Yes, it is in the Declaration of Independence, and it was a great rallying cry, but when it came to founding our country by codifying the laws it is not to be found. According to Wiki the phrase was only used once in a Supreme Court case.
No, the body of the Constitution grants the federal government the only powers (not "rights") it has, with the rest being retained by the states and the people ...
Call it what you want, but the Supreme Court still decides where the "powers" of the government end, and the rights of the people begin. Your redefinition is meaningless.
which is why some Founding Fathers opposed the Bill of Rights on grounds of redundancy.
Their argument was that specifying people's rights would actually limit them. But since it was Federalists like Hamilton who held that view I have to wonder what their true motivation was.
Nonsense ... the liberty to do and sell the deadly addictive violence-inducing drug alcohol has proved to be a better idea than trying to ban it.
Alcohol was never banned. During Prohibition possession was legal, doctors could prescibe it, low alcohol beer was legal that could be turned into high alcohol beer, and law enforcement was not allowed to enter businesses that were serving alcohol to investigate.
Eventually we'll grasp that the same is true of other drugs, particularly marijuana.
One of these days maybe you'll realize that people don't want to live in neighborhoods where drugs are sold and used freely, and that groups like the Libertarian Party that espouse such nonsense are losers.
Yes, it is in the Declaration of Independence, and it was a great rallying cry, but when it came to founding our country by codifying the laws it is not to be found.
Incorrect as usual; the U.S. Constitution, the "supreme law of the land, states as one of its purposes to "secure the Blessings of Liberty".
No, the body of the Constitution grants the federal government the only powers (not "rights") it has, with the rest being retained by the states and the people ...
Call it what you want, but the Supreme Court still decides where the "powers" of the government end, and the rights of the people begin.
So you think Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas were properly decided? Conservatives don't.
which is why some Founding Fathers opposed the Bill of Rights on grounds of redundancy.
Their argument was that specifying people's rights would actually limit them. But since it was Federalists like Hamilton who held that view I have to wonder what their true motivation was.
The views of Federalists are automatically suspect? How is that a conservative point of view?
Nonsense ... the liberty to do and sell the deadly addictive violence-inducing drug alcohol has proved to be a better idea than trying to ban it.
Alcohol was never banned. During Prohibition possession was legal,
A distinction without a difference, as manufacture, sale, or transportation was prohibited.
doctors could prescibe it, low alcohol beer was legal that could be turned into high alcohol beer, and law enforcement was not allowed to enter businesses that were serving alcohol to investigate.
Mighty thin reeds on which to hang your distinction. Cocaine is prescribable ... does that mean it's not banned?
Eventually we'll grasp that the same is true of other drugs, particularly marijuana.
One of these days maybe you'll realize that people don't want to live in neighborhoods where drugs are sold and used freely,
The sale and circumstances of use of the drug alcohol are regulated, and I would expect and support comparable laws regarding other drugs.
and that groups like the Libertarian Party that espouse such nonsense are losers.
Empty namecalling.