Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80877)	7/12/2004 1:06:20 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

What you quoted was my statement, to wit: "The Government has the Constitutional authority to uphold and protect all Rights granted in the Constitution." and your response: "The constitution grants no such right" This clearly referred to the quote which you quoted and to which you attached your response. I think that speaks for itself. It is on the record. No it does not clearly refer to what you think it does. But I'll be glad to clear it up for you. The federal government is granted powers or authority in the constitution. Rights are granted to the people. The government has the constitutional authority to protect people's rights, but the constitution grants no right not be discriminated against in employment ect. because of race, religion, sex, ect. "Congress does not constitutionally have any power not granted to it by the constitution" Hello? You don't say? And since the constitution does not grant congress the power to create laws against discrimination in intrastate commerce, then congress cannot legally make such laws. Re: "If the congress did have the constitutional authority to protect anything it declares as a right then congress would have constitutional authority to do anything it wanted to do because it could declare anything to be a right." That is correct. If by "that is correct" you mean the congress does have the constitutional authority to do anything it wants if it can declare such an action to be protecting some real or imagined right then we have a profound disagreement about the constitution. All "rights" begin with the "agreement" that people have them. I think I disagree with that statement, but it depends on exactly what you mean by rights in that sentence. If the law recognizes your rights you have legal rights. If society and tradition recognizes and respects your rights then you have traditional rights. When I just use the term "rights", most of the time I am talking about natural rights, which you would have even if no one else accepted or respected them. What "rights" would you have if tigers locked you up in pens and fed you cows to fatten you up? The same rights I have today. I just would not be able to exercise these rights. Having your rights violated doesn't mean you don't have rights. If you didn't have rights there would be nothing to violate. The Constitution says nothing about these rights being "natural" It also says nothing about any other rights besides the right enumerated in the constitution as being protected by the constitution. "It is neglect not direct abuse" The law calls not feeding your children child abuse. There are many different laws in different jurisdictions but at least in many cases it is called neglect not abuse. Such neglect can result in legal punishment but there is a difference between neglect and abuse. I would not be surprised if in some places it was called abuse. The law can call something anything it wants. This would not be the only example of the law calling something other then what it is. "So Virginia could probably forbid me from such discrimination without violating the constitutional limits on its authority...: On what Constitutional basis??? 10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The law only protects when it prevents or punishes such blatant injustice and mistreatment. Its nonsense to say the law only protects when it protect against everything, or when it protect against some specific thing. If it protects against a million things and doesn't protect against another million, the law still provides protection. Equal protection of the law means that the law must PROTECT people equally. And if it provides minimal protection to all then they are still protected equally. In order to protect all people equally the law must protect people from overt and extreme racism--racism which makes people second-class citizens It would not have to do that unless... and purges their Constitutional Rights. ...it really did purge their constitutional rights, or more accurately violate them. However your constitutional rights are pretty much just rights against the government or those acting as agents of the government. More specifically your constitutional rights do not include the "right" to not be discriminated against in employment ect. because of race, religion, sex, ect. by employers other then the government or those acting as agents of or contractors for the government. Tim