Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 134 of 134
Thanks Tree54Thanks

Thread: Constitutional originalism

  1. #131
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,304
    Thanks
    310

    From
    Yesod

    Clutching Empty Space

    " Clutching Empty Space "


    * Extinction Criteria *

    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    No one bestows it, that's why it's inalienable.
    Does inalienable include an allusion to a perpetual and inseparable soul of an individual instantiate , perhaps through some divine inscription ?

    Please explain , how moral relativism of good versus evil within nature would not expect that any thing could be alienated ?

    Consider those which abandon a perpetuation of their happy laud ( haploid ) game meets ( gametes ) , has their chance for eternal life been alienated , or do others alike in haploid make their chance for eternal life less alienable ?


    * Existential Confusion Knot *

    The expectations of individualism for self ownership and for self determination may be pursued based upon non aggression principles , although it is one of other social options which may establish its pretenses of validity , any of which can be alienated .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights as a premise for non aggression principles is missing a generic quality of naturalism .
    Various definitions of inalienability include non-relinquishability, non-salability, and non-transferability.[44] This concept has been recognized by libertarians as being central to the question of voluntary slavery, which Murray Rothbard dismissed as illegitimate and even self-contradictory.[45] Stephan Kinsella argues that "viewing rights as alienable is perfectly consistent with – indeed, implied by – the libertarian non-aggression principle. Under this principle, only the initiation of force is prohibited; defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not."[46]

    * Absolute Efficiencies Fabricated *

    As a matter of issue , the contemporary terms related as natural law and as natural rights stipulate epistomological absolutes , which is a precept rejected by perspectivism .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
    Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be understood universally through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, as determined by nature, is universal.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
    Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

    The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.[1][2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 1st March 2017 at 05:50 PM.

  2. #132
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,304
    Thanks
    310

    From
    Yesod

    Comparative Linguistics

    " Comparative Linguistics "


    * Pride Angst Traditional Vain *

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    It would be unalienable Right. In law, an unalienable Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Inalienable rights, on the other hand, may be given up.
    Legal source of distinction?
    Consider etymology of the morphemes " un " and " in " , as prefixed to alien able and ascribed the meaning " capable of being alienated " .

    The morpheme " un " is ascribed connotations of removed from ; hence , removed from being alienated .

    The morpheme " in " is ascribed connotations of included within ; hence , capable of being alienated , or possibly capable of alienating .

    If one were debating correct associations between meaning and morphemes used to construct a term , presumptions would likely be that " in alien able " and " un alien able " would necessarily have distinct meanings .

    In whichever manner one chooses to describe " rights , rites , wrights , writes " asserted as not capable of being alienated , the precept is absurd .

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 1st March 2017 at 06:08 PM.

  3. #133
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    2114

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    You are making broad and sweeping statements regarding the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution. You will need to narrow it down to a specific clause that you believe the intent and meaning was is just a guess.
    No. There is no way but through the words as to intent other that one's opinion.

    And when the intent in writings prior to or after the fact seem to indicate an inconsistency with the actual document, the document which was voted on and passed should be the defining one.

  4. #134
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    169

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    No. There is no way but through the words as to intent other that one's opinion.

    And when the intent in writings prior to or after the fact seem to indicate an inconsistency with the actual document, the document which was voted on and passed should be the defining one.
    Pick a specific clause that you are confused about its intent.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Similar Threads

  1. It's A Constitutional Obligation
    By Howey in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 17th February 2016, 02:29 PM
  2. Constitutional right...
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 09:29 AM
  3. War in Iraq Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 12th October 2008, 04:07 PM
  4. Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27th September 2008, 06:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed