Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That would be a logical fallacy, you're making a false equivalency that a statement about a chemical compound is equivalent to a statement about everything else, and so by disagreeing with one statement we disagree with every statementWater is a compound of the elements Hydrogen and Oxygen.
@RX-79G and @VinnieBoomBah I can't wait for you to disagree with this statement! Please enlighten me!
I'll just pick this one since it sums up many of your comments...see quote by @American123 below:It doesn't matter what you don't have the right to do. If you want to pretend that a right cannot be violated by government, then there is no law that could be passed to violate that right.
The jail penalty for theft is a law that abridges liberty.
The death penalty for murder is a law that abridges life.
Perjury is a law that abridges free speech.
This is the fundamental and core principle that seems to be missed with some comments. My rights end when they infringe on those of others. This is why the government can step in when you steal from me, kill me or if you lie causing me harm. Without this concept the Constitution does not function, and we are back to anarchy.People who violate the rights of others, especially in a violent way, have forfeited their liberty. It is not the government taking their liberty, it is them as an individual with inalienable rights giving it up, because they had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until they forfeited it when they chose to violate those inalienable rights of others.
Somebody gets it.The premise—as some have supported here—that because the government has restricted our rights before, they therefore are allowed to, is a fallacy that runs in direct opposition to the purpose of the Constitution.
When specifically looking at the Bill of Rights, it sets explicit boundaries as to what government cannot do. Furthermore, it gives no exceptions or conditions under which government can infringe upon those rights.
Just because the Bill of Rights has already been trampled on, with many infringements now deeply ingrained in our society, does not mean the government had/has the legal authority to do so. That would be like saying I have the authority to purposely run people over with a truck, so long as I have successfully done it before.
That type of mentality is what justifies and allows Tyranny, which the Declaration of Independence offers a solution for…
It may well be a core principle, it just isn't the law or written down anywhere.This is the fundamental and core principle that seems to be missed with some comments. My rights end when they infringe on those of others. This is why the government can step in when you steal from me, kill me or if you lie causing me harm. Without this concept the Constitution does not function, and we are back to anarchy.
It's called "Allodial Title" and I believe only Nevada and Texas allow for it.This is absolutely correct, and an absolute abomination. Even with my home completely paid off, I still don't really own it in the purest sense. If I fail to make a property tax payment on time, the county can put a lien on my home. If I continue to not pay my property taxes, then the county can call in that lien, my home is taken from me, and I get evicted from a home that I paid for. How is that lawful? This is why property taxes are a total scam and nothing but theft. All taxation is theft!
Really, it is like saying that you live on an island and will always live on an island, but you have written a new rulebook for the island that says there is no such thing as a beach. The limitations on various rights were articulated and in use before, during and after the creation of the Constitution. The literal language of the BoR does not match reality, which suggests that the language is not literal - since the people that wrote it weren't idiots.Just because the Bill of Rights has already been trampled on, with many infringements now deeply ingrained in our society, does not mean the government had/has the legal authority to do so. That would be like saying I have the authority to purposely run people over with a truck, so long as I have successfully done it before.
Surprised that states like ID, MT, ND and SD don't have that as well (large-tract/ranching states).It's called "Allodial Title" and I believe only Nevada and Texas allow for it.
It's damn near unobtainable for the average man...but, a dude can dream.
While not law, it is written in the Declaration of Independence. It is contained in the wording, " AMONG THESE RIGHTS..." and then goes on to name just three of all the other implied rights. "AMONG", opening up the concept for more than the named 3.It may well be a core principle, it just isn't the law or written down anywhere.
This would be the critical thinking component of understanding how our government is supposed to work.It may well be a core principle, it just isn't the law or written down anywhere.
While many of the framers were philosophers, the Constitution is not a philosophy; it is codified law. Again, you are saying that since government has already overstepped its boundaries, it is okay to do so and that is what actually matters.Really, it is like saying that you live on an island and will always live on an island, but you have written a new rulebook for the island that says there is no such thing as a beach. The limitations on various rights were articulated and in use before, during and after the creation of the Constitution. The literal language of the BoR does not match reality, which suggests that the language is not literal - since the people that wrote it weren't idiots.
The forfeiture thesis is not in the Declaration of Independence. I think you misunderstood which "core concept" is being discussed.While not law, it is written in the Declaration of Independence. It is contained in the wording, " AMONG THESE RIGHTS..." and then goes on to name just three of all the other implied rights. "AMONG", opening up the concept for more than the named 3.
Do you agree the Declaration of Independence is a powerful, guiding document part of our nations core principals even though it is not law?
Not really. Our government and law work by stuff being written down and then judges interpreting what is written down. Rights forfeiture is not written down as a concept, and certainly not offered as an extension of the BoR. In fact, most BoR rights are retained by felons, so the idea is clearly not even applied in a straightforward manner.This would be the critical thinking component of understanding how our government is supposed to work.
Freely admit I may be wrong, and JMHO and IANAL and all that, but the way I read it what he is actually saying is closer toWhile many of the framers were philosophers, the Constitution is not a philosophy; it is codified law. Again, you are saying that since government has already overstepped its boundaries, it is okay to do so and that is what actually matters.
Your logic literally could be used to justify not prosecuting criminals. "Murder existed before it was articulated that you may not murder people, therefore the language saying you shall not murder is not literal. Murder is therefore legal because it was already being done in spite of the codified law saying it can't be done."
I'm assuming you concede all attempts at gun control to be perfectly legal and acceptable then? Current reality is that many people wish to ban all firearms, and the language of the 2nd Amendment is not "literal" correct? Your interpretation of the Constitution is incredibly off-base.
No, I am not an extremist that thinks everything is in one polar way or another. Nor am I a philosopher that sees a bunch of written law and supposes there are more unwritten laws.While many of the framers were philosophers, the Constitution is not a philosophy; it is codified law. Again, you are saying that since government has already overstepped its boundaries, it is okay to do so and that is what actually matters.
Your logic literally could be used to justify not prosecuting criminals. "Murder existed before it was articulated that you may not murder people, therefore the language saying you shall not murder is not literal. Murder is therefore legal because it was already being done in spite of the codified law saying it can't be done."
I'm assuming you concede all attempts at gun control to be perfectly legal and acceptable then? Current reality is that many people wish to ban all firearms, and the language of the 2nd Amendment is not "literal" correct? Your interpretation of the Constitution is incredibly off-base.
Your membership would be terminated.What would happen if I closed up reusable shopping bags and tried to exit Costco (past the receipt checkers, while refusing to open them? Will they attempt to detain me? Are they allowed to look through my personal belongings without my permission?