4 votes

Semantics: Constitutional Guarantees or Constitutional Rights

Hey, Guys,

For two days I've been thinking about the phrases constitutional guarantees and constitutional rights. I asked myself, Do they differ from each other and if they do, what are those differences?

Does anyone here think there's a difference between the two phrases? Is one phrase better than the other? I can't help but think there is a difference and that one is better than the other.

When I think constitutional rights, I comprehend the constitution issues rights, that is, the human receives his rights from the US constitution. When I hear constitutional guarantees, I comprehend the US constitution is guaranteeing something. That something of course is rights, which are natural, known as natural rights. Because they are natural, they existed and exist before what is manmade regardless of its treatment to them. What's manmade here of course is the US constitution.

This sequence makes these rights supersede the constitution and after this relationship is acknowledged, the constitution is applied to them. This application, from what I can see, always is (or should be) beneath these rights, always is (or should be) in support of them.

If the constitution wasn't in support of those rights, it would be equal to them or override them and could abruptly or eventually wipe them out. But because natural rights' authority is above the constitution's, the only sense I can make from the creation of the constitution is it must have been based on them and that its continuance is evidence it is and must be in harmony with those rights or else the constitution would be in opposition of them and irrelevant instantly afterward then in wait for its resuscitation.

If this basis is true, wouldn't using the phrase constitutional gaurantees (the inclusive description, that 1 comes before and includes 2) instead of constitutional rights (the exclusive description, that 2 comes before 1 and doesn't acknowledge 1) be:

1/2) better in educating people about freedom?
2/2) correct?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Natural vs Legal...

"natural rights" are those rights that, through observing man in Nature, tend to lead to man's happiness.

Being able to defend ourselves, speak freely and be secure in our property tends to make us happy.

"legal rights" are those rights protected by Govt.

Even if a country does not guarantee or protect a natural right with a legal right we still deserve that natural right before God/Nature.

Also, "legal rights" aren't necessarily natural rights. One may have a legal right to welfare, for example, if it is codified in law.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

:)

What cool people you all are. :)

Just wanted to tell it like it is.

"Constitutional Guarantees"

"Constitutional Guarantees" seems to be the better way to describe it, both in terms of accuracy as well as educating people.

This more accurately reflects the fact that our rights come from our Creator (as specified in the Declaration of Independence, which is law as adopted into law by the first act of Congress) and the governments role is simply to protect / guarantee those rights.

In addition, the term "Creator" does not need to cause a philosophical issue for atheists or agnostics. The Declaration specifies "their Creator," meaning that your rights come from whatever it is that you consider to be your Creator. If your belief is that your Creator was biologic reproduction then your rights come to you through that way, by your humanity. The point of all this, and I believe of the founders, is that this keeps the issuance of inalienable rights out of the hands of government.

...

Abstract Writing + Plain Writing = Comprehension

Purrrrrfect.

This more accurately reflects...our rights come from our Creator.....

In addition, the term "Creator" does not need to cause a philosophical issue for atheists or agnostics [or anyone else].

This section and

The Declaration specifies "their Creator," meaning that your rights come from whatever it is that you consider to be your Creator. If your belief is that your Creator was biologic reproduction then your rights come to you through that way, by your humanity.

this section

The point of all this, and I believe of the founders, is that this keeps the issuance of inalienable rights out of the hands of government.

are why I wrote

"...wouldn't using the phrase constitutional gaurantees (the inclusive description, that 1 comes before and includes 2) instead of constitutional rights (the exclusive description, that 2 comes before 1 and doesn't acknowledge 1)...."

abstractly. I meant to keep the reader focused on the movement in language, if need be a bump back to my post.

john2k, thank you for the English version, the understandable version. :)

NOTE: I should have said: ...the inclusive description, that 1 comes before 2 and what comprises 1 includes 2....

and

...that 2 comes before 1 and doesn't acknowledge 1 or what comprises 2 doesn't include 1.

A little complex, maybe confusing too. I wonder if anyone understood what I meant in all that 1-2, 2-1 business. :-/

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I'm actually glad you brought

I'm actually glad you brought this up because I think the difference is enormous.

I was at a cookout a couple of weeks ago and the conversation drifted towards guns and gun rights. Someone said "the constitution, namely the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms". Quickly I said no, no it doesn't. You could hear a record skip. Did I mention I'm in the south and this was a redneck cookout...a well armed redneck cookout? I finished quickly by saying your right to defend yourself comes from God, or your humanity. The constitution, the second amendment is just a document that forbids the government from infringing on that inherent right and I made sure that people understood the difference. You could see light bulbs flicking on all around me.

Rights are inherent. They don't come from government or the constitution. Once people understand the difference, the path to enlightenment becomes the natural path.

Liberty or Death

Beautiful

This is why the term Unalienable being replaced with Inalienable is one that sticks in my crawl.

You're natural rights cannot be taken, traded nor given up. They've tricked us into believing that they can take them or that we can give them up through contracts and law.

Nope.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Mind explaining how you

Mind explaining how you understand "un" and "in"? I thought about what you said. I'm going to take a guess at what you think about those prefixes. Stating what I think without using the prefixes is going to be tricky. lol

un-: not removable or not windable or not (sorry to use the prefix) undoable. Correct?
in-: not. Correct?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

This below explains it better

http://www.unalienable.com/unalien.htm

Unalienable rights are rights that are natural rights born with every man, woman or child. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness from which many of the Bill of Rights come from. You cannot do away with these rights. You cannot sign these rights away by contract or verbal agreement. You cannot sell these rights nor give them away.

Inalienable rights are seen as transferable by you.

As Parker explains to you on the 2cd Amendment, it is an Unalienable right, it stems from your right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Edit: Make up your own mind here but I find it curious that they'd do this. I personally think, because of the differences in legal meanings, it was intentional but that's just me.

This was taken, I believe at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in D.C.

http://tinypic.com/r/34hzc5x/5

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I see. Very good. Thank you

I see. Very good. Thank you for the info, rp4pres. I agree with you about the use of un-, but I'm in limbo about in- meaning transferable.

I thought in- means not or enter or interior. But you've brought up an interesting point: the change of unalienable to inalienable.

So, because word parts have their meanings and that those meanings can change when they connect to other word parts, thereby forming a word, it's reasonable, especially based on freedom historically, that the un- to in- change is what you said and to conclude the change is a dilution of what words correspond to, reality. This dilution would be nefarious if it's true.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

There was a time when...

This was a mutual understanding here on the DP. Times have changed. This has been hashed over to lengths end.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

That's part of what we're fighting to do, no?

Those that know are trying to teach those that don't. As we welcome others into the Liberty movement there are some that have a better understanding about what's going on and some that have less. It's left up to those to fight against a co-opt, either intentionally or otherwise.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I agree,But....

You are absolutely right and we should share knowledge as we go along, The problem is my friend it is very hard to share with those that grow the crops rather than set the stones in the wall. I know you understand history and see what I say here. I am convinced that we would have been better off without the wheel.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Some are willing and others not.. those that aren't, we weed out

One way or another. I personally will not give up. Every time I see an attempt to diffuse Liberty, I'll be there.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thanks for your comment,

Thanks for your comment, bparker189. I agree rights are inherent and that the US constitution is but a physical thing to point to to protect our rights in case someone would be or is breaching your rights.

I wrote a lenghty reply below, but in summation I favor constitutional gaurantees to constitutional rights, but I have a dilemma: How can happiness be gauranteed? I suppose it can be if nature takes place, wherein the individual does what he wants (without harm to who he's interacting with).

What do you think about the two phrases, bparker189? Do you think one is better than the other? If you do, why?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

The pursuit of it is.

Meaning you cannot not be barred from what makes you happy as long as it doesn't infringe upon another persons rights. That we have the right inherently to seek out that existence and a path in life toward that goal of happiness and that government is there to protect that right, not make laws that seek to limit it.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Tommy Boy knew the difference

Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted, why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.
Ted Nelson: Go on, I'm listening.
Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.
Ted Nelson: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
Ted Nelson: What's your point?
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Buildin' model airplanes!" says the little fairy, well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off your dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I've seen it a hundred times.
Ted Nelson: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?
Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I've got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.
Ted Nelson: Okay, I'll buy from you.

Constitutional RESTRICTIONS...

...on governmental PRIVILEGES.

Neither governments nor the Constitution confer rights. At best they protect them, though usually they violate them.

Human rights are an invention of human intelligence. They are definitional rather than inherent -- that is, they are made rather than found. They are the implicit interests of all thinking organisms in the protocols of fundamental civility, and as such, they exist whether we are conscious of them or not. Because they are IMPLICIT they can be surrendered by our EXPLICIT misbehavior (thieves surrender their right to property, kidnappers surrender their right to liberty, murderers surrender their right to life), but they are otherwise inalienable. Jefferson nearly had it correct, except when he insisted on bringing magic into it, although the case can be made that "endowed by their creator" is just poetical fluorish meaning "implicit in one's existence."

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Hello, Gene!Thanks for your

Hello, Gene!

Thanks for your reply! I found it enlightening. I really enjoyed reading

Because they are IMPLICIT they can be surrendered by our EXPLICIT misbehavior (thieves surrender their right to property, kidnappers surrender their right to liberty, murderers surrender their right to life), but they are otherwise inalienable.

That passage is worded perfectly. What I meant my post to be about, however, is the correctness of the two phrases, and I can see your commentary touches on it.

Going off what you said, that rights are inherent, would you agree the US constitution guarantees those rights, leaving those rights still to the theorhetical field, concepts to be taught and carried out by the individual and how he has done so thus far -- on his own and in defense? If the constitution does guarantee those rights, and I think it does, I think the phrase expressing that relationship, except the happiness dilemma I mentioned in my reply to bytejockey below, is constitutional gaurantees. Even though I slept on this dilemma, still I'm without its answer.

As to Jefferson's reference to a Creator, I think it's correct because this reference places the concept right-to-life in the mental plane, where argument socially about the creation of all life is infinite, meaning that nothing external to the individual can remove what the individual determines about life's creation. This infinite arguing, or incapability of external threat removal, returns focus on the argument that all along determining life is within the individual -- because if this refocus wasn't performed, life creation would be subject to society determination (an impossibility without total tyranny) and could lead to the death of innocent life, a life who had no say in whether he wants to live. So, if the determination of life creation is individualistic, it follows all aspects of life are individualistic, that is, life is interaction on the individual level, from one individual to another individual (voluntarily, therefore mutually).

Had Jefferson not written endowed by their Creator, there would have been room for either an insertion into the constitution that states or laws up to today that state life creation determination is a man-to-man event, that is, a person saying whether a life (read: an adult) is equal his or who is on her way to becoming equal his, say, a yet-born human, is at his mercy. Assuming life on Earth wasn't tyrannical when the proposed person judging was born, his judging would defy his creation, his birth and his existence. As today stands, I assume every human who has lived, is living and is about to be created and born is in the condition individuality, without external threat.

That life creation determination is individualistic does place on the human the need for him to think and to think before he acts. Because of that thinking, each human should be happy about Jefferson's phrase regardless if he or she believes in a high being; at least the person's mother acted individualistically, giving birth to her child. On the Creator front, if there is no high being, there isn't one, but if there is a high being, there is one, one whose judgements I think are on the individual's acts, all of them, including his and her acts concerning life creation.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Would I agree?

Yes!

My rambling diatribe notwithstanding, if given an exclusive choice between "Constitutional Rights" and "Constitutional Guarantees" then of course I'll go with guarantees. The Constitution CANNOT confer rights. Sadly, it does a poor job of guaranteeing them, also, but that at least is its intent.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

My rambling diatribe

My rambling diatribe notwithstanding.... That was funny, Gene. Well, if I might say, I enjoyed your rambling diatribe.

Yes, the constitution cannot confer rights. And, yes, sadly, it does a poor job of guaranteeing them. But, as you said, at least that is its intent.

This intent that's become flacid is why I think the change to constitutional rights to constitutional guarantees is a good idea, but still I'm having difficulty understanding how happiness can be gauranteed. I have an explanation how the constitution can do so, but it's wordy and opaque. The explanation is philosopohical, really.

In one word to describe my explanation: consequence. Consequence: what comes afterward. Essentially, it's not so much the constitution but the conditions of life that if they were decentralized would provide the individual unobstructed opportunity to achieve happiness. As well, happiness here applies to the individual's mental and physical states rather than to externalities to him that would make him happy.

Thanks for the insight, Gene. I hope you continue to write in this thread if you want to. As for me on this constitution-happiness guarantee, back to the ponder board. lol.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

CORRECTION

Consequence: what comes (afterward) because of.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

From what I'm aware of

From what I'm aware of Happiness is derived from Happenstance which means chance or chance circumstance. It is made up of Happen + [circum]stance. So, for the time which the Declaration of Independence was written, the Pursuit of Happiness referred to the Pursuit of chance circumstance: in more modern meaning it would be similar to the chance to be successful, thrive, or accomplish what one dared to try to do.

Happiness and Happenstance

I reread this post. I came across your comment here and I realized I shouldn't have cheered you on in your happiness is derived from happenstance as though I agreed with you. If I agreed with you, I shouldn't have. I don't remember and I'm not looking at what I wrote and I didn't look at it before writing this comment. (I should have read it, though, lol.) Anyway. Here's what I think:

happy: happy
-ness: the essense or quality of

happy + -ness: the quality of being happy.

Simple as that.

On to the word happenstance. That's a word, its (own) word:

happen: to occur
-stance: chance

happen + -stance: chance to occur

Conclusion: Happiness (i, a substitute for y connecting word parts) doesn't derive from happenchance.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Happiness is a much NEWER

Happiness is a much NEWER word than happenstance. You have to go back further in time; to no later(meaning not newer) than 1800 to see the truth. As I had written the word Happiness as used by our Founders as per the Declaration of Independence was derived as I had stated. To use a more modern definition of a word in substitution of a definition from 200 years ago is exactly how the Federal Government gets away with substituting Control with Regulate, which at the time of the U.S. Constitution the word Regulate meant to make regular, or to make uniform.

If you insist on using definitions of words that were not the definitions used by the founders then one shouldn't complain about how the federal government is able to circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because you are advocating using the very same method that they use to do it.

All right, now THAT

All right, now THAT (explanation) is what I'm talking about! Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Philosopher. Based on what you said and assuming you read my post and comments, which phrase do you think is correct, that is, which phrase corresponds to life and to what life should be to reel life back to freedom if life moves away from freedom: constiutional rights or constitutional guarantees, and why?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I'm so proud

Vote me down, express your displeasure. Of course it is gratifying to know I struck a nerve, but WHICH nerve? An explanation would be even more helpful than the knee-jerk thumbs down reflex.

Thoughts? Or angst?

Still, any excuse to strategically bump anything under the annoying theist vs libertarian threads...

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

You have your Rights

No need to preface it with anything, including "constitutionally protected," because the true protector of your rights is yourself.

No need to preface rights

No need to preface rights with anything, you mean? If so, I understand and agree. Rights are natural and no one is equipped to manage rights better than the individual.

Aside from that matter, pertaining to the US constitution, which phrase do you think applies to humans in the United States: constitutional guarantees or constitutional rights?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Yes, you have many rights our Constitution does not protect

At least not specifically. You have a right to your life, liberty, and property and to do with them as you please, regardless of what anyone else thinks, as long as you don't harm anyone else. That is many rights.

As discussed below neither "constitutional guarantees," nor "constitutional rights," is a good description. The Constitution protects rights, it does not guarantee rights, nor grant them, so if you want to describe how the Constitution applies to rights, it would be "constitutional protections," or "protected by law."

I was just trying to simplify it, you don't have to say, "that's my constitutionally protected right," you can really just say, "that's my right."