So the difference between "Majority Rule" and "Individual Rights" is "irrelevant" to you?

Just want to make that much clear.

No "interpretation" is needed to see my side, just read the Documents I have suggested and it should become clear.

You understand Legal precedence and common Law, right?

You understand our Constitution upholds "common Law", right?

I can understand why you wouldn't want to address the "intent" of the Founding Fathers, since it doesn't support your assertions here.

Regards,
Gaar

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

Here is what I actually said.

Please pay attention.

...if whoever reads them agrees with your opinion...

Yes. Legal precedent does not support your opinion.

Their intent is defined by the Judicial Branch. I agree with the Judicial Branch.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

The intent of the Founding Fathers was for the people to govern themselves. Nothing more. They set up the constitution to protect individual liberties, as that was something important to them. But they created the document to be modifiable so that future generations could adapt it to what they thought was important. I leave a quote by Jefferson which illustrates his "intent", which I feel is pretty reasonable since he was one of the major players behind the original document. I could easily provide 20 more quotes to the same effect because thier intent was pretty clear on this issue, I just don't see any reason to clutter my post with a bunch of quotes.

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 9:7

Yeah, I'm just desperate for validation.

Try these:
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...ht=fiat#197275

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...ht=fiat#285206

In the second link, read his initial post, your reply, and his response. The part about "no economic truth".

__________________
Man up.

Why should it matter to you? Since we already know you'll do anything if the government tells you to, such as murder 7 year olds.

As for inalienable rights, read it as unalienable: un-a-lien-able, not subject to government lien. A government cannot create the rights - it can only infringe on them. We have these rights by virtue of our existence - a free individual making free will choices that do not infringe, via force or fraud, on the same identical rights held by all individuals. The right of self-determination is a facet.

"The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Also, in the midst of the French Revolution, the French constitutional convention adopted in 1789 the “Declaration of Human and Citizens’ Rights,” which states:

"Men are born and exist free and with equal rights. The purpose of all political unions is to preserve men’s inalienable natural rights. These rights are freedom, ownership, security (self-defense) and opposition to repression (the right to use force to protect the rights). All principles of sovereignty reside in the citizens. Liberty means the ability essentially to take any actions without hurting others."

http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol4_1/takayuki.htm

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

And yet he would not challenge me in an in-depth discussion. Like I've said before, sound bytes mean very little. Look, my economic view is essentially the same as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman. If he has an issue with that, then I'd say he's a faux libertarian.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

God, this is so out of context and completely disingenuous. "The will of the nation" doesn't mean the nation does anything it wants to do in regards to government and the inalienable rights of individuals though, which is, I think, what you want it to mean. Jefferson is speaking about the people being able to set up their own government, but he also pretty well defines his view of the only type of legitimate government in the Declaration of Independence, as I just posted above.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

The inalienable rights thing is definitely a product of the Creator or whatever you call it. But what is being argued when we talk about the Constitution is under what circumstances the government can infringe. No matter what is written, the government does not give these rights but only infringes.
In the forefathers' vision and that of, I hope, most of us, only the threat to other people's inalienable rights gives government the right to infringe on one's rights. However the mechanisms are there for the majority to override it those rules and infringe for other reasons. And some of this has already happened.

On the debate of what is right, it seems most of us agree that the majority does not have any legitimate right to infringe upon the minority's rights... and I think that we would hold to this even if the majority went insane and did ruin the Constitution.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I agree that "Big L" Libertarians are extreme in thier views. Their views are often completely unreasonable.

As a "Little l" libertarian, I find the concept of taxation as theft to be completely rediculous. Taxation is necessary for a large scale society to exist. For society to function, there HAS to be cooperation between it's members. This is easy for individuals to do at low levels (such as family, neighborhood, community). But for this to work at a high level it's necessary to have a centralized structure to facilitate the necessary cooperation, which all members of the society must do their part to support. It's just irrational to think that society could exist without it in a country with a population in the hundreds of millions spead across thousands of miles.

Now I greatly differ in opinion with most conservatives and liberals on how much central structure there should be, as well as what it's duties should be. But I do understand it is necessary, and it is necessary that every individual that chooses to be a member of that society has the responsability to support it. And if one doesn't agree that they have a choice to participate in a society, I offer an option: Leave.

Then the question to you becomes...

What did our Founding Fathers mean by the term "unalienable Rights", and whether or not they were attempting to enumerate just a few of them in what they termed, "The Bill of Rights"?

And if they were, how is it YOU believe that Rights that are "given" by our Creator can be taken away by Amendment to a Document that was made to uphold such Individual Rights?

Regards,
Gaar

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan