"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> Terry Lambert <tlambert2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > "Jason T. Nelson" wrote:
> > > And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US
> > > federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to
> > > defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone,
> > > I
> > > assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting
> > > this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests.
> >
> > The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely
> > acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-).
>
> Did anybody here say the Constitution grants rights? Jason used "defined".
>
> As for "inalienable", that's from the Declaration of Independence, which
> can be easily ignored by those amending the Constitution. (Of course,
> The People may claim their rights, regardless of the Constitution.)
As Jason points out, if that were to happen, we'd just re-declare
out independence. 8-) 8-).
> There is a language problem here, though. The word "right" has many
> meanings, so that our language is often misinterpreted and discussions
> become babble. There are two main meanings, with a big difference:
>
> "Privilege":
> This the obvious and most practical meaning -- the most useful one.
> When people mean something different, they should use more words;
> but they don't, leading to the creation of this definition:
"Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge", since we nationalized
the highway system in 1954 in order to force standards to support
width and bridge height requirements for mobile command posts, in
the event of nuclear war. 8-).
> "Claim of Privilege":
> This meaning is usually rendered fuzzy by an implied or explicit
> prefixing with the word "Just". At one extreme, "Just" is defined
> metaphysically as coming from a god. At the other extreme, it's
> defined as coming from some law/regulation/rule. In the middle,
> it comes from tradition and/or supreme law as from our Declaration
> of Independence and/or Constitution (as misinterpreted by a Court).
inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
<inalienable rights>
right: 1 qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful
authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral
propriety or merit moral approval
2 something to which one has a just claim: as a : the
power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
b(1) the interest that one has in a piece of property
-- often used in plural <mineral rights
(2) plural : the property interest possessed under law
or custom and agreement in an intangible thing
especially of a literary and artistic nature
<film rights of the novel>
3 something that one may properly claim as due
4 the cause of truth or justice
> It's unclear what people are thinking when they say "driving's not a
> right, it's a privilege". (Most are probably not thinking at all, but
> merely quoting a mantra tought to them by their teachers who, in turn,
> learned it from their socialist college professors.) Driving can be
> considered either a priviledge or a just claim to a privilege as granted
> by law to those who qualify (i.e., a right).
Driving, as a right, is not inalienable. It was alienated in the
Interstate Highway Act of 1954 (see above).
> Changing the subject somewhat, I'll note that regardless of what
> *claims* people have on any privileges, the *enjoyment* of those
> privileges are ultimately dependent on explicit or implicit *grants* of
> privilege by the people controlling the force of arms, who are usually,
> in turn, controlled by means of money. If you want to try to ensure
> your enjoyment of rights, you need to strive after control of the guns
> and money.
That really doesn't agree with Locke or Rosseau... 8-) 8-).
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
|
