Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You have rights permission to use an office you lease, acquired by permission of the owner...who has the right to determine the disposition of his office since he owns it.
If he evicts you without cause, you a right to file suit in the courts provided by the public.
Ah, so if you discovered that you were renting a room to a homosexual, or a couple living in sin, you'd evict them and they'd have the "right" to sue you for it? Or, do you have the right as the owner to determine the disposition of your own property?
How so? Your illogical argument is that unless the constitution says so, in so many words, the State may in fact infringe upon your rights.
Have you ever read the 9th amendment? It is in fact a part of the bill of rights.
Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin
privilegium law for or against a private person, from
privus private + leg-, lex law
Date: 12th century
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit,
advantage, or favor
Down Demidog goes again.
A privilege can be revoked. A right cannot. Roscoe goes down again by his own failure to comprehend the written word.
I thought this kind of fell to the people of the states Demi..
I mean, otherwise I could open a nuclear waste dump right next door to you.. Or do whatever I wanted..
"..States and the people respectively. "
No. It cannot. Unfortunately, because we have placed virtually all moral authority in the hands of the State, the institutions which are most effective in preventing use of such things, namely Church and Family, are unable to do so.
People use illegal drugs in prison. Even the most severe penalties have not and will not dissuade people from manufacturing, distributing and using these drugs. It is rightly under the authority of the several states to decide policy on these drugs, but we cannot pretend that law enforcement will ever be a panacea for this problem.
The State makes a very poor church, indeed.
Denying that property rights are elements of leasehold estates?
Bizarre.
...who has the right to determine the disposition of his office since he owns it.
He only holds the rights he retains after encumbering his property with a lease.
Libertarianism is based upon profound ignorance of the nature of property.
You insist that I consult a dictionary and then you attack the dictionary definition. Fascinating.
BTW, wrong again. Convicted felons frequently lose their rights to vote and to use firearms.
Waht do you mean by "this"? If you don't have the right to infringe upon another individual's rights, how can you confer the power to do so onto the state?
Would it stand to reason that Jim Crow was Constitutional since it was passed into law? How about the the Brady Bill? Because something is enacted is not an indication of Constitutionality.
I submit that they didn't view blacks as equal humans, therefore slavery was constitutional. Their mistake was in that belief.
Were you aware that even Thomas Jefferson had misgivings about slavery even though he owned slaves? He even wrote about it. That's not to excuse his actions. But, I wish I knew why he didn't free them.
Not everyone believed in slavery back then. Some were vehemently opposed to it and denounced it publicly, and were even the recipients of violence because of their opposition. I'd recommend reading Lysander Spooner and Frederic Bastiat for their views on the matter.
What say you to their mistake in thinking States can prohibit and outlaw certain activity and property?
I think the decision was a concession made to expediate matters. It was difficult enough getting the states to agree to form a Union. I think they should've tried harder.
So you believe then that the constitution grants rights?
The people of the State in question decide..
We decide issues about garbage disposal, people building nuclear bombs in their garage, zoning, liquor stores, prostitution.. etc..
You can vote for a congressional representative, but you can only choose electors in a Presidential race. Did those rights come from a state of nature?
By what measure does one go about determining which activities should be prohibited? Should it be determined by whoever happens to hold the reign of power at any given moment? That's totally subjective.
In his own personal case, he decided that they would be better off, given the societal misgivings and treatment of former and current slaves that they remain in his care. He actually did try to abolish slavery. It was in his original draft of the DoI. What stopped slavery from being abolished in 1776 was the requirement that the DoI be adopted by unanymous consent. Only New York and the Carolina's voted against it and that was more than enough states to ratify the later-proposed constitution.
It should also be noted that Jefferson never purchased slaves. He inherited those slaves when his father-in-law passed away. They went to his wife and indirectly to him through her.
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.