If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

I think if you were to check the record, my take on both politics and the law have always come to fruition. That might piss you off, but you cannot change facts.

 

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

 

inherent, preexisting rights, the only 'LAWFUL' authority the gubmint has is to protect them, they have no authority to dictate or adjudicate them, any such case should be thrown out.

Da gubmint is fraud, the BoR commemorates da gubs agreement to protect our inherent rights, Art 5 acknowledges that fact, ALL states joined the union on equal footing, there is no disconnect and never has been between the fed gub and any Wo/Man, the people individually voted to pass the constution contingent on the BoR being added and enforced. The 14th is purely fraud, and successfully fulfills their intention to convert your inherent rights OVER the gubmint to privileges UNDER the gubmint so they can dictate what privileges you are allowed and lord over you exactly like than the king.

The brits did what they said, they won the war without firing a shot. All US elprazzidante's are brit from nobility, bar maybe 2 that snuck in because they failed to cook the books

 

Yep, and they dissolved those rights 'procedurally' when they premeditatedly failed to accommodate our rights and create a proper system and method to adjudicate matters outside their commercial jurisdiction, instead they violated the contract destroying our rights by unlawful conversion to suck them under their purview to insure the people of this nation are and remain under the iron thumb of the equivalent of the king. Floyd death and so many like it come to mind, we are powerless, to root out the corruption, its too big, and I have no doubt they would righteously (at least in their minds) nuke our own people if they were large scale challenged by force. Few people comprehend what was done to them, and those that do are noting more than static in their ears. Welcome to the desert of the real. (as you know)

 

The Baty case is about the constitutionality of a law that stated that if a railroad didn't pay for cattle killed by the railroad within 30 days then the railroad owed twice the value.

The court states that the loss of cattle to the railroad is not different than other loss or taking (since the and does't justify a special law for how property ownership must be handled. Plus, there are issues of resposibility for fencing, the taking of the railroad property by the government, etc.

In the end, this case isn't about the source of rights. It's that the recognition of speific rights form a foundation of how our government is designed. The constitution doesn't actually care where these rights came from - it only cares about the rights being fundamtals of how our government should be formed.

The Baty case even points out that our constitutional support for property ownership isn't absolute. The Baty case is about the railroads - which required government taking all across America and raised questions such as how cattle protection should be handled - free range? railroad building fencing across America? who owes loss compensation for cattle loss and railroad damage? responsibility of government for such loss?


I'm not so sure you are reading these cases with an eye to determining how the issues are being adjudicated - how our constitution is being applied.

Our constitution IS a social contract. Like any contract one can't accept it some of the time and reject it when it doesn't sound like it confirns your view. We can vote on corrections concerning how it is applied - since we are a representational democracy.

I'm really not sure what you're after with all of this. Looking to the constitution for religious validation is clearly going to fail - it's just not the right place to look for that. Acting on the belief that the constitution is a failure is revolution. I don't believe you're really interested in that, either.

So, what is it about our constitution that you believe is problematic?

 

Let's remember that our government is NOT an outside agency.

We are a democracy - clearly stated as being OF the peole and BY the people, with constitutional law on how that democracy is to be carried out..

If we don't like something, then we have to clearly identify what it is and propose a remedy.

That's why I ask for remedies when the complaints get pervasive and abstract.

 

It doesn't make two hoots in Hell what is being adjudicated; it is the principle of law that is being decided. As has been pointed out to you, when local sheriffs took on the Brady Bill, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the sheriffs could not be compelled to enforce federal laws on the basis of Court created law called the anti commandeering doctrine. The left successfully used that precedent to keep the feds out of sanctuary cities for undocumented foreigners. What do firearms and undocumented foreigners have in common? Nothing. It is the principle that was decided... just as it was in defining absolute Rights... The Baty ruling relied on a pro-gun ruling at the state level in defining absolute Rights:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified." (Note: That was in 1822.) The federal courts merely upheld the precedent of Baty when applied to the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You don't know enough about how the legal system works to be IN this discussion. You really should sit back, ask questions and learn from those who spent a career DOING this stuff, not posting on a pissant board about it. This isn't the first time this has been explained to you.

 

Read the Constitution. Article IV Section 4. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

 

Bliss v Commonwealth was a case about a man who carried a concealed weapon - a sword.

The case established that there could be laws concerning the manner in which one might carry arms.

All of our bill of rights have limitations. One common such limitation involves public safety.

The problem with your reference to Baty was that you didn't follow through to the point of how our constitution applies - which was the whole point of the case!!

And, you are still not describing what your issue is here. What is it about the application of our constitution that you oppose?

 

We make our decisions throgh representative democacy as it directs in our constitution.

Our nation and its government are divided as a republic - a method of allowing more decision making to be local. But, every state and the federal government make decisions through democracy. In fact, the US House was designed to be a body of representatives who are elected from their districts - not the state containing the district.

There have been numerous republics that were not democratic. One can't describe our government while ignoring that fact - we are a government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, a principle that is entirely separate from us being a Republic.

 

To funny, a little slieght of hand goal post moving! He switched horses on you, must have realized he was making a fool of himself, and now states it correctly!

Virtually all his posts are propaganda, pedaling 'cognitive liberticide'.

 

Being of, by and for the people is a pure statement of democracy.

That should have been learned in middle school, if not before. Nobody in America should "change" on that.

As for what you adressed to me, I wouldn't suggest that's what he's promoting.

In general, it has seemed to me that he would like to pitch the constitution as being evidence of his god.

But, quoting court cases only shows how we apply our constitution to the problems that humans face.

If our constitution were a religious docment it wouldn't conclude that our government must be held separate from religion.

 

the BoR is obsolete due to the criminal coup (that won) against the USA.

If it can legislated, and infringed upon in any way shape or manner it is not a right it is a privilege.

 

You need to be a lot more specific than that.

As for the bill of rights, fom the very beginning it was not considered absolute. In government, absolutes don't really work. Society is just way more complex than that.

 

Atheist worldview is a religion that has infiltrated our gubmint.

that has no bearing on the form of gubmint formed, posting the always wrong bullshit logic again.

Public safety is ok but that requires a a stipulation of the people to be legal, itemizing exact limitations ,a stipulation that was never obtained.

It was in previous threads, not my problem if your memory is failing. I dont think you understood it, if you did you would have responded to the legal test I gave you.

What it was considered in your opinion and what it is, is to entirely different things as we have seen in all your other soapbox blathering.

 

Court ruling you say?

Man made. Law made. Not inherent, nature or unalienable. But court ruled. By man.

 

inherent rights means no gubmint has to protect them. They belong to every human without man gubmints allowing them.

But as you know admit, it takes a gubmint to allow, grant, and protect them. So not inherent, but granted and wanted by society. As I've always said.

 

you do have inherent rights, anyone can violate those rights at any time. da gubmint is sworn to protect those rights ONLY, they have no authority to adjudicate them. To be considered anything less than a rackteering scheme they would have had to set up an independent judicial system outside gubmint influence. A branch of the people, not the gubmint.

 

It is the principle of law, not the circumstances that are relevant counselor. A subsequent case need not be over the same issue, but that principle of law (the precedent) that is relevant. That is at least FOUR times this has been explained to you.

 

The Bill of Rights in the earliest court decisions ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms IS absolute. The Bill of Rights being one law, one bill, is one and the same. The Rights are absolute. You've been told that FOUR TIMES now.

 

B.S. and a waste of bandwidth. You have unalienable Rights.

 

The Constitution concludes no such thing. Fact is, the closing acknowledges a Christian God.

 

Again, to me, inherent means all have them and need no protection.

inherent
[ in-heer-uhnt, -her- ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR inherent ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute; inhering:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inherent

 

Never claimed we don't have rights. We have many rights granted to us that many humans don't get.

A court needn't rule on unalienable rights. The belong to every human by virtue of nature.
If a court needs to rule on something, that means they don't belong to every human by virtue of nature, but by virtue of man granting and enforcing them.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.
http://unalienable.com/

Not sure why you get so triggered by this simple concept.

 

I think that the critics here know that they are wrong.

A layman's dictionary and explanation along with a few dollars will buy you a cup of coffee in some restaurants in America. Other than that, they carry zero legal authority.