Posted on 05/06/2010 5:51:40 PM PDT by Borges
She mentioned a couple of times that The Constitution talks about 'inalienable rights'. Conflating the Constitution with the DOI has to be one of the most irritable trends in contemporary civic life. Most people quote them interchangeably. Anyone else bothered by how common this is?
Just make sure the person isn’t a homeschooler.
The homeschooled kids who are part of “Classical Conversations” learn about the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and a list of Presidents. In other words, memory work in lots of history facts. It’s pretty cool. I never learned those things by heart when I was their age. The only facts I memorized were my Bible verses, and that was not in school but rather Sunday School.
I don’t think it’s a big deal. People on both sides do it. Obama did it. Boehner did it while holding a copy of the Constitution in his hand.
[Justice] Washington rejected the proposition that the Privileges and Immunities Clause guaranteed equal access to all public benefits (such as the right to harvest oysters in public waters) that a State chooses to make available. Instead, he endorsed the colonial-era conception of the terms "privileges" and "immunities" concluding that Article IV encompassed only fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0526_0489_ZD1.html
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application
of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Another factor is the double standard, that Palin, or any other Republican, will not be given the same free pass on verbal missteps as the other side. The media will cover for their darlings, but they will zero in “like a laser beam” on any of her slips and will pound them mercilessly and non-stop.
Historical trivia: The Magna Carta wasn’t considered important until the late 17th century or so. Shakespeare’s play ‘King John’ doesn’t so much as mention it.
Yes, he's a bright guy, as is McCotter(sp?) from Michigan. Gingrich was probably without equal when he was in the House, at least with respect to historical issues and understand of the Founding documents.
Although he frequently irritates me, Cornyn was/is a competent attorney, which is somewhat of a rarity in federal elective offices. Jeff Sessions is also another competent attorney.
On the Democrat side, I'm not sure that there's a single Dem Senator that could rattle pass many 8th grade government tests, at least since Daniel Patrick Moynihan died.
And it’s irritating every single time!
and me most days
That usually only ticks people when it is pointed out that ‘inalienable rights’ come from God.
A lot of people don’t like to be reminded of that, as they don’t believe in God, and pointing it out reminds them that THEY can’t lay claim to those ‘inalienable rights’.
Exactly. And where do these "inalienable" rights come from? The Declaration of Independence explains it: they are given by God to every human person, and cannot be taken away by any just government.
The Constitution does not give inalienable rights--or they wouldn't be truly inalienable. It recognizes their existence.
The Constitution, Like the Declaration, was based on Natural Law theory. Many people, I think rightly, consider the Declaration of Independence to be one of the foundational documents, a kind of preamble that helps to explain what certain words and phrases mean in the Constitution.
Certainly that makes more sense than to try to explain "freedom of religion" in the Bill of Rights as what amounts to freedom from religion, a "wall of separation between church and state. As SCOTUS did when it outlawed God and the Bible in our public schools.
You're expecting Obama to comment on a document from the late 18th century? Like most classic narcissists, Barack Obama's history starts in the year of his birth. Everything that came before is just noise.
I heard her talk about both.
DOI? Please define.
Isn’t the clear frontrunner Mitt Romney?
The times we live in are not conventional, and Palin is not the front runner because she is the party establishment favorite or because our elites see 2012 as "her turn". Her genuine grassroots support could make a difference. I don't have my heart set on "Palin or nobody", but I am a firm believer in "Palin or someone even better!"
Fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them. See Bill of Rights.
She is right, your assumption of what she said, that phrase only applies the DOI, is incorrect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.