Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

*shrug* Fine, criteria that someone else made up. The point is that makes it different than your other example: gravity. No one made up gravity, that force exists whether we believe in it or not.

We discovered gravity, someone made up natural rights.




​

 

No one made up the "person" and the inalienable rights of the person are fundamentally identical to the theory of gravity. They are identical in all relevant respects. The "person" exists whether we believe it or not.

Someone created the theory of gravity just like someone created the theory of the inalienable rights of the person. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. Both theories are subjected to tests for purpose of validation (or to be discredited and no one has ever discredited the theory of the inalienable rights of the person).

 

Gravity was not made up. Theories about gravity were.
A person was not made up. Theories about that person were.

Theories about that person having natural rights are therefore not the same thing as gravity.





​

 

You keep saying that ... but you've yet to offer a test. Gravity can be observed, predicted, measured ... these rights you keep talking about can only be imagined.




​

 

Like gravity the person also exists.

There is an old saying in science that states, "That which can neither be proven or disproven is assumed to be true." That applies to both the theory of gravity and the theory of inalienable rights. Both theories establish models where they can be tested and verified or disproven and, to date, all of the models have been "positive" in verification that the theories are accutare (true) and none have suggested the theories are not true.

Science is science regardless of whether it's a theory about energy, matter, nature or people. The Laws of Science apply equally to gravity and philosophy. apparently you're unaware of that.

 

I provided a test based upon the criteria of an inalienable (natural) right of the person walking to the store demonstrating the "right of liberty" but apparently you're incapable of understanding the "model, test, and results" that provides verification of the "Right of Liberty" of the person.

 

My wife has pointed out something I long ago learned when I was an instructor (teacher of manufacturing processes). The teacher doesn't teach, the student learns. A "teacher" can only present information but that doesn't imply that the student will ever learn anything. It's incumbant upon the student to actually attempt to learn and apparently that isn't happening here when it comes to the inalienable (natural) rights of the person. Someone that chooses, based upon ignorance, to not learn cannot be taught.

This discussion is over based upon another old saying. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and annoys the pig."

 

I'm not asking you to demonstrate whether people exist. I except that people exist. And I can demonstrate gravity exists. What we're talking about here are these natural rights. Can you show that, absent of anyone believing in them, these rights exist?

And I'm not sure where you got that old saying from ... but if you believe it then you believe in pretty strange stuff. That pink elephants in party dresses had a dance party right before the big bang can neither be proven or disproven ... you assume that's true?






​

 

You offered criteria and asserted that criteria made something a natural right. Your test didn't prove that an natural right existed, only that walking to the store was consistent with your criteria.




​

 

You are confusing a teacher with a professor. A professor offers (proffers) knowledge to take up and learn. Teaching is actually a somewhat violent act. To teach is to cause someone to know something.

You can teach someone many things without their cooperation or even participation. You can teach a rose bush where to grow, an infant when to sleep, or a dog not to soil the carpet.




​

 

Hm... well, you do seem rather annoyed.




​

 

Yes, lacking any other person existing a person can walk "from home to the store" demonstrating their Inalienable Right of Liberty.

If fact if another person interferred with the person walking "from home to the store" then they would be prohibited from exercising their inalienable right or if to make the walk to the store had to depend upon someone else or that walk to the store was to interfere with the actions of someone else exercising their inalienable rights then the right would not exist. The Exercising of an Inalienable Right is solely dependent upon the individual person and excludes basically any considerations of other individuals.

What is the person and what can the person do on their own sans anyone else?

But I'm talking to the hand because you are apparently making no effort to understand.

It is an old saying but to go along with that is the fact that all assumptions must ultilmately be validated in science. Can you verify your assumptions about pink elephants in the future? You can "assume" it today but that assumption must be ultimately validated.

 

My apologies as I was annoyed but shouldn't have expressed that. Here's what I'm going to do instead of being annoyed. Below is a link to John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that outlines the foundation for the "natural rights of man" as it was overwhemlingly what the founders of America used in establishment of the United States. Please understand it is a document of it's time where Christianity ruled with an iron fist but the "religious" arguments can be discarded and it still stands on it's own merit.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

It is this document that should be taught in our public and private schools and it should be gone into in great depth. It is that important if we're to understand the government and the people of the United States. At least one semester or quarter in high school should be dedicated to it exclusively because it is of paramount importance to understand for all that claim the be supportive of the American political ideology.

 

I believe the Federalist Papers should be required reading in high school.

 

You've added new rules. ok...

So your old saying goes more like, "that which can neither be proven [n]or disproven is assumed to be true" if someone guesses that in the future it could be proven as true?

Folks have made assumptions that time travel, teleportation, anti-gravity skateboards and the second coming will all happen... you're telling me science assumes anti-gravity and Jesus Christ are true?





​

 

(1) You seem to be asserting that there is a special kind of right, that unlike other rights these rights are a natural phenomena (you've offered gravity as a similar phenomena).

(2) You are offering criteria for distinguishing rights that you believe have this quality from other rights that you believe do not.

(3) Then you have demonstrated some rights meet your description and you then attributed the quality to them.​

This does not demonstrate the rights which match your criteria have this quality, that they are more real than than any other belief. That's the assertion you are starting with, not something you are demonstrating. You have demonstrated only that the rights you selected meet the description you offered.

I am making a sincere effort to understand what you are saying. But the words you are writing do not provide the proof you believe exists.

I would like to talk to you about real differences between a legal and a natural right. I think I might be able to offer you a cleaner distinction and I hope you can offer me a historical context. But we cannot proceed as long as I'm talking about a potentially useful philosophy and you're talking about a metaphysical phenomena. I would also appreciate your discontinuing the personal comments and speculations that have been peppered in some of your responses.

I believe we could start heading in a more productive direction by defining the word 'right.' I offer Webster's definition, a right is something you believe is owed or due.




​

 

It is about the Nurture of Socialism bailing out Capitalism, like usual.

 

Just like understanding the math behind a scientific theory that provides the logic you need to read and understand the logic of natural (inalienable) rights that are presented in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. If you sincerely seek to understand then you have to read the "logic" just like the scientist reads the mathmatical equation. If you took algebra in high school you remember that they taught you the logic than makes algebra work and that is no different here. You need to understand the logic of the "natural (inalienable) rights" and you can only do that by reading and understanding the Second Treatise of Civil Government by Locke.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

We accept that the "person" is a physical reality and the logic behind the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" is based upon that. When you have a comprehensive understanding of the "logic" then we can discuss the logic. This is identical in all respects to addressing the theory of gravity that provides us the with ability of determining interactions of people with each other just like how "objects with mass" interact due to gravity.

There are certianly differences between "civil rights" and "natural (inalienable) rights" as the first is statutory where the second in inherent based upon nature. Some civil rights exist simply because statutory law exists. For example the Right to Vote is purely a civil right as it is completely unnecessary in a natural state where government doesn't exist. Other civil rights are a reflection of a "natural (inalienable) right" of the person and some "civil rights" violate the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person.

There is an unusual and rarely used "civil right" that is based upon the "natural (inalienable) right" of property that does provide a good example. "Adverse Possession" that often referred to as "squatters rights" is where one person can take over the legal ownership of "real property" (generally land and mineral rights) without compensation for the "lawful" owner. Originally this was "common law" but has been codified into the statutory laws. In short the person takes over title based upon their exclusive use of the property when the "titled" owner is not using the property. There are several statutory requirements that must be met but it's based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person. It's sort of a "use it or lose it" proposition where someone, against your will, is using that which you don't use.

Excluding my requesting that you to read Locke's arguments, which is absolutely mandatory if you want to discuss natural (inalienable) rights I will make this as impersonal as possible instead attempting to discuss this intellectually and not emotionally. I've already apologized for my becoming annoyed and will attempt to avoid a repetition of that. Fair enough.

"Owed or due" could be applied when discussing inalienable right. We could consider our ability to "exercise our inalienable rights" to be "owed or due" to us by all others in society. It doesn't create an "obligation" for anyone to do something but instead it is an obligation for others to "not do" something that interferes with our ability to exercise our inalienable rights. This is really related to the "freedom to exercise" the "Inalienable right" as opposed to the "right" itself. For example I can "think" and thought is an "inalienable right" while "freedom of speech" (i.e. expressing that "thought") can be considered "owed or due" to us by others in society.

 

Equations that describe physical phenomena aren't argued, they are demonstrated. Science isn't arguing what something should be... science is measuring, modeling and predicting what we observe.

No argument is necessary or sufficient to show your beliefs are as real as electricity or gravity. If there is a relevant demonstration in Lock's words, and if you read and understand those words, offer the demonstration.





​

 

It would be next to impossible for me to explain and demonstrate without the person I'm trying to explain it to having an understanding of the princples and I will use the following as an example of why I say that.



The above is a simple equation for 3-dimensional motion (which we acknowledge exists) but it would take extensive knowledge related to the math before that equation can be used to demonstate 3-D motion.

So I understand what you're asking for but I can't provide what you're asking for because you don't have the prior knowledge necessary to understand. Please don't think that this is meant in anyway to be a derogatory statement because not having knowledge on a subject does not imply anything negative.

That's why I've asked you to take the time to study John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government because it provides the foundation for the discussion. Without the background knowledge it is virtually impossible for me to provide a simple demonstration that you would understand. For example you would understand my demonstration of the Inalienable Right of Liberty (e.g. walking to the store) if you had the basic knowledge provided by Locke's arguments. Without that knowledge it is fundamentally impossible for you understand the demonstration.

 

You can demonstrate motion through space by dropping an apple. No polar coordinate representations or vector algebra is required.

I am not asking for an explanation. I am asking for a demonstration. Are you unable to demonstrate the existence of this phenomena which you claim is as real as gravity?





​

 

A person walking from home to the store is performing a physical action (just like dropping an apple). If they don't do anything to anyone else and don't rely on anyone else to accomplish this (i.e. no other forces in play just like dropping an apple in a vacuum) then they are demonstatign an inalienable right (natural law) of action just like the apple falling to the ground is demonstrating a "natural law" of action. There is no difference between the two demonstrations.

 

The person is demonstrating walking to the store. You are asserting there is an associated right. Nothing about the walk would be different if the right existed or didn't exist. Therefore walking to the store doesn't demonstrate the existence of that right.

Dropping an apple demonstrates the force of gravity. We can observe the change in motion of the apple. The apple would not move if no force existed.

The difference is we demonstrated gravity by offering that force for observation. But you have offered nothing for observation that indicates these rights exist outside of your belief.





​

 

actually, there's not one WORD in the Constitution about the Supremes ruling on "unconstitutinality". of any laws. John Marshall just abrogated that power to himself and the country let him get away with it.

 

It was these two clauses that supported Marshall's decision.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3.html

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article6.html

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are Constitutionally mandated to adjudicate all cases of dispute under it. There is the caveat of "Constitutional Standing" where the plaintiff must suffer a direct harm and that redressability by the Court must be able to offer redressabilty to the harm because without "standing" there is no dispute to be resolved.

The issue of "constitutionality" is an issue of "redressability" that is mandated. If a law or action violates the US Constitution then it is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. As a matter of course in offering redressability to the plaintiff the Court must nullify the action that violates the Law.

What I address here is that it was also the Marshall Court that established "majority rule" and that is not supported by the US Constitution. It was an arbitrary rule established by the Supreme Court.