Reply With Quote
What's new?
Kagan Won't Answer Whether We Have Inalienable Rights as the Declaration Says
or if the government gives man rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCPhlxoLxw
This was a very difficult 2 minutes and 51 seconds of viewing, I urge you to watch this at your own discretion.
What's new?
It's nice to think that nights are natural and bestowed on us by God, but in practice if a political state doesn't grant and protect these rights, they are little enjoyed by the people.
There are no rights of man granted by God. That's just another myth Americans lie to themselves with.
All rights are granted/denied to man by man.
There are no rights of man granted by God. That's just another myth Americans lie to themselves with.
All rights are granted/denied to man by man.
gotta disagree. they must be recognized, but the fact that all men come barrelling out of the womb naked is enough to confirm that we are all created equal. And if we are created equal, we are born with with certain rights inherent in that equality
I don't really disagree with any of that, but the rights to which you refer depend more than somewhat on a political state to protect and sustain them, and at the very least, not to revoke them.
"we are born with with certain rights inherent in that equality"
bull . Man has no rights except those he's allowed to have by man.
The Declaration is not a legal do ent. The Cons ution is the law of the land.
It shouldn't matter what Elena Kagan thinks about "inalienable" or "natural" rights. She should only be concerned with the law. The political branches and the voters should be concerned with the Declaration.
But all people don't come out of the womb equal. Some are deformed, some are smarter than others, etc etc.
Yes, but I don't see a problem with asking her judicial philosophies, as it does inform her rulings. Not believing that people have inalienable rights is kinda a big deal.
I would definitely argue for inalienable rights. People above have argued that rights are only granted by man, but I'd say that's a wrong way to look at it. I'd say that people have those inalienable rights, but can be denied these by unrighteous powers/leaders. That does not mean those rights don't exist, but that people in that situations are unable to exercise them.
Inalienable rights are a standard, a "lowest common denominator" marking point, and to get rid of that thinking is something I'm not comfortable with.
I fully agree with this quote. Man grants himself rights, independent of any creator.
I don't agree with this. Man is not "allowed" certain rights, in my eyes. Man has a right to live peacefully, to live and speak how he feels, and to make prosperity for himself, with the caveat that he does so without infringing on the liberty of others (or, at the least, keeping all such infringement to the minimum amounts).
(Note: There are exceptions to the above rule of course, but it is broad for a reason.)
n/m
"Man has a right to live peacefully, to live and speak how he feels, and to make prosperity for himself"
Americans dis"allowed" those rights to their slaves for 100s of years.
That is easily explained, as is the fact that women did not have those rights for even longer -- it just shows that the inalienability of rights depends on what the definition of "man" is, and obviously, that definition comes from God.
capt. obvious: this is a MORAL argument not a practical one.
If there are no rights granted and protected IN PRACTICE, then morality/ethics/religion/etc arguments are airy-fairy bull .
Same story: what's fair, just, true, common sense, spirit-of-the-law has all to do with what law is practiced in court through "lawyering".
of a point...
I think those rights are "built-in" as it were, but those rights were denied to those people, yes. I don't think that means those rights "go away", but that the people are held back from exercising them.
In a very real sense, yes. In a philosophical sense (in my eyes anyways), no.
Yes boutons, I agree that there are two different levels of debate. However, I think there IS a point to maintain the idea of rights even if they're denied. If we go by the "rights are only what we allow", then we have no firm standards, no bedrock on which to judge further actions.
If a people in another country are being denied their freedoms, by your logic, they have no freedoms to protect in the first place, because they can not utilize them. I find it better to say that they HAVE these freedoms, but they can not exercise them. To do otherwise just gives power to those who would crush freedom, as they would argue from your same standpoint in this 1984/Catch-22 fashion.
"What freedoms am I denying them? If their rights only exist while they are exercising them, then by not allowing them to exercise those rights, those rights do not exist; if those rights do not exist, how can I be said to deny them?" It's doublethink at it's finest, but that's what often occurs when people tread on freedom. This is the same thinking whereby people can talk about hundreds of thousands killed in wars as a true sign that peace is coming to a region.
Maybe I should have colored my text blue.
The declaration of independence was never codified or ratified or executed by that states. The only legally binding do ent is the cons ution, not the DOI. That's what Kagan ostensibly is getting at.
It's ironic that conservatives who decry "judicial activism" are so willing to jump on a non-ratified do ent with an exponentially large potential for judicial activism when it supports their own agenda, e.g., right to bear arms.
The DOI, interesting as it may be, is not the law of the United States. The bill of rights has no explicit protection of inalienable rights (the 10th amendment doesn't use that language). Kagan is ultimately right.
shes having a picture perfect run of being appointed. most of her answers are textbook "i might never have that issue come before me, so why does it matter?" etc etc. government officials drool over those answers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
