Constitution Fireside in Arizona

[_3sheets2thewind]

did he also talk about judicial activism which is code for "I do not agree with the outcome of the case, therefore the judges are liberal activists"

If anyone has not noticed, AZ is chuck full of nutters. Unfortunately the nutters are control the political arena in Az right now.

Sethbag, have you gone to Rudys on Chandler Blvd and I10 yet....if you like BBQ and you have not gone, you are missing out.

[Guest]

“When you look at these men, it’s hard not to think that God had a plan laid out for them,” he said. “And people may say, ‘There he goes again, talking about politics,’ but I say, ‘No, I’m talking about the word of God.’”

John 1:1

In the Beginning was the Constitution....

[Anonymous]

I understand your concern, Sethbag, but I think you would agree that, for example, your right not to have the police break down your door and ransack your house just in case there might be evidence of a crime in there was not a gift generously bestowed upon you by the party holding the majority in Congress.

You are right, I would agree with that. I also like your terminology later in the post, where you say there are rights to which we are inherently entitled. Not because God said so, but just because.

The problem is when people ask "because of what?" Well, because I think we are. I recognize it's a pretty poor explanation. I don't think the "Because God said so" argument is much better. I mean, God could say we have the right to a free Pastrami sandwich on the 3rd Tuesday of every month. Would that make that right for real?

In all likelihood there's really no such thing as "rights" at all unless there's a society in place with agreements to recognize them. As you pointed out, there's really no "rights" at all in a state of nature. Or perhaps there is a single right in nature: "You have the right to attempt to survive." Every other right is derived from communal mutual consent to recognize them.

[_Darth J]

did he also talk about judicial activism which is code for "I do not agree with the outcome of the case, therefore the judges are liberal activists"

Notice how the Tea Party/Fox News crowd went apoplectic when John Roberts explicitly refused to engage in judicial activism when upholding the individual health care mandate under Congress' taxation power.

Or, as I asked Droopy some time ago:

Tell me about the overreaching power grab by tyrannical judicial activists in Troxel v. Granville, for example. Or Boys Scouts of America v. Dale.

[_Darth J]

I understand your concern, Sethbag, but I think you would agree that, for example, your right not to have the police break down your door and ransack your house just in case there might be evidence of a crime in there was not a gift generously bestowed upon you by the party holding the majority in Congress.

You are right, I would agree with that. I also like your terminology later in the post, where you say there are rights to which we are inherently entitled. Not because God said so, but just because.

The problem is when people ask "because of what?" Well, because I think we are. I recognize it's a pretty poor explanation. I don't think the "Because God said so" argument is much better.

In all likelihood there's really no such thing as "rights" at all unless there's a society in place with agreements to recognize them. As you pointed out, there's really no "rights" at all in a state of nature. Or perhaps there is a single right in nature: "You have the right to attempt to survive." Every other right is derived from communal mutual consent to recognize them.

Actually, Sethbag, I see nothing wrong with "because I think we are" as an explanation for why we are entitled to the rights protected by the Constitution.

[_Sethbag]

I don't either, except that it makes a "right" look more like an "opinion". And people seem to think that it should be something more universal than that. But that's probably what it is, really.

Even if a right comes from God, there are a couple of ways to interpret that. One is just that God gives us permission for something, so it's more like a privilege than a right, and the other is that it is a right just by divine fiat. And that's about as satisfying as all such divine fiat arguments are. In other words, not very.

[_beefcalf]

NBCNews.com has this story in its local news section for my area about a Constitution Fireside held near me.

Wow... dunno if the accompanying photo was taken at the event under discussion, but I personally know four of the people in that photograph.

And, yes, I'd have to agree that the take-away from this meeting was 'be sure to vote for Romney'. I would have normally bet that the message was quite subtle, but the 2008 Boyd K. Packer Prop 8 Extravaganza, shown in theaters and cultural halls everywhere, made it clear to me that the 'no political use' rule for church buildings is actually not much more than a suggestion.