Posted on 08/05/2021 3:55:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
The bizarre contortions that the libs are going through to blame you for the virus because you selfishly refused to submit to their fussy commands illustrates, for the umpteenth time, an undeniable fact about these fascist-curious creeps. They hate hate hate the idea of rights, particularly yours. In fact, when they refer to rights, they often insist on encasing the word in quotation marks, as if it was some bizarre and alien concept those Jesus-gun-truck-cisnormative people from Iowabamaho invented under the influence of moonshine and the Holy Spirit.
Rights, they realize, are an intolerable obstacle to the things they want to do – especially when it’s inferiors like yourself asserting said rights. In this case, what they want to do is inject you, regardless of your choice, with a medicine that works intermittently but they want to inject you with it because it is not preventing the virus and therefore they need to prevent the virus and my head hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts. And they also want to wrap your face in a towel because that is the only thing that can protect them, despite the fact their faces are wrapped in towels already and that should protect them, and now my head really hurts.
It goes without saying that no one has a right to stick junk into your arm unless you give a thumbs up. I did, because I chose to. You should if you choose to, and you shouldn’t if you choose not to. See, it’s your right. Which means lib sissies with nothing better to do than fret about what you’re doing don’t have a say.
Rights: You get to do it even if everyone else doesn’t want to you to.
Not-Rights: Other people can vote to not let you do it.
How do rights work? Let me tell you nonlawyers the legal perspective, because the legal system is how we hash out rights and their effects – not on Twitter before a panel of robed blue checks.
Here is the liberals’ play. Libs attempt to establish a basic principle, such as “In some circumstances, vaccines can be made mandatory.” I don’t like that, but there is an elderly Supreme Court case saying so. Let’s not argue the good or bad of it and deal with it. What the lib will do is assert that principle…and then stop.
A court case said it could possibly be done, so it can always be done.
No.
Not how this works.
Notice how the lib doesn’t go through with the next part of the analysis, which is applying the law in the appropriate manner to the facts specific to this particular situation. Just because, in some instances, the government can do it does not mean the government can always do it. Libs like to forget the application part because they can almost never satisfy the rigorous requirements to impinge on your rights.
The state must have a compelling interest in whatever result it seeks to obtain from impinging on your rights. Compelling, not merely convenient, or even wise or smart. Otherwise, you have rights right up until they become inconvenient. Those are no rights at all.
The key to the compelling interest analysis is examining the specific facts. In the vaxx situation, we have a not-very-deadly virus, vaccines that aren’t perfect, side effects, and variety of other factors weighing on the issue. These include people protecting themselves with vaccines, masks, and hiding in their crappy apartments with their cats watching Maddow and crying because no one will ever love them. That case where it was allowed involved smallpox, with a 30% fatality rate. You basically get the vaccine or you catch it, and 1 in 3 people kack. COVID has a minuscule fatality rate, approaching a statistical 0% if you are vaccinated. So, how compelling is the interest if you have a disease that’s probably not going to kill you unless you are already sick?
We call this “distinguishing” the cases. Precedent is important, but it only applies where the facts are similar. Different facts, potentially a different result. Just because an interest can be compelling in theory does not make it so in every case.
And that leads to the next part of the process. Typically, courts being asked to implicate a fundamental right, like not to have something injected into your body against your will, require the state to prove that its plan is the least restrictive alternative. You don’t go from zero to 60 when it comes to rights; you first go to 10.
In other words, the state has to show not only a compelling interest, and I mean really compelling, but that its plan is the only possible way to achieve the necessary results. But libs do not even try to do that. They attempt to establish a basic principle, but never actually apply it. They just assume it applies because it could, possibly. This is very common when liberals challenge fundamental rights. For instance, when they talk about your right to keep and bear arms, they will point to the rare situations where someone might not be allowed to keep and bear arms, and then assume that this applies in every situation. “We can keep felons from having guns, so we can regulate guns however we want and take your AR15!”
The giveaway to look for is when their focus is entirely on the exceptions to the right, rather than the basic principle embodied by the right itself. They never wanna talk about that. With guns, it’s the few times guns can be regulated. With free speech, it’s always that idiotic fire in a crowded theater thing from a long-superseded case where the SCOTUS allowed the government to jail you for protesting the government. No wonder the libs love it.
The default is the right. It’s only in the rarest the circumstances that the right can be overcome.
And then there is the “Well, with rights come responsibilities” nonsense. No, they don’t. They are rights. That means the debate is over – the rights won. There’s no “responsibility” to not exercise your rights since the purpose of rights is to ensure you get to exercise them even if everyone else disagrees. Reject this bizarre attempt to turn Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben’s hack cliche into constitutional law.
Nor is there a balancing test – the balancing test was completed when the right became a right, and the right won. Rights are never balanced. Policies are balanced. The point of rights is that they are established. They aren’t to be “reasonably” regulated. Rights are by nature unreasonable. Rights only matter when they allow someone to do something no one else agrees with. Otherwise, they are not rights. They are mere privileges. What good is a right that can be taken away on a whim?
It’s no good at all, which is a feature and not a bug to the left. The fact is that the left considers rights an intolerable obstacle to getting what it wants done. And of course, that is the whole point of rights. Rights limit what they can do. That’s why they only talk about exceptions to our rights.
Rights are unreasonable by design because you can’t “reason” them away – and, of course, it was God who designed them. We were endowed with them by our Creator. Libs hate hate hate that too - they want to be the ones who grant rights, because this leads to them being able to ungrant them at will
It’s sad so many people are so willing to give up the freedoms people died for in order to exercise power over other citizens. Your duty is to never allow it, to fight back, and to refuse to accept the premise that your rights may be disregarded the minute they become inconvenient. Your rights are not beside the point; they are the point.
People will throw their neighbors’ rights away in a heartbeat if it means giving themselves even a minuscule amount of power, however fleeting or illusory. This is our human nature. It’s why Christianity, even if it wasn’t real (it is) would have to be invented in order to somewhat mitigate our natural tendencies.
The LEFT is ‘collectivist’, seeking to treat with groups. Thus their efforts to divide the population into single-issue affinity voters. Doing this allows them to selectively reward and punish the same to gain power. Individual rights, as established by our US Constitution, are grit in their wheels when they try for these actions as they unite separate groups that the LEFT needs to divide!
In essence, the USofA was created by the Founders to be a country where power is derived from the bottom up, where authority is legitimatized by individuals / voters. LEFTist dreams are where the intelligent and informed, at least by their conceit, RULE top down over their inferiors. Plato’s ‘Philosopher Kings’ versus William F Buckley’s choice of the telephone book!
What constitutes a ‘right’ for a liberal, becomes an ‘offense when someone else uses that same idea for themselves.
Kas, libs believe in “rights:” like the right to vote without any valid identification; the right to have your ‘school’ loans forgiven; the right to immigrate to America without any process whatsoever; the “right” to kill a baby in the womb 5 minutes before birth (or 5 minutes after).
libs believe in “rights” whenever it suits their purposes.
Perfect observation SES1066. However, I might amend this statement: “Individual rights, as established by our US Constitution” to “Individual rights, as RECOGNIZED by our Constitution.”
True “Rights” are God-given to every man, and exist with or without a government’s blessing.
Just my opinion (but one shared by the Founders).
Oldplayer
Affirm and thank you.
Vocabulary is VITAL in this instance as you point out! Of course this is another focus of antagonism with the LEFT, that there is a higher agency than their governance is intolerable to them.
To be fair, there are more than a few “conservatives” who also want control over peoples lives. Especially in regards to anything they deem a “sin”.
It is not for your safety that the democrats want to disarm the American citizens. It is to exact their communist power and thuggery against the citizens unabated.
Lucky for the left that pedo joe has declared that our rights are NOT absolute. We already know about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th. Let us know how they feel about the 13th and 19th amendments when you get a chance. Pretty sure a couple segments of society will NOT be happy to learn that.
Question open to all: How many RIGHTS did the Bill of Rights give the people?
Lettuce kill them.
Thank you for using the phrase "their governance." Leftists are NOT fans of big government when they are NOT in control. Communists hated Hitler. Leftists hated when Trump, Bush and Reagan were President. Leftists love big government only when THEY are in control. Leftists see themselves as little gods, in terms of their self-perceived intellectual and moral superiority to the rest of us.
An excellent summary discussion of “rights,” written for laymen, like myself. Thanks for posting.
Remember that Hillary and Obama have complained that the Constitution is primarily filled with “negative rights” (what the government CAN’T do). They both said that the Constitution should be more about “positive rights” - what the government must provide for the people.
LETUS KILUM
(then again, it could be a trademarked name for the next "vaccine")
Marking.
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.