One thing to keep in mind, the Constitution addresses government.
2 Likes
Not quite.
Right to live…kind of tricky to define…
Why is it tricky?
Because I’m not very bright?
1 Like
It’s not that Google AI got anything wrong, it’s that you chose to use it.
The Constitution does not restrict government.
The Constitution restricts the content of law.
Dawg.
1 Like
You have to remember the context in which they wrote it and what and who they were addressing.
There is no general “right to life.”
There is a right to not be killed by the government without due process. Not just arbitrarily as was being done by the english.
Balderdash. The Second Constitution most definitely restricts government.
First Constitution defines and authorizes government.
2 Likes
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
not the constitution of course, but…
Yes. Exactly.
Why is that a problem? In this particular case, did it get anything wrong?
1 Like
To me, the question then becomes, “Do I have the right to the fruits of others’ labor?”
Of course not.
Then I can’t have a right to welfare.
This premise seems logical and plausible, and I get it. But it’s also an abstraction that doesn’t accord with reality. Even the Constitution itself coerces labor in the sixth amendment.
We are born into a society of complex interdependence, using products, services, resources, groups, and individuals that we didn’t pay for directly, or at all. It’s also a place with pre-existing governments that tax and redistribute. These two conditions continue throughout our lives to greater or lesser degrees. Is it the framing of things as “rights” that’s the problem?
For example, thousands of babies and children are abandoned each year in the US. We could say these are “extreme” cases, but they happen every day as a matter of fact. I think the kids should receive healthcare for plenty of rational reasons. If you disagree with that, fine, end of story. If you agree, do you have another way of explaining why that doesn’t involve relying on other people’s labor, as a practical matter?
This isn’t a dumb trap. I’m curious. And I am not arguing that if you think these kids need healthcare, you must therefore support a generous welfare state. It’s more a problem with the premise as it meets real life.
1 Like
Due process exists to determine that they broke the law by entering illegally.
Because unless you actually saw them enter the country illegally, you can’t just declare they did.
That’s what leads to mistakes and abuses of rights, and that’s what due process exists to prevent.
Hell even if you saw them do the crime doesn’t mean due process goes away.
A bunch of people can see a person commit murder, or assault, etc. It can be 100% without a doubt that this person committed the crime.
He STILL has a right to a trial by jury where he can defend himself against the charge.
Now not all due process for illegals involves a trial by jury…but there IS a process and they have a right to avail themselves of it.
Absolutely the problem. At least when considering “natural rights” or “inalienable rights”.
Not only healthcare, but shelter and food.
However, these aren’t part of the inalienable rights exactly. (I’m probably opening a can of worms with this opinion…) The child wasn’t killed. It was abandoned. From there it’s a matter of compassion, dignity, human worth, all dependent on the surrounding people/society (as you point out) and what they are going to do.
And the perpetual question about what society is going to do ranges from letting people die on the streets at one extreme, to providing a fulfillment of every need (and even every want) of the person at the other.
Couching that spectrum as “rights”, and where we should draw the line, is the wrong framing.
1 Like
It’s why we have certain documentation showing the legality of entry. (Or should have it.)
Or at least plead for mercy/leniency in final conviction and subsequent sentencing.
1 Like
What?
Hm.
Interesting.
Are you suggesting the abandoned baby isn’t kept fed and clothed because the baby has an intrinsic (natural?) right to life, but rather because the people around it feel a moral obligation to sustain it?
Because perhaps the former requires intervention of others…IOW, sure the baby has a right to live, but, you know, it’s a baby. On it’s on, it won’t…So here the notion that it has an intrinsic right to live is meaningless.
I think that’s a bit of what Margaret is getting at - this notion of intrinsic or natural rights is a pointless concept because it takes societal input to allow those rights to be expressed?
Chilly, Sneaky. You’re getting the wrong idea. My phrasing is broader and includes the other one, but it’s a subtle and necessary distinction. Necessary because there are a non-insignificant number of very confused people who think libel law and NDAs couldn’t possibly be constitutional questions because “the Constitution restricts government, not people”, which, while true, has nothing to do with either.
Also, First and Second?
Right to compel testimony (though I’d hardly consider that labor).