Replies

See, this is where people slide into the notion that the Constitution is the source of the Rights. I know from your postings that you yourself are aware of the fact that the Constitution is NOT the source of the Rights, but the very phrase "Constitutional rights" allows the descent to that wrong understanding.

Fair enough, I should have used more precise language - "Constitutionally-protected rights" is probably a better way of putting it. The rights exist with or without the Constitution, but the Constitution is what ensures (well, theoretically, it does) that govt. doesn't infringe upon them.

My position is that it was understood that the Rights came from the Creator, the Founders all knew this, signed a document that said so, and I'm not aware of any that repudiated this document or its wording in their lifetime.

So, the Rights discussed in the Constitution were these self-same "Natural Rights" granted by the Creator. I would agree that the Rights in the Constitution were the same "natural rights" that the Declaration claimed were granted by the Creator. Again, though, I would argue that there can be "natural rights" without a Creator - that is, that you can present an argument for why all humans are born with a set of rights, without necessarily arguing that these rights were endowed by a Creator.

I think it's also notable, as I briefly mentioned above, that even if you argue that "natural rights" are endowed by a Creator, it doesn't necessarily follow that those who reject the existence of said Creator are not endowed with those rights. In other words, the Creator can give all human beings a set of rights (life, liberty, etc.), and humans retain these rights regardless of whether or not they believe in said Creator. You could even argue that, assuming that natural rights are endowed by the Creator and are inalienable, it would be "sinful" (probably not the best choice of words, but I think the point is clear) for a government comprised of men to deny these natural rights (or, more specifically, to fail to protect them).

I would tend to disagree, but believe that it would take a lot of research to disprove your position, if it could be done at all.

I have tended to frame my thought in terms of what was being debated at that time, and have not much considered the form the debate would take today (other than noting that many in today's societies would be ill-equipped for the sophistries of the Rights-grabbers).

Obviously, that would be an extraordinarily complex debate delving into the motivations of the Framers, and figuring out why they used particular arguments, etc. is an enourmous task. And, while it's certainly relevant in general, I'm not so sure it's relevant to the point I was trying to make. I guess, my point is that, regardless of the justifications the Framers gave for the concepts of "natural rights" (the Creator, etc), the same set of rights could just as easily be defended without the Creator.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts! These are the kinds of discussions that force us to think about the important issues involving our system of governance. Most people are too distracted by the shell games going on in the nation's capitol and the state capitals to take notice of what's REALLY going on.

You've forced me to delve deeper into the structure behind my positions, and I appreciate that exercise.

No probl Certainly nice to have a thoughtful, non-snippy conversation on these boards. Made me think, too, so thanks..