"Rights don't come from government": You're not actualky making a point

[WuWei]

Is your argument that it happens anyway, therefore we have to do it?

@margaretms2

Is it the framing of things as “rights” that’s the problem?

Absolutely.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

Because unless you actually saw them enter the country illegally, you can’t just declare they did.

Even if you did see them, you are assuming until proven.

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

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.

C’mon man, that’s spurious.

[JayJay]

@Guvnah

@JayJay

Because unless you actually saw them enter the country illegally, you can’t just declare they did.

It’s why we have certain documentation showing the legality of entry. (Or should have it.)

@JayJay

He STILL has a right to a trial by jury where he can defend himself against the charge.

Or at least plead for mercy/leniency in final conviction and subsequent sentencing.

In both cases there’s still due process to which these people are entitled.

[WuWei]

Good post.

@tnt

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?

Is that not the reality of it? At least until government uses force?

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

One thing to keep in mind, the Constitution addresses government.

The Constitution does not restrict government.

The Constitution restricts the content of law.

Balderdash. The Second Constitution most definitely restricts government.

First Constitution defines and authorizes government.

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?

It does have to do with both.

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

Also, First and Second?

Yes, there are two Constitutions

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

One thing to keep in mind, the Constitution addresses government.

The Constitution does not restrict government.

The Constitution restricts the content of law.

Balderdash. The Second Constitution most definitely restricts government.

First Constitution defines and authorizes government.

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?

It does have to do with both.

And how is that? Why are either enforceable? The answer is government.

Maybe libel law and NDA enforcement are constitutional, but not because they are “non-governmental”.

[WuWei]

Ah so. That’s quite a stretch.

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

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.

C’mon man, that’s spurious.

How so?

[WuWei]

First Constitution

Articles 1 and 3

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

First Constitution

Articles 1 and 3

You lost me. Are we talking about the same thing?

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Also, First and Second?

Yes, there are two Constitutions

And their dates are?

[tnt]

@WuWei

Is that not the reality of it?

Yeah, I think so.

But I guess the next conversation would be, where does this moral obligation come from? Perhaps from a recognition of OUR OWN intrinsic rights, and a need to sustain them in others, so that they might be sustained for ourselves?

Which, if I understand Margaret’s point, might be another facet of the interdependence…

@WuWei

At least until government uses force?

I’m not sure what you mean here.

[Smyrna]

@JayJay

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.

Wrong.

[Guvnah]

@tnt

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?

At the child stage, you’re right.

At the adult stage, not at all. (Other than maybe the disabled, etc.)

So many of the “rights” we argue about aren’t about kids though. The “right” to marriage (or more to the point, the “right” to have your marriage recognized by the state.) The “right” to enter our borders. The “right” to a living wage. All the “gender rights”. The “right” to this-government-program or that-government-program. “Equal rights” (to access, to jobs, to medical care that a rich guy can afford…) Etc.

[Guvnah]

@JayJay

In both cases there’s still due process to which these people are entitled.

Agreed.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Guvnah

or more to the point, the “right” to have your marriage recognized by the state.

What the hell?

[WuWei]

Yes.
…

[WuWei]

1 - May 29, 1790
2 - December 15, 1791