Who is covered by the Bill of Rights

Great post, I salute you RebelDawg

It’s hard not to read this as a right defined by the bill.

Let me help you out. The natural right described here, is the right to settle disputes quickly.

Out in the wild, if some dude thought you were trespassing on his land or had raped his wife, you both would settle it quickly one way or another. And your guilt or innocence might be irrelevant to the outcome.

However, in a civilized society, the government holds the accused in a cell while the details of a trial are sorted out. For that time, all of his liberty is relinquished so that a jury may be found to decide his fate.

It is thus important that the innocent not be detained for extreme periods of time. You have the right to get on with your life if you are innocent.

You seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the bill of rights doesn't exactly descibe the named right for any given article. For instance, the right to bear arms is more aptly described as a right to defend your own life with whatever means you can muster that won't harm innocent people. It is not a right granted by the government. Am I correct to guess you're arguing that only citizens have rights? You do realize that the founders did not agree that the Constitution or any of its amendments conferred any rights?

To the Contrary. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says that man is endowed by his Creator certain inalienable rights. They had no notions of a government granted right.

Good post!

Thanks guys ;-)

I'm learning alot!

He granted to all mankind the right to Property

How do you know this? Did I miss this someplace in the Bible? Where does it say that God granted the right to own property to all men and women? You make things up out of thin air!

It's an order given by the Bill of Rights to government, not a grant of a right (Property), which of course was pre-existing

You completely ignore the actual words of the amendment. “the right of a trial jury trial shall be preserved”. This reference is not granting a right to the government, it is plainly and obviously (in black and white) preserving an individual’s right in accordance to the rules of “common law” – not a God ordained right – common law. If they thought that this right was God given they would have written God’s law, not common law (words have meaning). The founders even spell it out for you but you seem to simply ignore their words.

Again, you offer no insight as to why these rights are God given. You simply repeat that they “are” – by your proclamation.

Let me help you out. The natural right described here, is the right to settle disputes quickly.

Thank you, But I understand the reasoning behind the amendment. What I don’t understand is the reason why one would believe that the “right” is God given. Are you claiming that God has granted to every man and woman on earth the “right to settle disputes quickly”? I don’t understand the basis for this reasoning. I have read much on the Constitution and the lives of the founding fathers. Nowhere, have I read that any of them believed that God granted mankind the “right” to settle disputes quickly. They believed in many individual rights as expressed in English common law and indeed incorporated many into our laws.

”To the Contrary. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says that man is endowed by his Creator certain inalienable rights. They had no notions of a government granted right”

Jefferson goes on to say that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not follow however (by any means of logic) that ALL rights are “endowed by their Creator”. Jefferson said “certain” rights not ALL rights (words have meaning). Indeed the history of the Constitutional is overflowing with debate on the balance of federal, state and individual rights. Those debates and their personal writings show that they had an enormous understanding of individual rights as defined by their new government.

Okay, here is my take on this subject- I alluded to parts of this, but I want to elaborate more fully.

First, we acknowledge that rights exist. I think that this is a fact that no one here would argue against. The question shifts to, "What is the nature of these rights?" I would take this down to either, "They are granted by the government," or, "They are inherent to all men by their very nature."

We will examine the first proposition. By this theory, it is the government (in our case, the people and their representatives) who establish rights. By this definition, rights are not necessary things- someone who lives in a government who does not permit certain actions does not have rights. If the people and/or government decide that people should not be able to do a certain thing, they do not have that right. Looking at things from this angle, men have a right to say what they wish and own guns simply because the people and/or government believe it is okay. In controverse, these rights can be taken away when the people and/or government decide that men should not have a right to free speech and to own guns to defend themselves. The same group that grants rights by definition has the ability to take away those very same rights.

Let's take the Second Amendment, for example. The Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution, recognizing the right of men to own firearms. This was recognized based upon the premise that men should be able to defend themselves against people and the government. Yet, if this is a right granted by the people and the government, then the very people we are to defend ourselves against can strip us of those rights, simply because the rights only exist by the people/government's assent, by your very argument.

Look at it this way- it is generally acknowledged that the Bill of Rights lists rights of individuals. Its purpose is to protect us from the government and the mob of majority opinion. Yet, you claim that these are the very things that grant these rights to us. As I said before, it logically follows that those who grant rights can take them away. It seems a bit paradoxical to assert that the framers of the Constitution acknowledged rights that protect people from other people and the government, and yet have those rights be removable by the very people they are meant to protect us from.

The other option is to view the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights as existing inherently in all men, by our very natures. This proposition is not that every amendment is directly a God given right. Instead, each amendment procedes logically from premises which are in themselves rights inherent to all men. For example, God did not necessarily ordain that "All men should be able to own firearms." However, the concept that men should be able to own firearms follows logically from the premise that, "Men have the right to defend themselves." The right to a speedy trial proceeds from the premise that, "Men should not be forced to suffer unnecessarily," (I would assert that a prolonged trial IS unnecessary punishment). Even the religious clauses of the first amendment have basis in inherent rights of men, along with logical premises. "Men should have the right to worship as they choose while on earth," would be a premise based upon inherent rights, while, "Nationally established denominations restrict the ability of men to worship as they choose," is a logical premise. The two taken together add up to the clause in the First Amendment forbidding the establishment of a National Church while admitting free worship.

My point is that the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights, while not directly God-inspired, procede from moral premises which most men would recognize as true. The original premises are logic and rights inherent to men, and the propositions in the amendments follow necessarily, thus they are indirectly inherent to all men as well.

Granted, not all countries recognize certain rights which are recognized here. First, I would caution you to make a distinction between the granting of rights and the recognition of rights. Simply because in some countries men are forbidden to own firearms, which happen to be the only viable way to truly defend one's self in the modern world, does it follow that those men have no right to defend themselves? Simply because a country does not defend the right of citizens to a fair trial, does it follow that men are truly guilty of crimes when false evidence is brought forward against them? Simply because certain thoughts and ideas are prohibitted by a society, does it truly follow logically that those ideas are harmful to society at large, and that simply because those in power dislike something, it is wrong?

This all ties into this conversation. If the rights are inherent to all men by our very natures, it does not follow that the US can distinguish between who to grant these rights and who to deny them, as the US does not grant these rights at all. If the rights are inherent in all men, and the US chooses only to recognize them in citizens, but not in non-citizens, it is denying rights which by definition those people have by virtue of living, and thus is not truly advocating freedom.

Just food for thought.

What I don’t understand is the reason why one would believe that the “right” is God given.

Let me ask you...

Do you think any rights are not granted by government? Because you're arguing in circles.

”To the Contrary. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says that man is endowed by his Creator certain inalienable rights. They had no notions of a government granted right”

Jefferson goes on to say that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not follow however (by any means of logic) that ALL rights are “endowed by their Creator”. Jefferson said “certain” rights not ALL rights (words have meaning). Indeed the history of the Constitutional is overflowing with debate on the balance of federal, state and individual rights. Those debates and their personal writings show that they had an enormous understanding of individual rights as defined by their new government.

One more note- you mention that Jefferson acknowledged that the right to liberty is a God given right. The Bill of Rights pertains to liberty. If the Bill of Rights is not the liberty to which Jefferson alludes, what is liberty? "Words mean things..." ... liberty is not just an empty notion, but means something as well...

MWS – Thank you! Finally, someone has produced an intellectually honest assessment of Devine inspired “rights”. The most persuasive portion of your comments is your explanation of how “the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights, while not directly God-inspired, proceed from moral premises which most men would recognize as true”. This premise does have its roots in common law and I have not looked at the question from that particular point of view.

You have provided “much food for thought”. Others here would do well to read it.

Thank you for your great compliment! I certainly take it to heart! :) I am glad I could answer your question! :)

You are exactly right. Those confused about this issue should read the 14th amendment and they should also remember that 100,000s of people (black) had no rights under the Bill of Rights. They did have the "right" to allow the Slaveocrats to get an extra 3/5s of a vote in their name. This extra power given the Slaveocracy helped it cripple the United States until it's ass was throughly kicked in 1863. After that it was just a matter of time until the evil regime was blotted from the face of the earth.

Do you think any rights are not granted by government? Because you're arguing in circles

I never denied the very existence of God-given rights anywhere in this thread. I was searching for a logical basis for viewing the Bill of Rights as God-given – something more than just “because I say so” or “because that’s the way it is”. Conservatives are not sheep.

He granted to all mankind the right to Property How do you know this? Did I miss this someplace in the Bible? Where does it say that God granted the right to own property to all men and women? You make things up out of thin air!

Actually it is to be found in the Bible, which is a book that I didn't make up out of the air. You can go and see yourself if you have a copy. Look in the Old Testament where God's commandments are listed. One good place is in Exodus 20. Depending on your translation, I suspect that Exodus 20:15 will say "Thou shalt not steal", or "Do not steal", or something similar.

By saying we shouldn't "steal" from one another God was equally saying that we have the right of Property. They are two ways of saying the exact same thing, after all.

You completely ignore the actual words of the amendment. “the right of a trial jury trial shall be preserved”. This reference is not granting a right to the government, it is plainly and obviously (in black and white) preserving an individual’s right in accordance to the rules of “common law” – not a God ordained right – common law

Actually, I have to agree with you. The Sixth Amendment, as I said way back in my post #53, is the one piece of the Bill of Rights which does appear to grant a few "rights", having to do with how the government must treat "the accused". In fact I said as much in my first post on this thread, #32.

The rest of the Amendments don't. Which bring us back to the original question I asked you in my posts #46 & 53: "Can you point to any Amendments in the Bill of Rights which explicitly "grant" rights to the people?", other than the Sixth Amendment?

Thanks.

Again, you offer no insight as to why these rights are God given. You simply repeat that they “are” – by your proclamation.

Um, so the Biblical reference isn't good enough for you?

Anyway, like I said, if you do not wish to believe that these rights are God-given, that is your prerogative. I don't know why you would be so against the idea and dislike it so much, but that's ok.

All I have really been doing is explaining to you that that's how the Founding Fathers saw things. They created a document which formed the basis for a country. Ergo, this country is built on the philosophy that people have God-given rights. And so, there exists today a group of people which believe this, that people have God-given rights. These people are called "Americans".

If you really really hate this philosophy so much, that's fine with me! Just leave. No one is forcing you to stay in America or consider yourself an "American", when the very country is built on a philosophy you hate. There are other countries built on other philosophies which you may find more to your liking.

You continue to beat the same inarticulate, self-righteous and sophomoric drum. "Anyway, like I said, if you do not wish to believe…”, “I don't know why you would be so against the idea…”, “If you really really hate this philosophy so much, that's fine with me! Just leave…”, “when the very country is built on a philosophy you hate”

Perhaps you have no idea how to engage someone in discussion. Perhaps you use this forum to pound your chest so that others will think highly of you. Perhaps you haven’t a clue.

Uh....whatever. Let me know if you ever want to actually address any of my points, sometime, instead of just writing snappy comebacks. Otherwise, bye.

You might want to read post #147 for a cogent answer to my question.

I read it already. It is very nicely written and everything. However, it doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said to you about a zillion times on this thread, including by me. For example the main point is,

each amendment procedes logically from premises which are in themselves rights inherent to all men

This is exactly the same thing I am saying when I say that rights are treated as "pre-existing" in the Constitution - the statements in the Bill of Rights derive from a pre-existing notion inherent "rights", they do not "create" or "grant" those rights. I must've said this ten times to you.

Maybe #147 says it better, or in a way that you are able to comprehend. In that case, so be it. In any event, I see no need to continue the discussion further. (Unless of course you want to show off some more of your snappy comeback put-downs.... ;)

The difference is, that he was able to explain WHY he believed it. And that, of course, is he point you have missed all along. You have not the wit to do much, but blow your own horn and spout that which you have been instructed to believe.

Like I said, I'm perfectly happy if #147 was written in such a way so as to make things simpler for you to comprehend, and willing to leave it at that.

Now, keep on coming with the content-free posts full of snappy put-downs. You're so clever!