• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Missouri Bill Would Put Teachers On Sex Offender Registry For Affirming Trans Kids' Identities

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Ever read the Preamble to the Constitution? The Constitution protects those rights:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Yes, I have read it. Those are the overall objectives of the People in their formation of the Union. But without the Declaration informing the Constitution of the purpose of government in the first place, the rights asserted in the Declaration may be subordinated to every one of those objectives.

I'm not being argumentative here. Remove the Declaration…make it non-binding…and the Constitution can be leveraged to do anything government places under any of those objectives.
 
Last edited:

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Actually the US Government is Constitutionally bound to promote the general welfare of the public. I don't know where you got this "sole job" idea from but it has never been how things are done here.
And what does the Constitution say is the cap of the price a citizen must pay (or the citizenry as a whole) to promote the general welfare (whatever that is, and whatever that means)?
 
Last edited:

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
The Declaration is non binding. It gives us no rights. All it did was declare America was breaking away from the Crown and why.
You are correct that the Declaration gave no one any rights. It asserted the voice of the People that, as human beings:
  1. they had certain rights independent of the institution of government,
  2. that those rights do not vanish because governments are instituted and
  3. that government's purpose is to secure those rights from any alien infringement.
It bound government to be the servant of the People, not their master.

When the Constitution is used to strip the People of their rights, where do they turn? The Declaration of Independence.

As to the break from the Crown, what does the Declaration offer as the reason? The British Sovereign would not acknowledge and secure the rights of the colonists. (I don't think many Americans today have the slightest clue what that actually means. They say flowery words about rights and such, but they believe their rights come from government. And they'll end up slaves to it (even more than we already are).)
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm curious. What are some of these democracy choking regulations,or types of regulations, that you're worried about?

I usually think of socialism as democracy on steroids. In socialist businesses, for example, from large corporations like Mondragon to your local health food co-op, we see égalitarian workplaces, good wages and benefits, profit sharing, a lot of input and control from workers, strong safety regulations, &c.
On the other hand, The neoliberal capitalism here in the US has outsourced manufacturing, closed plants, put people out of work whilst cutting social services, stagnated wages, cut benefits, defunded the Occupation and Health Administration (OSHA), undermined unions, passed "right-to-work" laws, undermined environmental regulations, and created a society of two worker families, unaffordable housing, education, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and childcare; homeless people begging on the streets, &c. With the rich getting richer, growing poverty and a shrinking middle class.

This Neoliberal Capitalism over the past 40 years has not produced the prosperity and freedom I hear acclaimed from the corporate-owned media monopolies here in the US.
It's the legal mechanisms that empowers the nanny state that now has devastating consequences not just for Republicans, but Democrats as well that I'm concerned about.

One would think in light of the nanny state now being employed by Republicans recently , there would be bipartisan support to put a stop to this destructive practice altogether.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Some socialist elements are compatible with a free representative republic
And you understand that fascism is not compatible with any for of democracy. There are no good or acceptable elements of fascism.

The point I a trying to make is that you can't treat socialism and fascism as if they were two sides of the same coin. They are not.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
And you understand that fascism is not compatible with any for of democracy. There are no good or acceptable elements of fascism.

The point I a trying to make is that you can't treat socialism and fascism as if they were two sides of the same coin. They are not.
Both are potentially destructive political philosophies.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You are correct that the Declaration gave no one any rights. It asserted the voice of the People that, as human beings:
  1. they had certain rights independent of the institution of government,
  2. that those rights do not vanish because governments are instituted and
  3. that government's purpose is to secure those rights from any alien infringement.
It bound government to be the servant of the People, not their master.

When the Constitution is used to strip the People of their rights, where do they turn? The Declaration of Independence.

As to the break from the Crown, what does the Declaration offer as the reason? The British Sovereign would not acknowledge and secure the rights of the colonists. (I don't think many Americans today have the slightest clue what that actually means. They say flowery words about rights and such, but they believe their rights come from government. And they'll end up slaves to it (even more than we already are).)
That is entirely false as legally the Declaration is nothing.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
That is entirely false as legally the Declaration is nothing.
To what standard did Lincoln appeal to challenge slavery?

Actually, I'll just save us all some time. Here is President Lincoln in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857:

"Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites.​
Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men crated equal – equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this meant.​
They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.​
The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack."​
Like Lincoln, we look to the Constitution for what the law is at a given moment in time; we look to the Declaration to ensure that current or prospective laws are moral, and for counsel when the Constitution is found lacking in meeting the challenges of an evolving society. The Declaration is "God" in US law and blacks would still be slaves today without it. So wrote history.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
To what standard did Lincoln appeal to challenge slavery?

Actually, I'll just save us all some time. Here is President Lincoln in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857:

"Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites.​
Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men crated equal – equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this meant.​
They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.​
The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack."​
Like Lincoln, we look to the Constitution for what the law is at a given moment in time; we look to the Declaration to ensure that current or prospective laws are moral, and for counsel when the Constitution is found lacking in meeting the challenges of an evolving society. The Declaration is "God" in US law and blacks would still be slaves today without it. So wrote history.
So, by that opinion and that standard, would you think that an attempt to put the inalienable right to life into actual law should or would be successful?
Why hasn't anybody tried that? Or did they?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yeah those systems will be fine for a while, until things bottom out and implodes.

Why would you assume as such? What's the model you're working from?

It's why these countries went towards market economies.

They always have had market economies and continue to have as such. Overwhelmingly most businesses are privately owned but with significant oversite.

The Nordic Model mandates care for those in need, so why would you be against that? What's wrong with helping children and their parents? As the African saying goes, "It take an entire village to raise a child". Can't you see how true that is?
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
So, by that opinion and that standard, would you think that an attempt to put the inalienable right to life into actual law should or would be successful?
Why hasn't anybody tried that? Or did they?
It's already in the law. Both in the Declaration and Constitution.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Where? And why don't about half of the States abide by it? And neither is the union.
I've already cited it in the Declaration, but the law can be found in the Constitution in:
  • the 5th Amendment: "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
  • the 14th Amendment: "[No State shall...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
As to why these laws aren't always honored, each case would provide an answer for itself. Ultimately, though, the People allow abuses of their rights. Why? Again, many reasons. Ignorance is at the top. Once government convinces the citizenry that it has authority to usurp their rights, or if the citizens simply get complacent and they don't teach the rising generations that they have certain rights, and that they must be vigilant in protecting them—in either case, as in others, the society has slipped one step closer to enslavement.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I've already cited it in the Declaration, but the law can be found in the Constitution in:
  • the 5th Amendment: "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
  • the 14th Amendment: "[No State shall...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
As to why these laws aren't always honored, each case would provide an answer for itself. Ultimately, though, the People allow abuses of their rights. Why? Again, many reasons. Ignorance is at the top. Once government convinces the citizenry that it has authority to usurp their rights, or if the citizens simply get complacent and they don't teach the rising generations that they have certain rights, and that they must be vigilant in protecting them—in either case, as in others, the society has slipped one step closer to enslavement.
Do you know what it means for a right to be inalienable?
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Do you know what it means for a right to be inalienable?
For clarity, the term in the Declaration is "unalienable," and yes I know what it means. It means that the only lawful way that certain right may be taken from the right-holder is by the consent of the right-holder.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
For clarity, the term in the Declaration is "unalienable," and yes I know what it means. It means that the only lawful way that certain right may be taken from the right-holder is by the consent of the right-holder.
Not even by that. It's a right that can't be waived or sold or be taken away by a simple law or a judge and jury.
Which means that the rights granted in the 5th and 14th Amendments are not unalienable rights.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Not even by that. It's a right that can't be waived or sold or be taken away by a simple law or a judge and jury.
Which means that the rights granted in the 5th and 14th Amendments are not unalienable rights.
Those statements seem in conflict to me. How are you defining "unalienable"?
 
Top