Right to one's life vs. "The Constitution"
Given that the constitution can be amended, why base so many political arguments on following it, rather than following Natural Law?
I mean, the Declaration of Independence is closer to the actual fact of the matter: we each have inalienable rights to life, liberty--and what it doesn't and should say--the rights to keep the fruits of our labor, the right to acquire unowned land through our use of it. No one man has a right to interfere with another's exercise of these rights, nor do a hundred, a million, or a billion. No amount of voting can morally abridge these rights.
These rights are exactly: the right to be left alone, to not be interfered with by other men. The right to act unmolested by others ends only where the rights of others begin.
This is the only moral basis to argue from. So why argue so emphatically from "The Constitution"? It doesn't contain any reference at all to Natural Law. It's totally open to amendment to whatever evil ends the majority wants.
This may help us all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUXGOqO1r0
The constitution
Establishes a bill of rights and a system of government. Without a government we wouldn't have a republic or any of our officials. It is the people's duty to stand up to government and take them to task when they do something illegal. Unfortunately today it is not the majority rule, it is the wealthy rule because the wealthy own the media, the banks and the corporations. Wealth is not an evil, the people who use wealth to subvert government are evil and the government that uses this money (corporate welfare) is evil.
Our job as citizens is to point out this incongruity and demand Washington was fired, but more importantly honest politicians are hired.
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
A voice ot light and reason.
Thanks so much for pointing out the true culprits. The people doing these things don't think of themselves as doing evil or being evil, yet evil is the result of their actions. Most people consider it as simply doing good business. The Constitution is the rule book to keep the game fair for all, not just the ones who think they are better than everyone else.
You decide.
The Declaration of Independence declares and recognises one supreme Judge and Creator who has given us unalienable rights including the right to form a government with a constitution. So in my opinion the Declaration of Independence is supreme to the Constitution. The Constitution establishes government, it does not establish our rights, in fact it has the ability to take away rights if Amendents are pasted stating so. Of course for me I bow to only one King and Judge, and worship no document written by men.
grant
Liberty is Balanced Between Love and War
There is nothing in natural law that prevents or even discourages tyranny -- except the nature of the human being and the expression of that nature in religion and law.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:18
"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God". Leviticus 19:34
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." Sextus the Pythagorean
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." Epictetus
The division of religion and law is relatively new and highly artificial. It is virtually one and the same. In a pluralistic culture like the United States, we avoid placing one religion over another, but make no mistake that the commonality of love for neighbor is the only common foundation for liberty.
Natural law does not prevent you from depriving me of liberty. Only internal restraint or external constraint apply here. Those unable to understand love are doomed to war.
If you push it hard enough, you will have war. By pushing, you tell us that you do not value other people and their liberty since you must be doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's all my Savage .30-06, my Sig Sauer P226 9 mm and my outraged neighbors have to say about that :-).
By retaining these values and social agreements and codifying them in written law, there is a more reliable basis for communicating these social agreements to future generations and to avoid or resolve conflicts leading to lawsuit and trial.
Without love first, and constitutional laws second, we too quickly move, in extremis, to force of arms and confusion. If that Constitution should be made to deprive humans of their natural preferences, it likely must be destroyed, but for now it preserves more than it destroys.
Very Simple Answer
The Constitution has the force of law. RP is very shrewd in continually referencing his platform & politics, and his opposition to much of what goes on in Congress, to the Constitution.
When making arguments for/against any particular proposition one can argue endlessly regarding the underlying philosophy. 'Natural Law' falls into this category of debate. Whatever philosophy a politician subscribes to, at the end of the day, the debate in Congress must ultimately meet the test of 'is it Constitutional' - will it pass the litmus test - as this is the law of the land.
That is why today you hear so many relativist politicians trot out the 'living document' rhetoric. This is a clever, but ultimately IMHO flawed, approach to justifying legislation that increases government intervention into our lives. Making such statements allows pols to undermine the libertarian philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution - in other words, a philosophical end run - and thereby essentially claim that Law is whatever they say it is. Few of today's politicians even hold, let alone can articulate and wage well-constructed debate in, an internally consistent philosophy upon which their politics is based. RP knows this; he demolishes such discussion by referencing back all legal discussions to the only standard that we have remaining, the Constitution. It tends to leave all other politicians simply flat footed.
They'll just change it!
So when RP wins the argument, and then the politicians can't get their way by ignoring the constitution, then what stops them from amending it? What will RP (and his supporters) say after that happens and we are even worse off because now THEY will be the ones who can claim they're just following the Constitution?
You make it sound as though
You make it sound as though amending the Constitution is as easy as pie. It isn't. Look into what the requirements are for passing a constitutional amendment. "They" aren't numerous enough to get the states to all ratify an unwanted amendment.
The Constitution has the advantage of being written law. "Natural laws" are nice, as long as we all agree on what they are. Unfortunately, there are those who would argue that you -don't- have a right to the fruits of your labor... so you have to point those people toward written law to win them over.
Greater meaning
...inalienable rights to life, liberty--and what it doesn't and should say--the rights to keep the fruits of our labor, the right to acquire unowned land through our use of it.
Actually, the phrase "and the pursuit of happiness" was originally going to be "and property," (John Locke's ideas) but the present phrase was instead used to apply a wider margin of definition. "The pursuit of happiness" was always intended to include (but not be limited to) the meaning of owning property, and keeping what belongs to you (wages, etc.). Read about the background and construction of the Declaration and the Constitution and you'll find a wealth of information about the intent of these documents.
Property was sacrificed for the Federalists
Jeffersonian Demo-Republicans conceded this point to the Federalists. They wanted to have the trump card of eminent domain to ensure we weren't title holders, just serfs.
They also conceded the word "explicitly" from the enumerated powers clause in the constitution...one of the most costly concessions to absolute freedom in our nation's history.
We have the Federalists to thank for much of this crap...they didn't want freedom, they wanted power. Jefferson was a man of vision, Hamilton was a man who wanted to be king.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
Greater Law
I'd agree that an argument can be made that the greater meaning was there, but why is that relevant? We should be making arguments *today* that are explicitly based on Natural Law, a Greater Law that must not be contradicted by any Lesser law.
That is the only answer to those who claim that the Constitution is outdated.
The strong rule the weak
If there's a natural law, it would have to be that. It happens, so it's natural.
ok
So are you the strong?
I'm kind of strong
Some others are stronger than me. Why?
I'm not saying I WANT a world where the strong rule the weak. I'm just saying if there is such a thing as a natural law, then that's what it would be. I prefer a society where that is prevented as much as possible, through law and order so that everyone has equal liberty.
For brute animals, maybe,
For brute animals, maybe, but NOT for intelligent, self-aware beings who live in a mutually interdependent society.
Oh really?
Look around.
Sigh. AGAIN, you are
Sigh. AGAIN, you are conflating the EXERCISE of rights with the EXISTENCE of rights. What more can be said?
You're confused
Rights cannot be exercised unless they exist. I'm saying they don't exist until they're created by man.
And God doesn't create rights. Man does, by drawing up Constitutions and setting up enforcement mechanisms. Rights do not exist until that happens.
Wrong!!
Everyone look at BillyDee and the two days of comments.
Rights don't exist until they're enforced!
You are correct, Billy. The writers of the Declaration seem to have assumed that we received our rights from our "creator". I disagree, but that is what the document says.
More important, IMO, is this passage...."to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
(Emphasis mine).
So, governments are instituted to "secure these rights", and derive their "...powers from the consent of the governed...", and that "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...".
So yes, we have no rights unless we are willing to "alter or abolish" our existing government when it becomes "destructive of these ends".
...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul
Natural rights
are superstitious in my opinion. We don't have any natural inalienable rights. Rights have to be demanded and created through battles and rule of law, otherwise they cease to exist.
BillyDee, I think YOU are a
BillyDee, I think YOU are a superstition --- and a particularly noxious one, at that. Your attitude and "might makes right" belief system is contemptible.
That's not my position
My position is not that might makes moral right. My position is that might makes neither moral right nor moral wrong. But, might establishes POLITICAL rights. Without the American Revolution, we would have not had as much liberty. Liberty doesn't come from God. It comes from battles and agreements.
You are confusing inherent
You are confusing inherent rights with the exercise of rights. ALL humans have the right to freedom of religion, for example ---- they always have and always will. But only SOME humans have had the ability to EXERCISE those rights. But the rights are always there.
There is no such thing as
inherent rights. It's an empty concept. Prove that you have inherent rights.
Your sophomoric
Your sophomoric, anti-freedom sophistry is unworthy of comment.
I suspect you are just SteveU/Betterhalf/OneVoice/L.G. back again, trolling for your cheap divisive thrills. Piss off.
It's not anti-freedom
I support individual rights. I just don't justify them on God or nature. Those justifications are inadequate. The idea that rights exist before man creates them is absurd.
Well, if you are agnostic
Well, if you are agnostic then it is so. The 10 commandments basically give us a few our "inalienable rights" the right to life being the most important.
Then Why Support Liberty?
If rights are demanded and won by force, then they have no moral foundation, and would be based on the whim of whoever exerts the most force. If this is the case, you should consider trying to gather up enough force to impose your own whimsical ideas of rights. If you don't support the idea of creator endowed liberty and rights, or some foundational baseline of what is right, I'm not sure what you're doing here besides learning. And that my friend, requires a little humility.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
http://www.youtube.com/user/Walk4Freedom
http://www.walk4freedom.org/
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/363/
Property Ownership Is the Foundation of RIghts
Rights come from property ownership. You own your body and therefore you have the right to do with it as you see fit. If you own land, that's your property and there are rights associated with that ownership. This is was the revolutionary thinking our Founding Fathers used. Prior to the American revolution, lords owned all the property and therefore common people had no rights. We changed this.
So you're rights don't come from the government, and they don't even come from the Constitution - they come from God in the form of your ownership of yourself. As your property ownership grows, so do your rights.
If you're a contemplative person, you can contemplate the issues of personal sovereignty, national sovereignty, and divine sovereignty as they relate to property ownership. God created and "owns" the universe, therefore God is the ultimate sovereign. That sovereignty flows from there down to you.
Look up Michael Bednarik's video for an in depth explanation of this. It's a day long seminar, but absolutely worth the time. It's on YouTube.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
http://www.youtube.com/user/Walk4Freedom
http://www.walk4freedom.org/
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/363/