|
Post by The Resister on Oct 18, 2023 2:42:25 GMT
America was founded upon the presupposition that all men have unalienable Rights. We can debate the presupposition until Hell freezes over, but that is what America was founded upon. Our forefathers fought a war for their independence and eleven years later ratified the Constitution of the United States. Later they would add the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights Institute states: " Bill of Rights As a final recourse against government abuse, the Founding generation codified a list of rights that they believed were essential to the maintenance of their constitutional governing structure." billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/principles-and-virtuesIn other words, your unalienable Rights were codified into the Bill of Rights. The best that government can do is to regulate your Rights so that we don't trample the Rights of another while exercising our own. When the Constitution was ratified, it was with the understanding that the Constitution could not be changed from its basic presupposition. George Washington said, in his Farewell Address, that the Constitution should only be changed by an amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that: " 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, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." I cannot prove you to that an unalienable Right exists any more than I prove the existence of God or that the Theory of Evolution has any basis in fact. Yet people take those things on faith. The Constitution is a contract between we, the people and that entity called government. The consideration for that contract is the taxes we pay and when that government turns to tyranny, we have no legal or moral obligation to be bound by that contract. There is a process to go through, but legally speaking if you agree to the terms of a tyrannical government you can lose your legal and moral Right to resist. I'm sure that we will discuss much more on this subject, but for now that is the starting point.
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Oct 19, 2023 4:25:58 GMT
It must have been something that happened offsite that generated those posts. It may be needed by new lurkers. That information is disappearing from the web daily. Koko -
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Oct 20, 2023 2:50:30 GMT
I've been here for over a year and a half now and we simply aren't getting any feedback from people. So, something did in fact happen, and the best way to address people that come here is to complete the threads started and link them together when I can. That way people will have access to the whole story and not just certain aspects of it.
This subject of inalienable versus unalienable - and unalienable itself has been a lifelong study. In law, whether by accident or design those who interpret the laws know full well what an unalienable Right is and they have a Hell of time expressing ideas about Rights. There is no if, and or but about it. If, as the liberals argue that the government can take any Right by using Due Process, then the Right is no Right at all, but a mere privilege. It keeps coming back to WHO granted you the Right.
We went to war against King George on the premise that man is born with unalienable Rights. And, according to the Declaration of Independence, those Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate argument against that presupposition. If there were, someone would correct me on this board. They can't. So, what detractors do is discuss this on forums with lazy posters that buy into the left's arguments and avoid this topic. Yet this is the most important factor in whether or not we can ever reclaim our nation.
Property Rights are extremely important. They were virtually sacred to the founders and framers. Yet the word property is not mentioned as an unalienable Right. That is because the founders and framers knew that property might be taken for the public good. Eminent domain prevented property from being an unalienable Right; however, one could say that property is an inalienable right as it takes Due Process before the government can take it. Conversely, you cannot forfeit your life Due Process or not. Otherwise people who want to take the celestial dirt nap on their own terms could hire people to help them in an assisted suicide.
If you think that the government can pass a law that takes your Rights away, then you cannot believe in the presuppositions laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The first time the federal government addressed this with respect to the Second Amendment, they ruled:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
The Right exists It is not dependent on that instrument (meaning the Constitution) for its existence. So it is obviously preexisting.
Is the same true for property rights? No. Would it be true of the privilege of voting? Again, no. So, how do you express the difference in these almost sacred rights? You have to call them something. You have to have a presupposition about where the Right originates and who is the grantor. If you believe it to be the government and decided by mob rule by mortal men then you have no way of stopping censorship, assaults on religion, your Right to keep and bear Arms or even Due Process. It's up to you to take a stand and decide what you believe so as to be able to adequately defend your Rights or understand how you are accepting slavery.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Oct 31, 2023 3:22:19 GMT
I have written a manual that explains unalienable Rights; I have debated it for years; posted endless posts on this site. I am even a signatory to The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man: www.usresisters.com/charter/This is not a hard concept to understand. Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that the truth is self evident. We operated on the premise that man has Rights granted by a Creator and those Rights were above the law. THAT is how America became great. Today, the majority of people rebuke unalienable Rights. I just debated a troll (actually a series of trolls pretending to be one poster.) This group tried to claim I didn't know anything about the law and then, posting as Jake Broe Stan, the dim wit tried to argue that " the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment meant the government. If that is true, and the masses believe it to be so then they need to READ the First Amendment. Allow me to make it easy for you: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment The Bill of Rights is not ten separate laws; it is ONE bill (ONE LAW.) IF the people in the Second Amendment is the government, then the people in the First Amendment would have to be one and the same as those of the Second Amendment. Therefore, you as an individual, have NO Right to peaceably assemble; that's for Congress. You, as an individual have NO Right to Freedom of Speech or of the the Press. That is exactly what the trolls are arguing and they follow me everywhere, except here, to keep me contained. And they believe their own propaganda. That is why they make sure I have NO Right to Freedoms as an individual. Sadly even those on the right buy into this cockamamie nonsense. They rebuke unalienable Rights on the premise that since a killer can kill you, you would have no unalienable Right to Life and, consequently the government bestows upon you a " right" to Life. If the government grants it then they can regulate it - which means at some point abortion will be legal again. Government granted rights are not unalienable, but revocable. I'm wasting bandwidth to argue it, but if there is ANY honest discussion, the floor is open.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 2, 2023 22:26:00 GMT
Just when you think you've answered the toughest questions, the feds come along and have their trolls posting smack about me elsewhere because they lack the balls to post their easily debunked theories here where we have a level playing field. This is not the left wing site nor the right wing one. We don't have "community guidelines" for censoring posters. Having said that, a fed posted the allegation that I was gaslighting him by posting the same information as was in this thread. To back it up, he referenced Heller (at the suggestion of the fed that follows me from board to board.) I want to quote from the Heller holding AGAIN and add to what we've discussed:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
See the opening posts and posts #13 and 14 of this thread. Now, let me add this:
The trolls have a problem because I proposed the idea of putting people into custody when they make violent threats and say things like having voices in their heads, telling them to kill people. The trolls have the average non-thinking person believing that there is no such thing as unalienable Rights since one person can kill another and / or we can detain and imprison dangerous people and criminals. Well, in the first place, the road toward Liberty is a journey. It is not a destination. We can never answer every objection to every law and every policy to the satisfaction of everybody every time. That is just human nature.
The Declaration of Independence presupposes that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
John Adams, second President of the United States, stated:
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
Would you be more impressed by a hundred such quotes? By a thousand? OR, if I tell you my detractors cannot counter with citations that refute the proposition that I started out in this thread?
Government acts as a referee. It protects the weak from the strong; it insures that if someone endangers your Rights, they will be stopped and held accountable. If someone tried to use the defense of having unalienable Rights after killing their fellow man, we would consider it ludicrous. Be sensible. Nobody has a Right to jeopardize the unalienable Rights of their fellow man. The Declaration of Independence states: -"That 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..."
We, the people, give our consent to the government to secure (not grant or create) our unalienable Rights. When our fellow man jeopardizes our Rights, that offender does not lose their Rights, but rather is put into protective custody (if they pose a threat though mental illness or such) OR they are incarcerated if they commit a crime. The intent of justice is not to deprive anyone of a constitutional guarantee; it is to protect the Rights of all.
To that end, society is governed by certain moral principles. Our values are predicated upon the Bible. This doesn't constitute a Form of Government as in our constitutional Republic; it is a standard for right and wrong; just and unjust. In the Budd decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled (regarding individual property):
"that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit" BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
So, to get past the over-rationalization of the left, you can do whatever you like to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the Rights of others. And if YOU deprive yourself of the Rights that are guaranteed to you, then YOU are accountable. It really is that simple. If the government, under any pretext, attempts to circumvent that and impose unjust limitations on your Rights, it is no longer a legitimate government.
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Nov 10, 2023 18:10:05 GMT
People are claiming to having read this thread and still not understanding my point. I'll try once more and you will either get it or you won't.
1) America was founded on the presupposition that each of us has unalienable Rights
2) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon us by a Creator (our God whomever we deem that to be) and mortal man has NO AUTHORITY to impose on those Rights
3) Everyone you meet and the government too has the POWER to jeopardize your unalienable Rights; it's a question of AUTHORITY versus POWER
4) You have unalienable Rights; your neighbor has unalienable Rights. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed (see the D.O.I)
5) Government has the POWER the people give it via the Constitution and our consent is to act as a referee to insure our Rights are guaranteed and that was done via the Bill of Rights
6) Government did not create nor grant us our unalienable Rights; government has NO AUTHORITY to take away your unalienable Rights
7) An individual can separate themselves from their Rights by jeopardizing and / or violating the Rights of his fellow man
8) Anyone accused of violating the Rights of another and / or jeopardizing said Rights is guaranteed due process in order to determine the validity of the charges
9) Once it is proven that an accused did violate the Rights of his fellow man, the accused is then put into jail or prison where they SHOULD (but are not due to the system itself) be punished, rehabilitated, pay restitution and then return to society as freemen
10) Those who are criminally insane, mentally incompetent or, for whatever reason unable to intelligently avail themselves of their Rights without jeopardizing the Rights of others should be put into protective custody (such as a mental facility) AFTER going before a judge and represented by counsel (even if has to be done at taxpayer expense) where it is legally determined that such an impediment exists to put the accused into the hands of mental health officials.
|
|