Draft

[ddelange]

Bzzzt! Incorrect. Rights are pre-existing, and are merely recognized by the BoR. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for details

I could use my buzzer too, but I reserve it for when my argument is actually in trouble. . . . "Merely recognized" by the BoR"? So when you go to court claiming your rights to free speech were violated, do you tell the judge that your pre-existing right to free speech was violated? Or do you tell the judge that your right to free speech, set forth in the First Amendment was violated? If rights are merely pre-existing, then why did the founders use such language as that contained in the Sixth Amendment: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,. . . "? Is that not a positive grant of a specific right? If the individual rights contained in the first 8 Amendments are merely pre-existing rights, then why did the framers specifically include them for protection from federal infringement? I mean, if everyone knew what the pre-existing rights were, what need was there to actually put them in the text of the Bill of Rights.

The 9th Amendment guaranteed that the people retain any other rights that their state legislatures wanted to protect in their own constitutions. It is not a crystal ball for creating new rights that were pre-existing for all this time but only recently discovered.

If rights are merely pre-existing, then why do we all cite to the language of the Second Amendment so often? Also, I'll bet a lot of anti-gunners would disagree that the individual right to bear arms is a pre-existing right. The problem with pre-existing rights argument to this extreme is that they can be everywhere and nowhere, left up to anyone who happens to be in power to decide what such pre-existing rights are.

I'll agree with you that the founders of the BoR believed that most of the rights existing in the first 8 Amendments were inalienable, but I disagree that they "merely recognized" those rights in passing the Bill of Rights. They in fact codified those rights specifically in the Bill of Rights so that it would be clear to the federal government that those rights were not subject to federal intrusion.

[Blackhawk]

ddelange,

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

You mean basing legal arguments on personal, ungrounded opinions is NOT effective in court?

[ddelange]

You mean basing legal arguments on personal, ungrounded opinions is NOT effective in court?

Yeah, it didn't take me long to learn that certain pleas to the court don't work: "Judge, that just isn't fair in my opinion"; "Judge, I don't care if your rule requires me to stop making my point, I'm exercising my "pre-existing" right to unlimited free speech to argue as long as I want." Or "Objection your honor, the jury's verdict was not "just" in my opinion and therefore violates my right to freedom because it tramples my pre-existing rights and the pre-existing rights of my clients."

And guess what you have to do if you want to sue the government for the violation of your constitutional rights? You have to file a suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 that requires you to specify the right enumerated by the Amendment in question.

[bronco61]

I support selective civil disobedience when a significant portion of the population does as well,

OH! So it's a numbers game. Interesting. Many Germans felt the same way about what Hitler was doing. Unfortunately, they didn't see a significant portion of the population going against Hitler, so they donned their spiffy uniforms and goose-stepped with the other sheep.


It's interesting how your reasoning has changed during the course of this debate ddelange.

First you start with me with:

"Only the Supreme Court can make a determination on the BoR and what they say goes. If you don't agree with it, you're an ANARCHIST"! (outlining here)

Then you switch to "Well, the Supreme Court DID mess up those times so they have been known to be wrong"

Finally, we have "Ok, I admit there ARE exceptions to the Rule of Law".

I guess this forum DOES get people to realize that some of their reasoning is a bit off. The Supreme Court goofed up big time with their decision on the draft. It is involuntary servitude. Who knows? Maybe during our lifetime we'll get this thing changed?

[Tamara]

If you look at this sentence:

If the Supremes uphold the Constitutionality of a ban of the Second Amendment

and read it as

The Supreme Court ...declar[ing] the Second Amendment, or any other Amendment, unconstitutional.

then I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this one, as we apparently don't speak the same language.

(Ref: In the first sentence "uphold" is the verb, "ban" is a noun.)

[ahenry]

I have to disagree with your definition, and your statement that the founders saw such a distinction when writing the Constitution. Most importantly, the majority of the first 9 Amendments refer to the positive grant of "rights." Those rights were never intended to be, nor have they been interpreted by the USSC, as absolute or immune to certain governmental regulation. However, the word freedom is used once, in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging . . . the freedom of speech . . . . " AND the Constitution uses the word liberty in the 5th and 14th Amendments: ". . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Constitution suggests a few important points: freedom and liberty were used interchangeability; neither liberty nor freedom could be deprived without due process.

Actually, after some research on this topic a while back, I came to the conclusion that the Founders knew exactly what they were doing with the use of these two terms, and in fact meant two slightly different ideas with these two terms. This thread is not really the place to delve into this, because it is a deep topic and strays far from the point of this thread, but suffice it to say, the Founders viewed two different meanings (although only slightly different) with the words liberty and freedom and when constructing the constitution they used the terms with purpose. If you want to get into it, feel free to start another thread or email me. I’m not trying to dodge the issue, just not willing to prove the point in this thread for the reasons mentioned.

[ahenry]

Give me a little help here. Supposedly, our society (50.1% of the population) says that there are things we ought to do and will force us to do, but we have no way of determining what ought to be done?

Not at all, and I never meant to imply that. This forum and this thread are not ideally suited for a discussion of what way our society has determined what ought to be done so I left that issue alone. I merely said that I am not telling you what determines “ought”, only that liberty (which is what our Founders strove to establish) makes the distinction that you have freedom with constraints.

Nah, I don't like this one bit. Put me down for the "I'll do whatever the hell I like as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights" crowd.

I didn’t state this concept for your approval, I only said that there is a divergence of thought between many “pro-freedom” types, and that divergence revolves around the ideas of liberty as opposed to freedom. I have spent much of my own time studying this, and I have come to the conclusion that our Founders were aware of this divergence and made a radical and unique compromise between these two concepts.

Also, your indentured servitude example doesn't hold water because that servent choose to enter into the period of service, the draft is a bunch of jack-booted thugs with guns saying "comply, or else".

Of course it does, you just don’t want to admit it . When dealing with the draft you are free at anytime to decide that the advantages you gain by being an American no longer outweigh the risks you face by the draft and so choose to leave. Moreover, here in America there have always been methods by which one can decline the draft and still remain an American. You know, conscientious objections, additional education, marriage, etc. You choose to stay and enjoy the comforts of this society, then at some times you will be called upon to contribute to that society. There is still a choice open to all. What is key to this, is that in America we are our own gov’t. If you feel that this is no longer the case, then its time for “something” to be done.

[Blackhawk]

When dealing with the draft you are free at anytime to decide that the advantages you gain by being an American no longer outweigh the risks you face by the draft and so choose to leave. Moreover, here in America there have always been methods by which one can decline the draft and still remain an American. You know, conscientious objections, additional education, marriage, etc. You choose to stay and enjoy the comforts of this society, then at some times you will be called upon to contribute to that society. There is still a choice open to all. What is key to this, is that in America we are our own gov’t. If you feel that this is no longer the case, then its time for “something” to be done.

Very well said.

Hopefully, that can be the conclusion of this matter.

[glock glockler]

Hopefully, that can be the conclusion of this matter.

Silly Blackhawk, you should know better than that

I have spent much of my own time studying this, and I have come to the conclusion that our Founders were aware of this divergence and made a radical and unique compromise between these two concepts.

Aaron, lets just pretend for a minute that the founders weren't perfect and that there is actually something they could have been wrong about. I, for one, can think of several improvements I would like to make to the Constitution. Ultimately, we must guide ourselves with logic and reason, not the holy writ of the FF. I don't care if some of the FF thought that we have to make into law things that ought to be done, I think turning subjective opinion into law is maddness.

When dealing with the draft you are free at anytime to decide that the advantages you gain by being an American no longer outweigh the risks you face by the draft and so choose to leave.

So we must agree to have our freedom violated by the majority or we're free to leave? Hmm, I'm so glad I live in a free country, wait, do I...?

Moreover, here in America there have always been methods by which one can decline the draft and still remain an American. You know, conscientious objections, additional education, marriage, etc.

This is a big whopping contradiction when compared to your previous post. Essentially you're saying that 'as Americans, we can be forced into service, but also as Americans, we can get out of it if we really want.'

If there is a legitimate war I would not hesitate to serve, but I will not be some sacrificial lamb for a bunch of politicians who want nothing more than to serve themselves with my blood. I was fully ready to join the military an a few occasions, one of them being after Sept 11, but my service was not necessary to stomp Afganistan. I will also only serve if Congress actually declares war.

Personally, I could care less whether or not some Amish kid serves in the Armed forces. I respect his right to choose as others should respect my right.

The main problem with the draft is that it is the act of a govt that does not trust it's people. It thinks we must be forced into service because we are either too lazy or cowardly to act in a situation of legitimate need. Well, why should I trust them if they don't trust me? Seems like a case of projection if you ask any psychologist.

[glock glockler]

ddelange,

You have previously claimed that you love freedom but you now assert that rights are a gift from govt, interesting.

"Merely recognized" by the BoR"? So when you go to court claiming your rights to free speech were violated, do you tell the judge that your pre-existing right to free speech was violated?

Backwards reasoning: you are trying to use one situation where rights might or might not be violated in order to deny the existence of a right. If govt can give them and take them away they are not rights but privilages.

"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,. . . "? Is that not a positive grant of a specific right?

The purpose of the BoR was to set in stone limits on Federal power and have a concrete garantee that we could point to. It's too bad that people shouldn't be able to be taken from their house at 3am and buried in a ditch after some phoney secret trial like they did in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, yeah, the founders were all about that.

If the individual rights contained in the first 8 Amendments are merely pre-existing rights, then why did the framers specifically include them for protection from federal infringement? I mean, if everyone knew what the pre-existing rights were, what need was there to actually put them in the text of the Bill of Rights.

See my above answer. People were very suspicious of a central govt like the one the Federalists wanted, the BoR was a confidence builder, and in my opinion, an efective shield at a govt that will twist law to suit it's own ends that the expense of the people's freedom.

The 9th Amendment guaranteed that the people retain any other rights that their state legislatures wanted to protect in their own constitutions. It is not a crystal ball for creating new rights that were pre-existing for all this time but only recently discovered.

Creating new rights? Buddy, I don't think you even understand the concept of rights to begin with, as your statement is completely illogical.

If rights are merely pre-existing, then why do we all cite to the language of the Second Amendment so often?

To show anti-twits that they are breaking the law, that's why. I don't need so stinkin' 2nd Amendment for my right to bear arms.

Also, I'll bet a lot of anti-gunners would disagree that the individual right to bear arms is a pre-existing right.

Yes, and there are plenty of people that believe the Earth is flat, they're morons, what's your point? Because some people deny reality, we should deny it as well?

The problem with pre-existing rights argument to this extreme is that they can be everywhere and nowhere, left up to anyone who happens to be in power to decide what such pre-existing rights are.

You don't even know what a right is, so what's the point? You ever read the declaration where it say "All men are endowed by the creator with unalienable rights...". That's means they're not a gift from govt.

I'll agree with you that the founders of the BoR believed that most of the rights existing in the first 8 Amendments were inalienable, but I disagree that they "merely recognized" those rights in passing the Bill of Rights. They in fact codified those rights specifically in the Bill of Rights so that it would be clear to the federal government that those rights were not subject to federal intrusion.

So some rights can be violated by the feds but some may not be?
Brilliant.

[Boats]

LOOP-DE-LOOP-DE-LOOP-DE-LOOP-DE-LOOP-DE-LOOP


How many more can we go? Six and counting without changing a damn thing.

[Tamara]

You pickin' up on that vibe, too?

[Blackhawk]

Silly Blackhawk, you should know better than that

I do, but my incurable optimism does sometimes get the better of me....

The main problem with the draft is that it is the act of a govt that does not trust it's people. It thinks we must be forced into service because we are either too lazy or cowardly to act in a situation of legitimate need. Well, why should I trust them if they don't trust me?

Actually, any psychologist could have a lot of fun taking you apart about these statements!

The reason it appears to you that the government "thinks we must be forced into service because we are either too lazy or cowardly to act in a situation of legitimate need" is pretty close to the mark. Other reasons are because humans always act according to their enlightened self interest, which seldom includes taking personal risks with uncertain knowledge or exposing themselves to long, grueling periods of discomfort if that's avoidable.

Conscription came about for the simple and inescapable reason that not enough Americans volunteered for service during times of legitimate need.

Without the impetus of the draft, the number of volunteers responding to past "legitimate needs" would be far less, and there's not a reliable way to determine how many volunteers were inspired by the draft.

Ever try to talk a scared person into taking what appears to be a dangerous action in order for them to get into a safer position, maybe analogous to jumping from a burning building? There's not always enough time to explain the "why" of the necessity of immediate action, and sometimes revealing sufficient reasons to be convincing endangers the country further by enlightening the enemy.

You've gotta trust somebody, and if the only one you do trust is in the mirror, I'm sad for you.

[ddelange]

suffice it to say, the Founders viewed two different meanings (although only slightly different) with the words liberty and freedom and when constructing the constitution they used the terms with purpose. If you want to get into it, feel free to start another thread or email me.

ahenry,
I think it best if you start the new thread and outline your argument concerning the nature and difference of liberty versus freedom. I'm interested in reading it. Post to this thread if you do so/and or IM me. Thanks.

[ddelange]

tamara,

then I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this one, as we apparently don't speak the same language.

Via con dios

[ddelange]

How many more can we go? Six and counting without changing a damn thing.

Boats, I'm still on the carousel and I admit I'm getting dizzy too. However, this type of debate is never going to change the minds of the people posting. However, a much larger percentage of lurkers do view these types of threads and are influenced one way or another. I know because I've been told so.

Plus, it just makes some posters feel good screaming over and over: "I can do whatever the hell I want no matter what the Supreme Court says."

[Blackhawk]

I know because I've been told so.

Now, that's deliciously funny irony!

[bronco61]

ddelange,

Plus, it just makes some posters feel good screaming over and over: "I can do whatever the hell I want no matter what the Supreme Court says."

We're just saying the same thing as you finally agreed to yourself with your statements:

I agree that all of those Supreme Court decisions were wrongly decided (you admit that the Supreme Court does make wrong decisions)

and

I'm honest enough to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, even the Rule of Law

But I guess only you get to have exceptions but the rest of us don't.

[ddelange]

OH! So it's a numbers game. Interesting. Many Germans felt the same way about what Hitler was doing.

As has been pointed out many times, we're not talking about the draft in Nazi Germany or the nature of rights in Nazi Germany. So your continued efforts to equate rights in the U.S. with those in Nazi Germany might be better suited for a new post.

It's interesting how your reasoning has changed during the course of this debate ddelange.

It hasn't. I've elaborated on my reasoning over the course of many, many posts. You don't start a debate with a 5 page thesis.

Then you post the following, attributing it to me:

"Only the Supreme Court can make a determination on the BoR and what they say goes. If you don't agree with it, you're an ANARCHIST"! (outlining here)

DJD: I never said that. I said that certain posters are anarchists when they post quotes such as "I can do whatever the hell I want no matter what the Supreme Court say."
__________________________________

Then you switch to "Well, the Supreme Court DID mess up those times so they have been known to be wrong"

DJD: Of course they have been wrong. I never said they were perfect. I've argued in court countless times that the Supreme Court and federal courts have wrongly decided cases. But at the end of the day I still accept the Rule of Law.
________________________________________

Finally, we have "Ok, I admit there ARE exceptions to the Rule of Law".

There are exceptions to every governmental system and I've never denied that I would choose not to follow the Rule of Law in certain extreme circumstances, such as slavery. However, my point, which has been lost on you, is that many of the posters have advocated civil disobedience to such a degree that it consumes the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is what keeps our society from devolving into roving tribes living the law of Darwin to the fullest. The absence of the Rule of Law is by definition anarchy.
_________________________________________________

The Supreme Court goofed up big time with their decision on the draft. It is involuntary servitude. Who knows? Maybe during our lifetime we'll get this thing changed?

You don't need to change what doesn't exist. As mentioned earlier, I AM getting dizzy, the draft was abolished after the Vietnam War. It does not currently exist, btw a good decision imo, made by our representatives in Washington.

[Ed Brunner]

I've been checking back every day ands it keeps saying "last page", but it hasn't been yet. Maybe a word can have different meanings???

[Tamara]

Via con dios

Like I was saying...

(It's "Vaya con Dios"... )

(If we don't speak the same language and can't even correctly parse each other's sentences, how in the heck are we supposed to have a conversation, much less a debate? I say something, you interpret it as something completely different... Sounds like a recipe for a migraine to me; how about you? Oh, and ref: your now-edited-out "public school" comment; you didn't have to point it out...)

[ddelange]

It's "vaya con dios"...

Well, I had to try Spanish because you stated that we didn't speak the same language.

gooden dag!

[ddelange]

I say something, you interpret it as something completely different... Sounds like a recipe for a migraine to me; how about you?

I interpreted it how I interpreted it . . . which is obviously not what you meant. After you clarified what you said, I understood the point you are trying to make. Would it be fair to sum up your question to me as:
"What if the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law that required all firearms to be turned in or confiscated?"

Are we speaking the same language now?

[ahenry]

Glock Glockler,

Aaron, lets just pretend for a minute that the founders weren't perfect and that there is actually something they could have been wrong about. I, for one, can think of several improvements I would like to make to the Constitution. Ultimately, we must guide ourselves with logic and reason, not the holy writ of the FF. I don't care if some of the FF thought that we have to make into law things that ought to be done, I think turning subjective opinion into law is maddness.

Of course I don’t think the Founders were infallible. In fact, as you well know, I think there were some shortcomings in the Constitution. However, when it comes to deciding various issues, the Founders opinion hold far more water than somebody named Tom, Jane or Chris.

So we must agree to have our freedom violated by the majority or we're free to leave? Hmm, I'm so glad I live in a free country, wait, do I...?

Would you read what I wrote please? Did I say your freedoms were violated? Nope. I said that we have created a society that will at times require certain things of us as the creators/owners. This is no different in concept than taxation.

This is a big whopping contradiction when compared to your previous post. Essentially you're saying that 'as Americans, we can be forced into service, but also as Americans, we can get out of it if we really want.'

Again, pay attention to what was said, not what you want to hear. I said that far greater steps than are necessary are taken to limit the negative affects of being drafted. I don’t think the gov’t would have to have various measures in place that provide a way for somebody to avoid being drafted, but like most things America does, we err greatly on the side of minimizing negative aspects of things (which usually just makes things worse).



ddelange,

ahenry,
I think it best if you start the new thread and outline your argument concerning the nature and difference of liberty versus freedom. I'm interested in reading it. Post to this thread if you do so/and or IM me. Thanks.

No offense, but I don’t really want to. I spent lots of time researching this and I have come to a conclusion regarding it. I’m too busy to reiterate everything I read and compiled on it, and you are perfectly capable of doing this yourself. I didn’t do anything special or find anything hidden, its all there in relatively plain black-and-white for the finding. I know this is coming off as some sort of pretentious or aloof attitude and I don’t mean it to. I just don’t have the time to re-find everything I found the first time around, nor do I have the time to put it together in a concise “argument ”, nor does it really belong in this forum. Please don’t take that the wrong way, another time and I would take you up on your request.