cepe10

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? Louisiana

"Liberty comes not from officials by grace but from the Constitution by right."

Interesting quote, but I disagree with it.

The Constitution of the United States was not originally intended to give anybody any rights but was instead intended to show the limitation on God-given (or natural) rights of mankind.

Our rights come from God (or nature or the universe or whatever) and not from any government.

Who said that? I said that. SeniorJudge

[Zigner]

I forget...
are you on Cepe's naughty list with me?

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Zigner

I forget...
are you on Cepe's naughty list with me?

I didn't know I was on anyone's naughty list!

[tranquility]

And, Lo, God said, "all men shall have access to weapons so that they may be part of a well regulated milita." As he saw all with the firearms of their choice he saw that it was good and rested.

"Behold", He said at the dawn. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, so let it be written, so shall it be done." The people saw it was good, but the soldiers killed a fatted calf and offered it up in sacrifice, letting the sweet smell of burning fat reach the heavens. God heard their plea and proclaimed, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

I believe our inalienable rights were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is of man.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Walfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ot ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Sates of America.

[justalayman]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, l and on

the rights involved are those given by their Creator. The Decalration of Independance was merely that, a declaration that because of the grievances listed were contrary to a mans God given rights, we were seperating from those that sought to deprive us of our rights.

The Constitution is the guidleine for the resulting government written with the intent of maintaining those God given rights.

a government should never be in the position of granting any sort of rights. Our rights are inherent as man, not given by man. Our government was designed to safeguard those rights.

Obviously both documents are "of man" but they both were the result of claiming and maitntaining a mans God given rights.

The Constitustion is not a restriction of rights (at least until they tried Prohibition) nor a granting but a listing of ones rights; hence the "Bill of Rights". That is one problem I have with certain proposed amendments such as prohibition, they were not designed to ensure rights but in fact did restrict rights. I believe this is contrary to the origianl purpose of the entire series of actions.

[tranquility]

There are many theories as to the source of the constitution. One I like best is the "social contract" theoy. This is best seen in Madison's argument in Federalist papers 10. A major controversy in the process of ratification debates was the matter of the main text failing to guarantee specific individual rights. The Federalists argued such a specific bill of rights was unnecessary and harmful. Unnecessary because of the limited powers of government and harmful because any rights left off the list would be precluded. Eventually the deal was reached were the first amendments would be a bill of rights.

However, when Madison introduced the amendments he gave a little different view of his perspective on individual rights. He felt government may abuse rights while operating with its discretionary powers. "If (guarantees of individual rights) are incorporated in the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be na impentetrable bulwark against every assumption of power inthe Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.

Remember too, the issue of slavery. It was not until the civil war amendments that the bill of rights was brought to the states. If God granted the right of liberty, and the Constitution was merely a description of God's gift to be defended by Government, how could there be slaves?

The Constitution (aka Grand Compromise) was a political document. It described how men will get together. While the writers of the Constitution believed in God and that people have inaleinable rights, the defense of those rights came and comes from our social contract. The Constitution as enforced or avoided by a government of men.

[justalayman]

tranquility;1524965]
Remember too, the issue of slavery. It was not until the civil war amendments that the bill of rights was brought to the states. If God granted the right of liberty, and the Constitution was merely a description of God's gift to be defended by Government, how could there be slaves?

nobody said it was all perfect, remember there were 10 amendments before it was originally considered finished and obviously many more since then. The fact it was designed as a living document in itself was a show of acceptence that it could not be all inclusive.

Slavery was not considered contrary to the Constitution not because of it's lack of acceptance and understanding but because those that were enslaved were not considered to have the same inalienable rights that whites enjoyed. They were considered less than human much the same as any other animal. I don't see anybody fighting for Constitutional rights for cats and dogs. Those beliefs were obviously wrong and have led to the corrections now included in the Constitution.

The Constitution (aka Grand Compromise) was a political document. It described how men will get together. While the writers of the Constitution believed in God and that people have inaleinable rights, the defense of those rights came and comes from our social contract. The Constitution as enforced or avoided by a government of men.

but those rights were still considered to be inherent to mankind and not something granted by the government, merely protected by government. so I still agree with SJ's origianl statement that cepe was wrong when stating this:

"Liberty comes not from officials by grace but from the Constitution by right."

cepe was correct in part of that statement where stating Liberty comes not from officials by grace though. and agree with him on this:

Our rights come from God (or nature or the universe or whatever) and not from any government.

a government can never grant rights, it can only allow or restrict ones rights to be exercised. Our rights are and will always be there, they are inherent. This does not stop others from controlling another, it just means that it is wrong to do so.

[FLMommy]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

What is the name of your state? Louisiana

"Liberty comes not from officials by grace but from the Constitution by right."

Interesting quote, but I disagree with it.

The Constitution of the United States was not originally intended to give anybody any rights but was instead intended to show the limitation on God-given (or natural) rights of mankind.

Our rights come from God (or nature or the universe or whatever) and not from any government.

Who said that? I said that. SeniorJudge

*grins* Ever read Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer?

" Think of this great flaming phrase: "certain inalienable rights" Who gives these rights? The state? Then they are no inalienable, because the state can change them and take them away."

[cepe10]

Originally Posted by tranquility

And, Lo, God said, "all men shall have access to weapons so that they may be part of a well regulated milita." As he saw all with the firearms of their choice he saw that it was good and rested.

"Behold", He said at the dawn. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, so let it be written, so shall it be done." The people saw it was good, but the soldiers killed a fatted calf and offered it up in sacrifice, letting the sweet smell of burning fat reach the heavens. God heard their plea and proclaimed, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

I believe our inalienable rights were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is of man.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Walfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ot ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Sates of America.

I have to agree with tranquility on this one...and the quote is from one of our supreme court justices

[cepe10]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

I didn't know I was on anyone's naughty list!

Your not on the list judge and I still like to think the constitution was a truly intended as protection of the rights of citizens with regard to basic liberties against those who would take them away (or try and hold the key to them)