|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Unalienable Rights vs Constitutional Rights|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America When declaring their independence, the founding fathers recognized the rights bestowed on all humans by God. They made these rights the principles of the new nation, the United States of America, and acknowledge the responsibility of just societies to guarantee these God given rights – to all. The Constitution of the United States is a set of man-made laws that insures the unalienable rights of humans granted by God. It acknowledges that these rights can be forfeited by those who violate the basic rights of others, but only through the due process of law The writ of habeas corpus is a principle developed by humans that is the basis for insuring that a person is not denied the unalienable rights granted by God. Habeas corpus requires the State to prove that a person has committed a crime before their rights to life or liberty can be denied, not just be accused of a crime. The basic rights necessary for habeas corpus to be carried out have developed over the last 1,000 years and have been adopted by all civilized societies. The right to know what he/she is accused of. The right to confront any witnesses and see the evidence against them. The right to call witnesses in self defense. The right to an impartial judge. The Constitution insures other rights for the citizens of the United States – most are contained in the Bill of Rights Allowing people in custody to plead their case as to why their right to liberty should be restored is not providing them with Constitutional rights. It is maintaining a principle on which this nation was founded. |
||
|
Experienced Member |
Oh-h-h!! You did it now!!  There are people on these boards that do NOT believe in the God (big G), and some that do not believe in ANY god (little g).You are asking for it now, bubba.  Stand clear of everyone else, because the raining fire of the unbelievers will fall on you at any moment!!!Really, I'm just kidding w/you. There are people here that will argue about the existance of God, but in the same breath, will cling to the Declaration of Independence as proof that they are free to do whatever, and to denounce whomever they wish to denounce. But if you believe that they are hippocrites, you're wrong...just ask them.  These are my opinions. Yours may differ. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I so much agree with that statement..The liberals and Dumbocrats are slugs and whinners, who crawl out from under their rocks to claim their rights as it pretains to them, but not to others.
Thats why I call them Slugs. |
|||
|
"Sarcastic Member" |
In case you hadn't noticed, it is the rethuglicans who are fighting to deny people their rights and the "dumbocrats" who are fighting to protect the rights of others. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
You tell em Thorin. Althogh Im no longer a Dem. or Rep. for that matter Thanks to gwb and Jimmy Carter, The dems have historically stood for the working class and the Reps for the wealthy. Some may feel because they have invested in a few stocks or mutual funds that makes them a part of that elite group they couldnt be more wrong. They have forgotted they still belong to the working class. |
|||
|
|
"Sarcastic Member" |
The Republicans are at least more honest in who they represent. The Democrats, like the Republicans, couldn't give a rat's azz for the common American. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Thats why Im no longer either. Theve become one and the same and serve industry using different mantra. |
|||
|
"Resistance to reason is futile" |
A simple test for those who believe in the concept of unalienable rights, God given or otherwise.
Hop a freight to any country in the middle east, Africa, Asia, or the former Soviet block countries or Russia and China. Once there, do as you please. Flaunt your religion, your alternative sexual lifestyle or your belief that those people owe you something and that you are not obligated to abide by "their customs." Then ask them about your unalienable and constitutional rights. Right before the door slams shut on your dumb arse. Asserting that enemies of this country, or non uniformed combatants against the military of this country....somehow are entitled to ANY rights afforded natural born or naturalized citizens of this country? Is not only an ignorant and stupid understanding of the constitution, but it also borders on treason. There are no rights of law afforded either a non uniformed defeated enemy or captured non uniformed enemy of this country, aside from the giving of quarter. Giving life and reasonably humane treatment, food and medical attention. That's it. And that is as it should be. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Unalienable rights are like eye color and skin color, you're born with 'em, and the only way they can be revoked completely is by your death. Now, that doesn't mean you will be born under, or live within a system which will let you retain your rights. If you exist in a wilderness devoid of anything but the laws of nature, then you can act upon all you rights and freedoms to the fullest extent. Though freedom of speech may give away your position to the tiger that is trying to locate and eat you - silence may be a survival skill to be practiced rigorously.... If you exist under a lenient government - a Constitutional one, you may exercise you rights to some degree, but in a civilized fashion, not screaming "fire!" in crowded places, or carrying a .50 Cal Machine Gun openly in the middle of New York City and blazing away just for fun... If you exist under a tyranny, you still have all you rights, just like your eye and skin color, but the system will try to deny them to you, so you either have to stifle your rights and become a slave, or fight for them at the risk of pain and death - - Rights are an absolute - but it is up to you whether you try to preserve them or let them go - - |
|||
|
Submarine Warfare |
 Honestly. Considering the author, it seems obvious to a thinking observer that his choice of the word "Creator" was a rhetorical flourish. Now...do you have something to say about the man's point, or are you going to persist in deflecting from it, picking fights and making a fool of yourself? Getting to the original post, I really don't think there's as much difference between the two as you say there is. What does the Declaration assert? That man's natural birthright is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What do the rights that our constitution constrains the government to grant allow us all? Why, that's right...the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The declaration and the bill of rights say the same thing in different ways. The declaration was a masterful statement of grievances against tyrannical government, and a defense of revolt. The Constitution (and bill of rights) was a set of laws laying out the structure and constraints of American government. The language is different in the two for these reasons, but the rights granted are the same. What is Habeas Corpus? It is an application of the right to liberty. What is freedom of speech and association? It is an application of the right to the pursuit of happiness. There is not as much difference as you think. Woody Allen once said that any man who makes a pun should be 'drawn and quoted.' |
|||
|
|
"Sarcastic Member" |
So there are no such thing as human rights then? That is in effect you are arguing. Wich means that the 'remove a brutal dictator' justification for invading Iraq is not a valid one. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
The Geneva Conventions (which we largely wrote) state that non-uniformed combatants are legal combatants if they also follow some rules. A distinctive patch or ornament. A chain of command, etc, etc. What if there is legtimate doubt as to their legality? Then an independent NEUTRAL party will be used to determine their legality. And of course all those who were in the Taliban did indeed wear uniforms. Dave |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Quite the conundrum for an atheist... You know that look a woman gets when she wants sex? Neither do I. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I've thought about this for quite a while now, and despite being a conservative I have to say "Give the dirtbags a trial." A legal trial similar to that which we give our own citizens.
Something Bonesaw said in the Marine Kills Puppy thread made me think - we should counter barbarism with civilization. That's the argument that all of us right-wingers use to state why we're in this war. If we're trying to 'export democracy' then we need to try and extend the definition, to set an example. In other words, from a purely legal standpoint it's true that the detainees have no legal rights. But from a moral standpoint WE need to be true to ourselves. Again, this whole idea of morality may be a sticking point for atheists... You know that look a woman gets when she wants sex? Neither do I. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
While I believe that legally we have to give them fair trials, the most important part of the question is exactely what you say - Who are we? Are we, or are we NOT a thousand times better than them? What better way to prove this, by taking the risk (however small) of demonstrating that beyond a shadow or a doubt? What could be worse than copying them (however poorly) and blurring the distinction? Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
The right to privacy – no wire taps or searches without a warrant. The right to a jury of your peers. The right to not incriminate yourself. The right to a lawyer, a speedy trial, a public trial and the right to reasonable bail… These are all rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States because the founding fathers thought them important to the ideals of the nation they envisioned. Those who say that foreigners – detainees or otherwise, are not granted such rights by the United States Constitution are correct. Those who say that allowing prisoners a fair chance to challenge their detention is granting them Constitutional rights are not correct. Unalienable rights were not granted by the Constitution or any document written by anyone. They were granted at the dawn of man. The right to life and liberty are human rights - a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All humans are born with unalienable rights. Even despotic governments recognize these human rights. That is why they use secret prisons and obfuscation of the law when they deny anyone of their rights to life or liberty. |
|||
|
|
"Sarcastic Member" |
Sorry, no dice on the atheist slam. That is the position I have advocated from the beginning.  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
It wasn't intended as a 'slam', but rather asks the question "From whence comes morality?" The whole idea of inalienable rights granted by a Creator presupposes 1) a Creator and 2) the corresponding inherent divinity of man. If one adopts the secular viewpoint that there was no Creator, then how can Man have any inherent, divinely-granted "rights"? Killer monkeys don't have inherent and unalienable rights. You know that look a woman gets when she wants sex? Neither do I. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
|
