Originally Posted by wdmso
Sure sounded like you knew his plan if you dont know what Trump's plan is? why the big answer ... you could expanded to a book but I don't read fantasy ......
Sure sounds like you know how to spout gibberish. And how to read something that doesn't exist (maybe the reason for the spouted gibberish). I never mentioned a plan. I didn't speak of a plan. I didn't say anything about Trump's plan. You're the one who brought up "plan."
laws are not created in a vacuum they are made by men and women we elect... the world changes thats the nature of things
Now you're moving the goalpost. Your switching from "rights" (freedoms) to "laws."
And you're demonstrating that you do not understand this nation's founding. You don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was. It shows to me that when you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you didn't know what exactly you were swearing to defend.
The Constitution limits government's (your elected men and women) ability to write laws which infringe on individuals' unalienable rights. They are unalienable because they precede the Constitution. And precede all man made laws. You can refer to unalienable rights as natural rights, or rights provided not by men but by a creator. Rights as laws created by men and women are not unalienable since men and women can write those laws out of existence or abridge them however they choose. If all rights were granted by humans, then no right would be unalienable. And there would be no guarantee against despotic administrations instituting tyrannical laws. Nor any legal guarantee against those men and women stripping people of rights.
The Bill Of Rights are examples of specified unalienable rights. Those rights are not granted by the Constitution. They are pre-existing rights which the Constitution defends. The "rights" in the Bill Of Rights are not man made written "laws" as such. They are limitations against law. They are limitations on governments ability to write laws. The same can be said about what was once referred to as "the vast residuum" of individual rights. The Bill Of Rights are referred to by some as a charter of negative liberties. They are rights that government cannot negate nor abridge. The government has negative (no) right to deny them.
It may be that all laws are written by Humans. But not all rights are--if you adhere to the principles of our founding and the Constitution. There are no man made laws creating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are natural ""rights" inherent in human nature.
On the other hand, if you adhere to the principles of Progressivism as your statement strongly implies, then you believe there are no rights except those granted by government. And all rights are positively expressed by laws written by government (men and women we elect). And because you believe all laws are written by men and women, then you must believe that the law written by men to limit men and women's ability to write laws, the Constitution, is null and void. Because if all laws are written by men and women then there is no limit to their ability to do so. Ergo, for you, as it de facto is for Progressives, the Constitution is nonsense and an impediment to the ability of men and women to write laws prescribing all rights.
Which is why I said: 'it would be required of us to agree on what it means to "interpret" the Constitution . . . Since we have shown that we don't agree on that, it is probably futile to give you a list of freedoms lost."
So I apologize for the "big answer." I wasted both of our times. No doubt I have done so again with this big answer.
It is ironic, though, when you said the "world" changes, that's the "nature" of things. It was the Constitution that was written to reflect nature, and specifically human nature, and natural law. You say you don't read fantasy, yet refer to "nature" not as a concrete, material thing, but as some abstract "nature" of perpetual change. Although your notion is a perfect expression of Progressivism, that the "nature" of things is change, that nullifies the notion that there is a constant human nature, or even a constant nature. Which all rather nullifies concepts such as law and rights if their is no constant reality on or in which those things exist. How can even science operate without constants? What is a law or a right that constantly changes? Without some constant fundamental on which to build law or imagine a right, then laws and rights are fantasies that come and go in fictive definitions. Everything is relative so nothing truly exists except in relation to something else. Laws and rights exist only in relation to Transitory occasions. What may be a law or a right in this occasion may not be so in an unlimited number of other occasions. The function of law becomes completely arbitrary. In effect laws and rights are fantasies of the moment.
And that is precisely the nature of man made ideas which are not based on actual and constant natural phenomena. Pure, imaginative fiction. Beautiful in their own right. But not functional as law or rights, nor much else that has to be translated into the "real" world.
nostalgia is the blanket of the fearful
|