the fact of our being, and protected by government, are the ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and only those.
So voting (19A) isn't a right per se, it's a law, but one that applies to the entire country, thus it's in the US Constitution rather than left to the states individually?
That would be partially correct. Voting, I believe, is a privilege and a responsibility. Perhaps this is why the founders did not include voting in the Bill of Rights. That said, the founders clearly did not believe that those rights enumerated in the first ten amendments (first eight really) to the Constitution were our *only* rights. They made that clear in the ninth amendment, in which they wrote: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is where the federalists and anti-federalist had some dispute and part of the reason some opposed the Bill of Rights. It was clear that certain rights needed to be spelled out to ensure the government could not interfere with or infringe upon them, but it was also clear that, by enumerating *some* rights, the impression could be given that they were the *only* rights. Again, this is the reason for the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment.
That leaves us, of course, to figure out what our other *rights* are; a discussion which, in itself, of necessity requires a distinct and specific definition of what constitutes a "right." I for one would say that a right is that which I may exercise, and the proper use of which, requires nothing (involuntarily given) from anyone else. For instance, my right to free speech requires nothing from you. I can speak as much as I want - you are not compelled to listen. My right to worship does not pose any imposition upon you. My right to keep and bear arms does not in any way infringe on your rights. My right to be secure in my person, home and personal effects places no imposition on another. I think you see where I'm going.
Of course, these rights can be abused and used to infringe on another's rights, and that is where government is expected to step in. Government is tasked with protecting our rights (see the Declaration of Independence). This is the only limitation the founders (and the philosophers upon whose work they based the charter of our country) saw for individual rights - to not infringe another's individual rights. Does that help?
Yeah, I realized later that it wasn't the entire Bill of Rights, because 9 and 10 don't fit that description.
Your explanation makes great sense. Thank you.
Now, what does "absolute" mean in the context of our inalienable rights (1-8) and in the context of any others established or identified pursuant to 9A?
In my opinion (and I believe that of our founders), "absolute" in the context of our "unalienable rights" means just that. Government has no authority to infringe, impede, abridge, or in any way interfere with our exercise of our rights - *unless*, we exercise our rights in such as way as to infringe, impede, abridge, or in any way interfere with the rights of others. At that point, we have committed a crime (this is what laws are supposed to protect against), and punishment is in order. If that punishment is incarceration, that is intended to abridge the rights of the one incarcerated (i.e. rights are "alienated" for a time as payment for the infringement upon the rights of others). If it is a severe enough infringement (for instance, depriving someone of the right to life), then more permanent alienation (such as capital punishment) is warranted. If it is is slight (such as a minor theft), then perhaps payment of a fine (and/or repayment to the one from whom property was stolen) is in order. All of these punishments deprive the one who committed the crime of rights in some way - whether liberty (incarceration), life (capital punishment), or personal property (paying a fine), just as the person who committed the crime deprived another of those same rights.
According to the founding fathers, "all men." That said, I see where this question is going. As illegal aliens are, by definition, criminals who have broken the law by entering the country illegally, government is within its authority (and we are within our rights to demand) that their rights be curtailed.
Well yes, rights are absolute... unless you throw away the founding of the USA and prefer to live in tyranny where some people have more rights than others. (The) Biden (administration) has no comprehension of the founding of the USA (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), he is a tyrant that believes he can tell you what you can do and what you can't do.
He isn't alone. Most Democrats and plenty of Republicans believe the same.
Which is what is wrong with out government currently!
Perhaps I should elaborate as ONE of the issues with out government currently. We certainly could go on and on about (major) details that are broken in government.
According to commie wingnuts, the Constitution is fluid, outdated, and obsolete. These are the same wingnuts that demand exclusive new "Rights" because they're men who cannot succeed BEING a man and suddenly decide that they're women so they're finally "special."
Get geeked up because stuff is happening that is being ignored, deliberately. Like a SUDDEN influx of............people who do not belong here in the rural Endless Mountains of Pennsylvania. Oh, like Syrian military-aged men in sparkling New name-brand clothing..........
I am still trying to understand how Jumanji Jackson ever got onto the SCOTUS. She couldn't define what a woman is. How does that work when you're a judge??? I'M SO CONFUSED.
Seriously, the government trying to say that NO rights are absolute is their attempt at grabbing MORE POWER and CONTROL over We the People. OR, as they would like to call us, their SUBJECTS.
Affirmative action, DEI, etc. Take your pick. Qualifications do not matter. The only thing that matters is that you check a few prerequisite boxes and you're the nominee!
What is meant by "absolute"?
For example, prior to the 19th Amendment, women didn't have the right to vote. Or...did they, but the government, the People, didn't take steps to protect it until 19A was adopted? So women couldn't exercise an absolute right because government didn't protect it?
And why is 18 the age at which that right begins? Who gets to decide that? And how, if a right is "absolute", if a right to vote is absolute...why is there an age restriction on it? Can't be "absolute" then, can it?
Why is 13A an absolute right...well, absolute except for those who are punished for a crime whereof he has been duly convicted?
I think you first must address what is a "right". Is voting actually a "right" granted by our Creator as the founders would see it? Perhaps not. Voting may be a responsibility, but I don't believe the founders saw it as a right (which is why who was permitted to vote, and for what purposes, was limited).
How does the thirteenth amendment, to you, equate to a "right"? Unless you are seeing it as a right to freedom from slavery (which, in America, all people have a right to be free). As for the punishment clause, that is precisely the *only* authority government has in limiting rights - as punishment for the commission of a crime (i.e. violating someone else's rights), which I stated in the post. Incarceration is intended to rescind the rights of the one being incarcerated for having violated the rights of another. Of course, our penal system no longer practices removal of rights via incarceration, which is why it is no longer an effective deterrent. That was, however, the original intent. Then, once the convict is freed from incarceration, all rights are restored.
Maybe the mistake inherent in my premise is treating Constitutional amendments as "rights". Perhaps the inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator or, for those who don't believe in a Creator, simply by the fact of our being, and protected by government, are the ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and only those.
So voting (19A) isn't a right per se, it's a law, but one that applies to the entire country, thus it's in the US Constitution rather than left to the states individually?
That would be partially correct. Voting, I believe, is a privilege and a responsibility. Perhaps this is why the founders did not include voting in the Bill of Rights. That said, the founders clearly did not believe that those rights enumerated in the first ten amendments (first eight really) to the Constitution were our *only* rights. They made that clear in the ninth amendment, in which they wrote: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is where the federalists and anti-federalist had some dispute and part of the reason some opposed the Bill of Rights. It was clear that certain rights needed to be spelled out to ensure the government could not interfere with or infringe upon them, but it was also clear that, by enumerating *some* rights, the impression could be given that they were the *only* rights. Again, this is the reason for the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment.
That leaves us, of course, to figure out what our other *rights* are; a discussion which, in itself, of necessity requires a distinct and specific definition of what constitutes a "right." I for one would say that a right is that which I may exercise, and the proper use of which, requires nothing (involuntarily given) from anyone else. For instance, my right to free speech requires nothing from you. I can speak as much as I want - you are not compelled to listen. My right to worship does not pose any imposition upon you. My right to keep and bear arms does not in any way infringe on your rights. My right to be secure in my person, home and personal effects places no imposition on another. I think you see where I'm going.
Of course, these rights can be abused and used to infringe on another's rights, and that is where government is expected to step in. Government is tasked with protecting our rights (see the Declaration of Independence). This is the only limitation the founders (and the philosophers upon whose work they based the charter of our country) saw for individual rights - to not infringe another's individual rights. Does that help?
Yeah, I realized later that it wasn't the entire Bill of Rights, because 9 and 10 don't fit that description.
Your explanation makes great sense. Thank you.
Now, what does "absolute" mean in the context of our inalienable rights (1-8) and in the context of any others established or identified pursuant to 9A?
In my opinion (and I believe that of our founders), "absolute" in the context of our "unalienable rights" means just that. Government has no authority to infringe, impede, abridge, or in any way interfere with our exercise of our rights - *unless*, we exercise our rights in such as way as to infringe, impede, abridge, or in any way interfere with the rights of others. At that point, we have committed a crime (this is what laws are supposed to protect against), and punishment is in order. If that punishment is incarceration, that is intended to abridge the rights of the one incarcerated (i.e. rights are "alienated" for a time as payment for the infringement upon the rights of others). If it is a severe enough infringement (for instance, depriving someone of the right to life), then more permanent alienation (such as capital punishment) is warranted. If it is is slight (such as a minor theft), then perhaps payment of a fine (and/or repayment to the one from whom property was stolen) is in order. All of these punishments deprive the one who committed the crime of rights in some way - whether liberty (incarceration), life (capital punishment), or personal property (paying a fine), just as the person who committed the crime deprived another of those same rights.
Ok, then who constitutes "our"? Citizens? Citizens and legal residents? Citizens, legal residents, and anyone physically on American soil?
According to the founding fathers, "all men." That said, I see where this question is going. As illegal aliens are, by definition, criminals who have broken the law by entering the country illegally, government is within its authority (and we are within our rights to demand) that their rights be curtailed.