Reading through the US Constitution -

[Hugh Damright]

So aside from what the BoR can be used for, you wouldn't agree that freedom of speech, religion, privacy, defense, etc. are natural rights?

I think freedom of speech is more of a political right. I believe it appears in the First Amendment because it regards the right of representatives to speak freely in Congress. That is what it says in the Articles of Confederation. That is what it says in the English BOR. The First Amendment does not say that the people have a right to speak freely, I don't see how you get that ... it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I see it as regarding a principle of government i.e. a political right.

I believe that a "right" is something that is proper according to some given system. I see a BOR as regarding principles which are right according to the given system of government. When we talk about natural rights, I think of principles which are right by nature. I think it is natural for a person to defend himself and his family and so I would call those natural rights. A right to privacy seems a little arbitrary to me ... I think we might as well say that we have a right to company. Didn't the federal government make up the right to privacy, and claim jurisdiction over it, and use it to strike down the States' abortion laws and sodomy laws?

 

[Al Norris]

If we are to properly parse the rights contained in the First Amendment, we would have the following:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
• Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
• Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
• Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hugh, under your interpretation of the BOR, then only clauses 5 and 6, above, relate to rights of the people? After all, these are the only provisions that speak of the "right of the people." Then do the first four clauses pertain only to the representatives of Congress? This is what is implied when you state that clause 3 pertains to the rights of representatives to speak their mind (because it doesn't explicitly say "the people").

Bills of Rights were commonplace. They were statements enumerating the rights of the common man against the encroachment of power by the government.

This is exemplified by the preamble to the BOR:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

While some things in the Articles of Confederation did make it into the Constitution, there were many things that did not. Once the Constitution was ratified, the Articles (and whatever was contained within them) had no further power or meaning.

One cannot simply parse what was in the Articles into the Constitution, unless it is actually there.

That is absurd on its face.

 

[Hugh Damright]

If we are to properly parse the rights contained in the First Amendment, we would have the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hugh, under your interpretation of the BOR, then only clauses 5 and 6, above, relate to rights of the people? After all, these are the only provisions that speak of the "right of the people." Then do the first four clauses pertain only to the representatives of Congress? This is what is implied when you state that clause 3 pertains to the rights of representatives to speak their mind (because it doesn't explicitly say "the people").

No, that is not what I implied at all. What I am saying is that a bill of rights can be seen as an enumeration of principles of government. Following are some declarations from various State bills of rights which regard the legislative branch:

The legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other.

That the right in the people to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty, and the foundation of all free government; for this purpose, elections ought to be free and frequent, and every man, having property in, a common interest with, and an attachment to the community, ought to have a right of suffrage.

That freedom of speech and debates, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any other court or judicature.

That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.

And so I have come to see that the First Amendment's freedom of speech, right to assemble, and right to petition regard principles of the legislature of a free State.

One cannot simply parse what was in the Articles into the Constitution, unless it is actually there.

That is absurd on its face.

If I want to know why the First Amendment says "freedom of speech", and I go back to previous documents, and I find that the English BOR, the Articles, and various State bills of rights declare the right of representatives to speak freely in Congress, I think it would be absurd to deny the obvious connection.

The English BOR says that the King once tried to subvert the laws "by prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament", and so it was declared "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament". That is the root of the First Amendment's freedom of speech. Don't you think??

 

[HKuser]

I believe you're wrong. What you're suggesting is already adressed here:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 6

 

[Master Blaster]

Edit: If you need to shout, take it to PM. - Antipitas

 

[CGSteve8718]

I hope the thread doesn't get locked because of that, very good discussion here.

Anyway, I agree that Hugh is wrong. While you can see where the origins of most of the writings in the USC come from, that does not mean you apply the old uses to it, especially in the case of the 1st Amendment. Even though only two clauses contain "the people", it is still easy to see the limitations of Congress are generalities, and ultimately, for the benefit of the people, not specifically concerning what Congress does pertaining to itself.

Your interpretation of privacy is also unsettling. The "right" to privacy is not arbitrary when taken in the context in the relation to restricting the government. It is a natural right so that officials do not have the right to just intrude on your activities without going through the proper channels, kind of like what officials or soldiers under a King would do, arbitrarily?

What the federal govt. did in practice should not take away from the original meaning of the protection of the right. If you're saying that the govt. did not and should not have the right to make up sodomy laws, etc. then I'll agree with you there. And I would also say that no government, local, or state, or federal should be able to get away with that.

 

[Al Norris]

If I want to know why the First Amendment says "freedom of speech", and I go back to previous documents, and I find that the English BOR, the Articles, and various State bills of rights declare the right of representatives to speak freely in Congress, I think it would be absurd to deny the obvious connection.

Yes, you most certainly could do that. And the Courts do do that. But only if the Debates on the legislation in question remain arbitrary or vague.

In this case, we have a wealth of information on the debates over the first amendment. That's precisely why McCain-Feingold flys in the face of credibility. Political speech was the speech the founders thought to be protected above all else.

From the debates on the amendments, Madison's proposals:

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

Hugh, instead of me (or anyone else) bombarding you with quotes from the founding era, would you please point to the speech(es) in the Congressional debates that supports your position.

 

[Hugh Damright]

If you're saying that the govt. did not and should not have the right to make up sodomy laws, etc. then I'll agree with you there. And I would also say that no government, local, or state, or federal should be able to get away with that.

I think a State has every right to pass sodomy laws, etc. Otherwise, I don't see the point in having States.

It always seems to come down to the same thing ... you think the central government is there to force your personal vision of "rights" on every State.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak

And why not? Is it because free speech is a natural right? Or is it because free speech is a political right?

I see the history of freedom of speech as rooted in the freedom of debate in congress. I see it as a political right, and I see the object as being the legislative branch. When Madison declared that "the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak", I think the idea is that people must be able to speak freely so that they can be honestly informed and vote properly and that brings us back to the object which is the legislative branch of a free government. I have also read that Madison was thinking of the right of the people to speak to their representatives. It all seems to point to the same thing.

The right of representatives to speak freely in Congress, the right of the people to speak with their representatives, the right of people to free speech (political speech) amongst themselves, a free press, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government ... aren't these all principles of free government, principles which are intended to keep the legislative branch functioning in a certain manner? Or are they natural rights?

 

[CGSteve8718]

It looks like you're letting personal feelings get in the way of understanding the principle behind the matter.

It's not sodomy itself that is at issue, it's whether or not a government should be able to restrict, or prohibit something that is between consenting adult individuals within the confines of their private property.

I don't think that's a "personal" vision of a "right" at all. At least it doesn't sound personal under "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

It seems like we have come back full circle to the issue of contention in the thread, the 14A.

Well, it's not fair to say what is the purpose of having States pertaining to the issue of privacy. If States can abridge that right, then what is the purpose of having freedom? Like I said, I'm for limited government as well, but the issue for me is I can't see your views on not considering certain rights as essential, privacy being one of them. And I would venture a guess to say that 99% of people wouldn't feel that is an "opinion".

 

[Hugh Damright]

I believe in a right to privacy in the sense that I don't think that government should tap my phone line or read my mail. However, the idea that the federal government has jurisdiction over a right to privacy and is therefore empowered to strike down State abortion and sodomy laws is something that I find completely absurd. First you say that you want the feds to have jurisdiction over enumerated rights, and now you construe the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and affects to regard sodomy laws, as if there is an enumerated right to commit homosexual acts!

It was just in 2003 when the SCOTUS went so far as to pull this "sodomy = privacy" nonsense. It's hardly the original intent. Regardless of how you feel about it, it is properly up to each State, not up to you or the SCOTUS but up to each State to decide such things for themselves.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Bills of Rights were commonplace. They were statements enumerating the rights of the common man against the encroachment of power by the government.

Have you read these commonplace bills of rights that existed before the USBOR? The English BOR? The original BORs of the original States? I assume you have ... yet they are all full of declarations of principles of government, while you insist that they enumerate the rights of the common man. Here are some examples from the early State bills of rights:

That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole

That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.

The legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other

That freedom of speech and debates, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any other court or judicature.

That, for redress of grievances, and for amending and strengthening the laws, elections ought to be often held.

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

That this Declaration of Rights, or the Form of Government, to be established by this Convention, or any part or either of them, ought not to be altered, changed or abolished, by the Legislature of this State, but in such manner as this Convention shall prescribe and direct.


I cannot agree that bills of rights enumerate the rights of the common man. In some instances they do, but generally I would say that bills of rights enumerate principles of, or limits upon, government i.e. political rights.

I think that the way we see the USBOR is a reconstructed view. A couple of books which touch upon this subject are "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" by Akhil Reed and "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding" edited by Eugene W. Hickok, Jr.

I think we have taken an enumeration of political principles intended to secure federalism and turned it into an enumeration of libertarian principles intended to destroy federalism.

 

[miboso]

The "Bill of Rights" is a misnomer. It might better be called a Bill of Governmental Limits.

 

[Hugh Damright]

The "Bill of Rights" is a misnomer. It might better be called a Bill of Governmental Limits.

I don't think that it's really a misnomer ... I think there are different kinds of rights, and it is properly a bill rights, but it is a bill of political rights ... I think it is our mistake to think that the word "rights" can only have one meaning.

 

[CGSteve8718]

I believe in a right to privacy in the sense that I don't think that government should tap my phone line or read my mail. However, the idea that the federal government has jurisdiction over a right to privacy and is therefore empowered to strike down State abortion and sodomy laws is something that I find completely absurd. First you say that you want the feds to have jurisdiction over enumerated rights, and now you construe the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and affects to regard sodomy laws, as if there is an enumerated right to commit homosexual acts!

It was just in 2003 when the SCOTUS went so far as to pull this "sodomy = privacy" nonsense. It's hardly the original intent. Regardless of how you feel about it, it is properly up to each State, not up to you or the SCOTUS but up to each State to decide such things for themselves.

Like I said, you are letting your feelings get in the way of understanding my point. Whatever the act itself happens to be, is not the issue here. I'm saying that privacy concerns a person or consenting persons while in their own homes.

Abortion is another matter that I am fine with leaving it up for each State to decide.

 

[Jim March]

Folks, the South committed numerous and horrific civil rights violations before, during and after the Civil War. That needed to end, at gunpoint, and it eventually did. Today the South is more racially tolerant than such "Liberal" bastions as New York and California.

Hugh wants to re-fight the civil war. It's a good thing he's a lone voice because if he had any support in the RKBA movement, we would LOSE bigtime.

PLEASE, please ignore him.

 

[gc70]

Folks, the South committed numerous and horrific civil rights violations before, during and after the Civil War. That needed to end, at gunpoint, and it eventually did.

If imposing one group's values on another group is such a fine thing, one might suppose that the US would be the darling of today's world.

 

[Jim March]

In 1858, South Carolina called for the death penalty for any preacher who spoke up in favor of abolition from the pulpit.

Sound like "American values" to you?

The civil war didn't end the BS - this law was passed in Alabama just post-war:

1. That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of color in this State, to own fire-arms, or carry about his person a pistol or other deadly weapon.

2. That after the 20th day of January, 1866, any person thus offending may be arrested upon the warrant of any acting justice of the peace, and upon conviction fined any sum not exceeding $100 or imprisoned in the county jail, or put to labor on the public works of any county, incorporated town, city, or village, for any term not exceeding three months.

3. That if any gun, pistol or other deadly weapon be found in the possession of any freedman, mulatto or free person of color, the same may by any justice of the peace, sheriff, or constable be taken from such freedman, mulatto, or free person of color; and if such person is proved to be the owner thereof, the same shall, upon an order of any justice of the peace, be sold, and the proceeds thereof paid over to such freedman, mulatto, or person of color owning the same. [Ed. note: the off-duty fashion choices of “justices of the peace, sheriffs, or constables” at that time tended toward an ensemble of basic white bedsheets with eyeholes...especially at night.]

4. That it shall not be lawful for any person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever, to any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person so violating the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in the sum of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars, at the discretion of the jury trying the case.

Alabama statute of 1865, from “The Second Amendment: Towards An African-Americanist Reconsideration”, footnote 178 — two more state-level examples precede that one. http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html

Do you support that? I don't. I think that needed to end in the US. The 14th Amendment was designed to do so, although it's true promise still hasn't been fulfilled.

Why are you idiots supporting racist BS all over this board? That may or may not be your intent, I have no idea if y'all have swastikas and/or bedsheet fashions in your bedrooms, but that's what you sound like when you speak out against the 14th Amendment.

NO political statement you could make could ever hurt the RKBA cause more. Those of you speaking against the 14A quite literally disgust me.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Like I said, you are letting your feelings get in the way of understanding my point. Whatever the act itself happens to be, is not the issue here. I'm saying that privacy concerns a person or consenting persons while in their own homes.

I'm not the one saying that every State must treat homosexuality a certain way because of my feelings, that is your position. I am saying it is up to each State.

You feel that there is a natural right to privacy, and that part of this natural right is the right to commit unnatural acts. As I said before, I see natural rights as things that are right by nature. You have turned the idea of natural rights against itself. Sodomy is not right by nature. And it's not just homosexual acts, there's incest, etc. I suppose you will tell me that there is a natural right to commit incest and inbreed??

There is no principle of government which says that consenting adults can do whatever they fancy in private. That is some half baked abstract libertarian concept. It would mean, for example, that government has no right to pass laws against prostitution ... but I suppose you think that if the US forced prostitution upon Virginia, then we'd have our "rights".

 

[CGSteve8718]

No Hugh, I would never tell you that.

You keep saying principle of government, even when you see that I am saying that privacy is right by nature. This of course is still within reason. Yes, people have a right to do what they fancy in and on, their own property. However, this does not include murdering someone, or incest...

You are also the only one equating sodomy with homosexuality. And the way some state's laws are written, a lot of things fall under that heading to mean pretty much any sexual act that isn't a missionary position with a woman. Which means, oral sex with a consenting adult woman is also sodomy.

I'll admit that this is becoming more of a personal discussion on what is, and isn't natural. The discussion has strayed from my original intended points.

But, I frankly don't care if homosexuals want to live their life and have their privacy, they should be free to do so. Incest however is where the line is drawn and clearly is more harmful than what your beliefs allow you to see. For you to even suggest that I would agree to that shows me how twisted your mind is working. That would be the equivalent of saying, the right of privacy protects me from killing someone in my home, of course it doesn't.

For more on the point I'm trying to make, you should read the above poster's replies. The freedom of self defense, protection, and security were denied to a select class of people by a state.

I do hold libertarian values, and I want government to be as limited as possible, but like I said, when it comes to the protection of natural rights, no goverment should be able to violate them.

So, you sound like you are against any kind of libertarian values. Does this mean you are OK with tyranny, as long as it's not perpetrated by the federal government?

 

[gc70]

Do you support that? I don't. I think that needed to end in the US. The 14th Amendment was designed to do so, although it's true promise still hasn't been fulfilled.

The Civil War was, at least partly, based on different views between the Northern and Southern states about slavery. The Northern states won the Civil War and forced the Southern states to give up the practice of slavery.

After the Civil War, the Northern and Southern states had different views on how former slaves should be treated. The Northern states championed the 14th Amendment to force the Southern states to give fair and equal treatment to former slaves.

From a moral perspective, ending slavery and trying to ensure equal treatment for the former slaves was the right thing to do. However, the Constitution did not give the Northern states the power or authority to end slavery or coerce the amendment of the Constitution to protect former slaves; that power came at gunpoint, based on moral authority.

If it is acceptable to act outside the Constitution based on moral imperatives, are there any limits beyond the strength of a group's convictions and the power they posess to act on their beliefs?