Droopy wrote:Hobbes viewed men in a state of constant warfare and when man compacted to form together to create government they gave up natural rights in exchange for this social order. He viewed the Leviathan as having ultimate sovereignty and rebellion was not usually acceptable when power was abused -- this is why our founding fathers preferred LOCKE AND PAINE. :)
Quote:
Duuuuuh....Which way did he go George???
Yes Moniker, I know...
Really? Then why do you mention natural rights so damn much and can't seem to separate them from constitutional rights? You do understand that positive rights can be created by the social contract? Do you see the distinction between the negative and positive rights? You seem to think that only negative rights are constitutional and this is just not so.
Kirk says that Burke was more of an influence than Locke, but that's for another discussion. Suffice it to say that the idea of Natural Rights has significant bearing, but perhaps more in the Declaration than in the Constitution.
Paine had more immediate influence on the revolution, declaration, and was calling for a republican constitution. Locke actually stated the natural rights were "life, liberty, and property" <--- wee bit familiar?
by the way -- why don't you tell me what Burke thought of natural rights? :)
Yes, that's what they are doing, and the Judiciary was created with no such powers (and was, among the Founders, particularly Jefferson, the most feared of the branches of government were it to become corrupt).
No! They are not creating legislation. They interpret the constitution and deem legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. The Justices can NOT create legislation. As I explained numerous times to you before it is not a stagnant process. There can be amendments to state or the federal constitution. New Justices can be appointed. Legislation can be rewritten to pass constitutional muster.
You clearly do not understand the concept of "tyranny of the majority" or how the constitution deals with both the tyranny of the majority and the equally problematic tyranny of the minority. Care for a political science 101 lesson Moniker?
haha! YOU wrote this about the elites, by the way:
The very idea that a tiny group of judges educated at Ivy League law schools are someone morally superior to the typical American citizen is an indication of raw hubris, not proper judicial temperament. As Robert Bork has long pointed out, we like many of the results of such decisions, but later we may be snared in the precedents their legal reasoning created.
I understand precisely that the founding fathers were terrified of the masses and created the constitution in such a way so that only certain segments of our society could participate in the political process. Why? Because they feared the masses.
Oh, by the way, you're still missing the mark -- constitutional rights go beyond the scope of natural rights.
Do they? Constitutional rights are legal instruments, but instruments based in the concept of natural rights, and natural rights were understood to preexist both the state and organized political society; they are inherent in the individual human being. All the actual "rights" in the Constitution are unalienable; we cannot be alienated from them as they come to us from "nature and nature's God" and are intrinsic. Any other "rights" that could conceivable be created by human beings - such as judges or legislators - are by definition contingent -upon the good graces of those who have created them or, even more importantly, the winds of cultural change.
So, the right to a free and public education is an inalienable right? You're telling me what I already know -- yet, YOU are not reading what you're writing. There ARE certain natural rights that we do not forfeit in society, yet, we move beyond that and there are certain positive rights that come into play in our society and some of them are constitutionally protected.
These, such as homosexual marriage and abortion, are not "rights" at all, in the constitutional sense, but simply judicial perquisites; a cultural gratuity extended to politically influential or culturally de rigeur groups at a specific cultural moment.
If the justices rule that they are "rights" then of course they are "rights". Just because they're not natural rights does not make them unconstitutional!
When, where?
Gag
You're asking me here what the difference is between the natural right of freedom of speech and the legal/constitutional right of freedom of speech (or religion, or assembly, or association)?
Or the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the legal/constitution version of the same?
Oh, you're aggravating me.
Here's some more posts of yours:
They are constitutional if and only if they are actually constitutional and can be shown to be so through an analysis of the original intent of the writers. What you really believe in Moniker, is rule by lawmakers, not rule of law, and the lawmakers you are defending here, the California Supremes, have no constitutional authority to make law at all.
Bzzzt
This is my FAVORITE!
My statement:
Moniker wrote:You again forget that the Judiciary is again checked by the popular vote in the way of amendments.
Droopy reply:
Droopy wrote:Only before the fact. After the fact, the change in law is, for all intents and purposes, permanent and beyond democratic control.
Until you figure out that the process is not stagnant and what precisely the different branches do then you shouldn't lecture anyone about PoliSci 101, eh?
I can vote. I also can drink a beer. That's amazing, huh?