22-01-2004 22:28									#481
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spif,

Not per se. Was simply thowing up a question on the wall and seeing if anyone would bite?

	22-01-2004 22:36									#482
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned The difference, BeBro is that in one, the right to life is denied based upon status that a person has no control over. The other is based upon conduct that require mens rea.

Ned, for god´s sake, I understand all that. But you still fail to see the point - who defines that one thing is unconstitutional (and why) and another constitutional?

You can believe it´s God-given. That doesn´t make much sense, since then you have trouble to explain why he waited until the 18th century to give the constitution out. Or to make it more clear - Germany gave itself a completely new constitution after 1945. So unless you think those people who made it in 1945 were sent by God, it is made by humans.

When you´re at this point, ask yourself - how decided them what should be in the constitution, and what not?
If there where changes made since that time - how were they justified?

	22-01-2004 22:39									#483
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe So If I understand correctly. The trusims laid out in the DoI are directly in question here. As the US constitution took these to to be truly self evident and framed governmental powers and rights accordingly. So I ask which of the moral statements in the DoI do you find not correct? Sahll we consider the DoI nothing but BAM?

The government established by the DoI was abolished with the adoption of the Constitution. It is a "sacred" text, but nothing more. You cannot appeal to our rights in the DoI in a court of law.

Ned,
The difference yuo are trying to make between proceedural and substantive due process are not the issue. The issue is whether or not "inalienable" rights, can, indeed, be taken from you. It's a yes or no question. Yes, they can be taken from you . . . under certain strict circumstances. This means that they are not absolute rights. All rights are conditional. All rights can be taken from you.

It's true, Congress could not pass a law saying Death to all Jews, but it could pass a Constitional Amendment for the states to approve, and we would legally have taken from Jews the right to life. Hopefuly, such an event will never occur.

	22-01-2004 22:47									#484
	Suffering from ads?

I understand your point Che.

I simply want to know if communists believe in the truisms proposed by the DoI.

I'm assuming you quoted "inalienable" for reasons that you think they are not so. Or am I mistaken?

	22-01-2004 22:49									#485
	Full PM-box? Change here!

dp

	22-01-2004 22:54									#486
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe I understand your point Che. I simply want to know if communists believe in the truisms proposed by the DoI. I'm assuming you quoted "inalienable" for reasons that you think they are not so. Or am I mistaken?

Pursuit of happiness is probably not the preference for commies. It implies freedom from constraint. I prefer freedom from want.

	23-01-2004 02:54									#487
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe I simply want to know if communists believe in the truisms proposed by the DoI.

Most communists I know would think that they are not truisms, but that they are desirable ends nonetheless.

quote: I'm assuming you quoted "inalienable" for reasons that you think they are not so. Or am I mistaken?

We are finite beings. Our existence is predicated on the existence and cooperation and agreement of other human beings. No matter what rights we think we have, or ought to have, unless we can get others to respect those rights, they do not exist. American gays should have the right to marry, but until a majority of their fellow Americans agree, they do not have that right.

	23-01-2004 05:22									#488
	Tired of ads?

BeBro, I think Che answered the question. The Supreme Court untimately desides if a statute or a particular case procedure was unconstitutional. But if they decide in a way that the vast majority of the people disagree with, the people can amend the constitution.

Regarding the Death Penalty, it is specifically authorized by the Constitution. But the Supremes are all over the "due process" requirements of putting someone to death. It now takes decades to get to an execution because of all the legal maneuvering.