“Unalienable Rights”

[TPaine7]

The meaning of “unalienable rights” has generated some recent interest on this forum, so I thought I would post on the subject—I’ve been meaning to post on it for some time anyway. This subject tends to come up in debates about gun rights, and I think it is important.

What are unalienable rights? What did the term “unalienable rights” mean at the founding?

The strongest possible evidence regarding the meaning of a founding document arises from the document itself (properly understood in its historical context, of course). Let’s take a look at the relevant passage.

The Declaration of Independence:

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.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

One approach would be to consult an authoritative legal dictionary, look up “unalienable” and draw a conclusion. Let’s try that:

Main Entry: un•alien•able
Pronunciation: "&n-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: not alienable : INALIENABLE

Following the crumbs leads to

Main Entry: alien•able
Pronunciation: 'Al-y&-n&-b&l, 'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: that may be changed over to another's ownership alienable interest in property> — alien•abil•i•ty /"Al-y&-n&-'bil-&-tE, "A-lE-&-/ noun

(Both definitions are from Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable . Interestingly enough, I went to findlaw.com to see how they defined “unalienable” and discovered that they use the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law too).

Based on this definition, we would conclude that an unalienable right is a right that cannot be transferred to another entity.

What would that mean? Let’s look at an example. Life is an unalienable right, according to the Declaration of Independence. The fact that a man’s life is his unalienable (birth)right means that no entity—whether government, corporation or a fellow human being—can legitimately and lawfully take possession of his life. That is true whether by theft—as the slavers did when they stole people—or by his actual consent.

Why would someone consent to have another own his life? In ancient times, people sold themselves into slavery in order to save their children from starvation, to pay off debts and for other reasons.

In modern times there are still people who—for their own personal reasons—commit themselves to others as slaves or property. A man may surrender himself to a dominatrix, for example. He may sign a contract. He may obey her every command. He may swear by all that he holds dear to be her property forever.

Under US legal theory, however, his oath and signed contract have no legal authority. Their arrangement is all well and good, so long as he consents to serve her. The moment that he changes his mind, the contract and oath are void. They cannot be enforced in any American court.

Does the modern definition of “unalienable rights” mean that there is no possible way that he can be separated from his right to life? Actually no. There is nothing in the definition—“not alienable” or not capable of being “changed over to another's ownership” that implies that it forever belongs him. The fact that ownership of his life cannot be transferred does not mean that it cannot be forfeited. He can forfeit his life by committing a crime so horrible—let’s say genocide on a Hitlerean scale—that it merits death. He would then have no right to live—not because it had been “changed over to another’s ownership” or alienated, but because it had been forfeited.

So using a modern dictionary, we conclude that an unalienable right is a right that:

1. Cannot be legitimately taken
   
2. Cannot be legitimately alienated—sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another entity
   
3. May be forfeited by the owner.
   

Our third conclusion is vulnerable, though based in common sense, and should be substantiated by more explicit evidence.

Even our first two conclusions must remain tentative, since we have other serious issues to address. First, there is more in another founding document—the Constitution—that bears on this subject. We also need to remember that we have relied entirely on a modern dictionary and have not considered how the term was used in the founding era. Legal language, too, can change over time.

What else do the founding documents—in this case the Constitution—have to say about unalienable rights?

Amendment V

No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The government may deprive a person of life or liberty—even though they are unalienable rights—after due process of law. Intuitively, that harmonizes perfectly with our third conclusion. Let’s step through how this would work.

(The second coming of) Adolph Hitler is born with the full rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that every human being enjoys. Unfortunately, like his namesake, he chooses to lead one of the greatest genocides in human history. He is accused and brought up on charges. During that trial (also known as due process of law) he is presumed innocent—up until the verdict is reached. Being presumed innocent, he is presumed to still enjoy the right to life.

When the verdict is reached, however, Hitler is no longer presumed innocent. The only remaining issue is what rights are forfeit as a result of his crimes, and for what duration. Let us say that—in perfect harmony with the US Constitution—the judge rules that his life is forfeit for the obvious duration of forever.

Now the state—whether that term means Ohio, Oregon or the USA—can justly execute Hitler. They can deprive him of his life. Please note carefully that they are not depriving him of his right to life. That would be impossible. His right to life cannot be taken away by the state. The state can recognize a forfeiture and act accordingly, but it cannot decide on its own to take the right of life away from a person who legitimately holds that right.

Here is the sequence of events.

1. Hitler was born with unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
   
2. Hitler forfeited his life—his right to life, his right to live, his birthright of life—by committing genocide
   
3. The state held a trial—due process of law—during which it established the fact that Hitler had forfeited his life by committing genocide
   
4. Recognizing the fact that Hitler had forfeited his life, the state elected to execute him
   

If the state deprived someone of his life while that person still had a right to life, that deprivation would be a human rights violation. By the same token, if the state imprisoned someone thus depriving her of her right to travel freely in any state of the US while she still had the right to travel freely, that would be a human rights violation. Therefore, before the state can deprive a person of their life or of part of their liberty it must establish that the person has already forfeited her life or a part of her liberty by committing a crime.

It is perfectly legal to deprive someone of something that is not their right. That is true not only of the state but of appropriate private parties. For example, the man who breaks off his arrangement with his dominatrix does her no (legal) injustice. She does not—and cannot—legally own him. Similarly, a woman who breaks off sexual relations with a man does him no (legal) injustice. He does not—and cannot—legally own her body. Life and the liberty of bodily integrity are unalienable rights.

This all makes sense and harmonizes with the Constitution, but we still have a serious hurdle left. We haven’t established that our understanding agrees with the term “unalienable rights” as used in the founding era.

Let’s get a little closer to the founding:

Unalienable: incapable of being transferred.

…The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE.

Bouviers Law Dictionary 1897 Edition (According to some internet sources, which I haven’t been able to confirm, the 1856 Edition says the same thing.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=CYZOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1155&dq=%22Things+which+are+not+in+commerce,+as+public+roads,+are+in+their+nature&hl=en&ei=DkJZTpulDMnUiALj0JmyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Things%20which%20are%20not%20in%20commerce%2C%20as%20public%20roads%2C%20are%20in%20their%20nature&f=false

That sounds familiar. “Incapable of being transferred” means the exact same thing as the modern law dictionary’s incapable of being “changed over to another's ownership.” The meaning hasn’t changed. Nothing about this definition implies that unalienable rights cannot be forfeited.

Ok, that’s what they thought about natural or unalienable rights in 1897 (and possibly 1856). Now let’s look at a contemporary of the founders—the most respected and most cited legal authority of the era.

Blackstone (1827):

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lxBo6zahhOoC&pg=PA35&dq=%22those+rights,+then,+which+God+and+nature+have+established%22&hl=en&ei=8URUTtuiMeHmiAL48KzSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22those%20rights%2C%20then%2C%20which%20God%20and%20nature%20have%20established%22&f=false

Blackstone says explicitly what the Declaration and the Constitution say implicitly: Unalienable or natural rights can neither be given nor taken, strengthened or weakened by government, but they can be can be forfeited. The government has the legitimate power to recognize the forfeiture and to act accordingly. This is very clear to any knowledgeable person who thoughtfully reads the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our understanding of “unalienable rights” is on solid footing indeed. It is supported by internal and external, current and founding era legal authorities. (It is also supported by US Supreme Court cases, but this OP is long enough already.)

Our understanding, though well supported, is controversial. So let’s look at an alternate understanding.

On Inalienable Rights (http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law111/AdlerInalienableRights.htm) by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D, has recently been brought to my attention as a representative statement of an opposing view.

I can’t quote more than a few paragraphs, so I will summarize his key arguments by paragraph. (You can follow the link above to check my summation.)

Paragraph 1 (Paraphrase/Summary): There are civil, legal and constitutional rights, conferred by man-man institutions. They are alienable rights, because the institutions that conferred them can take them away.

Paragraph 2 (Paraphrase/Summary): Human or natural rights are different as they are the result of natural endowment. Since they are not given by man-made institutions, they cannot be taken away by those institutions. They are thus inalienable.

Paragraph 7 (Paraphrase/Summary): The Declaration says we have inalienable rights to life and liberty. What of criminals who are imprisoned or executed? Aren’t we taking away their lives and liberty? Then how can we still say that their lives and liberty are inalienable?

We are not taking away their liberty—we are taking away only a portion of their liberty. True they cannot travel freely across the US or decide when to go outside. But they can twiddle their thumbs or hum a bar of music. They can pray. They can meditate.

This leads to another fact that is being overlooked. Even if bound like a mummy, a person still has some control over himself. It is impossible to TOTALLY remove a human being’s liberty short of killing her or rendering her unconscious. Remember that, it will come up again.

As to executed prisoners, yes, we most definitely are taking away their lives. I can’t argue with Adler there.

Paragraph 8 (Paraphrase/Summary): It is easier to deal with the question of imprisonment than the question of execution.

Indeed, from Adler’s POV, this is true. I was heartened to see that he was smart enough to see it. Most people (unfortunately not all—there has been one outlier) I have debated have seen this point. Actually, the question of execution—and the Constitution’s treatment of it—is totally incompatible with Adler’s position.

At least he is intelligent enough to see it and honest enough to admit it.

Paragraph 9 (Paraphrase/Summary): The antisocial behavior that justifies imprisonment forfeits, not the right but its full exercise. Prisoners still have some liberty of action but their incarceration severely limits the exercise of that liberty.

Adler is conflating partial loss of liberty with full loss of liberty. As I pointed out above, full loss of liberty is impossible for conscious, living prisoners. The judge hasn’t sentenced them to full loss of liberty nor could she. But the liberty that they have lost was not in their possession—they had forfeited part of their right to liberty before being deprived of it.

Paragraph 10 (direct quote): “The right remains in existence both during imprisonment and after release from prison. If the prison warden attempted to make the prisoner his personal slave, that would be an act of injustice on his part, because enslavement would be a violation of the human right to the status of a free man. This human right belongs to those in a prison as well as those outside its walls.”

Here Adler’s conflation reaches full bloom. The right to the liberty that was forfeit does not remain in existence for the duration of the sentence. If the state imprisoned a man and thereby deprived him of an unalienable right he still retained, that would constitute a human rights violation. It is only because he forfeited the right that they can justly deprive him of it. And remember, the right forfeited is NOT the full right of liberty. Once again, it is impossible to FULLY deprive someone of his liberty short of death or a forced coma or other forced unconsciousness.

By conflating a full loss of liberty with the partial loss of liberty to which people are (and actually can be) sentenced, Adler allows the specter of personal slavery to the warden to be raised with apparent plausibility. The plausibility is only apparent.

Addler’s next sentence is interesting—personal slavery to the warden “would be a violation of the human right to the status of a free man.” I was under the impression that prisoners were not “free men”—even if they are not personal property of the warden.

It is true that if a prisoner lost his full right to liberty, he would have no rights to be violated by anyone taking possession of his body or doing anything whatsoever to him. But no one is, or ever can be under US law, sentenced to full loss of liberty. Not only is it practically impossible, approaching it would violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishments”—a protection that operates before and after due process of law.

Paragraph 11 (direct quote):”When the criminal's term of imprisonment comes to an end, what is restored is not the individual's right to liberty (as if that had been taken away when he entered the prison), but only his fuller exercise of that right. It is the exercise of that right that is given back to him when he walks out of the prison gates, not the right itself, for that was never taken away or alienated.”

This is a bald assertion, not backed by any clear logic . Adler is, among other things, assuming his conclusions.

Paragraph 12 (direct quote):When we come to capital punishment, we cannot deal with the question in the same way. The death penalty takes away more than the exercise of the right to life. It takes away life itself.

The death penalty does not take away the right to life. The state cannot take away the right to life, it can only take away life. If the state is operating legitimately, it can only take away life from someone who has already forfeited their life and any and all rights to it. To take the life of someone who has not forfeited that life is a human rights violation.

Paragraph 13 (direct quote):If that right is inalienable, it cannot be taken away by the state, nor can it be forfeited by the individual's misconduct. It is one thing to forfeit the exercise of a right and quite another to divest one's self of a right entirely. What cannot be taken away by another cannot be divested by one's self.

These are a lot of unsupported assumptions that have no support in the legal term “unalienable rights” or even in “inalienable rights.” The last sentence is totally gratuitous. “What cannot be taken away by another cannot be divested by one's self”—if that were so, people would be incapable of committing suicide or even of reject medical care that another couldn’t legally deny them, since their life is an unalienable right. Adler is assuming his conclusions and taking serious shortcuts. Usually when a person has to take such radical shortcuts and make such bald assertions, it indicates that their arguments are agenda driven.

Paragraph 14: Addler reaches the agenda-driven result towards which his too easy conclusions have been tending—the death penalty is apparently unjustified and a violation of a natural human right.

Adler’s article takes no notice of any legal definitions or any historical uses of the terms “unalienable rights.” He defines the term “inalienable rights” as allegedly used in the Declaration of Indepenence to suit his argument. Also note that Adler’s conclusion means that the Constitution is in direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence. If life is an “unalienable right” and if that means that “it cannot be taken away by the state, nor can it be forfeited by the individual's misconduct” then the Constitution is wrong—twice!—when it says that life can be taken away “after due process of law.”

Adler doesn’t address the Constitution itself, so he is not obliged to address this inconsistency, but others who argue this position (and claim to be agreeing with the Constitution) are obliged to address it.

The theory that crime forfeits, not the criminal’s right but its full exercise is incompatible with both common sense and the Constitution. This is seen most sharply in the case of execution, but it is also clear in simple imprisonment. Every innocent person has the right not to be imprisoned. If the government imprisons an innocent person, that is a civil rights violation. That is why falsely imprisoned persons win lawsuits. To say that government can legitimately imprison a person who has a right not to be imprisoned is fascist.

Adler’s theory is illegitimate according to the founding documents.

****

What does the definition of "unalienable rights" have to do with arms rights and arms laws? The question often arises as to whether felons can legitimately be forbidden arms after their incarceration. Those who say that they cannot often take positions similar to Adler’s. But while it is true that life is an unalienable right and that self-defense and the right to effective tools of self-defense are rights that are part of that right, it does not follow that released felons have the same right to arms as others. Unalienable rights can be forfeited.

What I find offensive is that often on this board, people who despise America and her legal traditions haughtily presume to condemn us and our laws. As part of their efforts, they often attempt to teach what they don’t understand. This is one of the subjects about which I have been “taught” what seems, to me at least, to be utter nonsense.

There is a lot more evidence that I could produce; there are Supreme Court cases that clearly support this American understanding of unalienable rights—including cases bearing directly on the issue of armed felons.

But those who despise our country couldn’t care less what the Supreme Court has said—not because they can refute it logically, but because it isn’t the Supreme Court of Canada or of a European state or of Australia or New Zealand or the like. (And of course, it doesn't agree with their personal views.)

Dealing with these people, especially the appallingly ignorant and condescending ones--is draining and depressing, and I don’t always have the time or emotional energy to refute their nonsense. But I thought that someone here might find my thoughts interesting or even informative.

I would appreciate feedback. I may be confident in my conclusion—it harmonizes with current and founding era legal definitions, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and with Supreme Court cases that I haven’t bothered to cite—but I realize that I may have made errors. I am always open to considering other points of view and evaluating critiques of my positions made by intelligent people.

So what do you think?

[emcguffie]

1. A question re: unalienable vs. inalienable.

There are those who say they do not mean the same thing. My question really is why did I learn this with the word "inalienable" rather than "unalienable"? I was born in 1953. I attended parochial schools until high school, when I switched to a public school.

It was always "inalienable."

Why?

[TPaine7]

4. My personal opinion was that the words are basically synonymous

but that there was in the founding era a subtle difference, with one implying--more strongly at least--that the right could not be transferred even with the consent of the owner and that the right was valid not only against government but against other people in private contracts and the like.

I would recommend this to get started:

The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson. In his (1725) Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, Hutcheson foreshadowed the Declaration of Independence, stating: “For wherever any Invasion is made upon unalienable Rights, there must arise either a perfect, or external Right to Resistance. . . . Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations in all Governments.” However, Hutcheson placed clear limits on his notion of unalienable rights, declaring that “there can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest publick Good."<12> Hutcheson elaborated on this idea of unalienable rights in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755), based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." As Hutcheson wrote, "Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to make him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable."<13>

In the German Enlightenment, Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of this inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. But the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person, wrote Hegel:

The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them.<14>

Thus in discussion of social contract theory, "inalienable rights" were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. However, many social contract theorists reasoned that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Thus people form an implicit social contract, ceding their natural rights to the authority to protect them from abuse, and living henceforth under the legal rights of that authority.

But many historical apologies for slavery and illiberal government were based on explicit or implicit voluntary contracts to alienate any "natural rights" to freedom and self-determination.{15} The de facto {u}inalienability arguments of the Hutcheson and his predecessors provided the basis for the anti-slavery movement to argue not simply against involuntary slavery but against any explicit or implied contractual forms of slavery. Any contract that tried to legally alienate such a right would be inherently invalid. Similarly, the argument was used by the democratic movement to argue against any explicit or implied social contracts of subjection (pactum subjectionis) by which a people would supposedly alienate their right of self-government to a sovereign as, for example, in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. According to Ernst Cassirer,

There is, at least, one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned: the right to personality...They charged the great logician with a contradiction in terms. If a man could give up his personality he would cease being a moral being. ... There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity.<16>

These themes converged in the debate about American Independence. While Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, Richard Price in England sided with the Americans' claim "that Great Britain is attempting to rob them of that liberty to which every member of society and all civil communities have a natural and unalienable title."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalienable

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

29. Really?

Do you think they had a time machine to go back and change Blackstone? And the Constitution?

The quality of some of the anti's "thought" is amazing.

[cleanhippie]

2. I think you are going to hear the same old, emotional, irrational and fallacious arguments

we always hear from the anti-2A crowd.

But I may be wrong this time...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. I have no doubt you are quite correct

It will be nothing new

[provis99]

6. I guess they're just responding to the same, tired, irrational and fallacious arguments

that the pro-gun crowd have always relied on. It amuses me that the exact same arguments they consistently use are the exact same ones I see the pro-gun people on freerepublic use.

[TPaine7]

8. I don't read freerepublic, but if you point out falacies in the OP, I'd be obliged. n/t

[SteveM]

11. Here is something you may have to live with...

I find it difficult myself, at times. Though there are liberal/progressive scholars who also support a strong Second Amendment, there are many others who are not so liberal, but who have made sound, durable arguments for 2A. That "liberal commentators," some academic figures, and various sage-on-stage folks have not kept up with, nor studied the Second in a very meaningful way, is in large measure the fault of the liberal "community." Facts, good argument, and scholarship are stand alone, and one would be foolish to sift them through a litmus test of the correct stuff in order to determine veracity. Put another way, your "amusement" is based on a kind of false equivalency, based more on style than the record of this debate.

[cleanhippie]

35. Well, facts are facts. And a broken clock is even right twice a day.

But that doesn't mean freerepublic has become a den of reason and accuracy.


As soon as someone on the anti-gun side can come up with a fact-based, evidence supported, non-emotional argument as to why citizens of this country who have not broken any laws should LOSE a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, please, let me know.

[DanTex]

5. "people who despise America and her legal traditions" Really?

I hate to break it to you, but people who disagree with you about the right to bear arms don't hate America.


Ya know, it would be great if someone took a good look at all the people who post on this board and tried to see which posters were pro-American, and which are anti-American...
:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

7. Very weak.

Look over the threads, and you will see people "who despise America and her legal traditions."

This is not measured by your narrowly-drawn caveat, "the right to bear arms." (Needed correction.) The OP makes the assertion more generally; some anti 2A posters have chosen to reveal their animosity toward this country, and her legal traditions through 2A, not just because of it.

[iverglas]

13. is this where I take my bow?

Some day I am going to write a book, composed solely of things said about me on the internet.

Of course, if anyone else published it, they'd get their shirts sued off them for the defamation it all is.

:rofl:

[SteveM]

17. yawn.

[TPaine7]

9. Instead of dealing with the points made, you focus on a (mis)reading of an aside.

I can't say that that's surprising.

You might not be anti-American yourself, despite being anti-gun, but you definitely fall into the group of tiresome people who are depressing to talk to.

My relevant comment...

What I find offensive is that often on this board, people who despise America and her legal traditions haughtily presume to condemn us and our laws. As part of their efforts, they often attempt to teach what they don’t understand. This is one of the subjects about which I have been “taught” what seems, to me at least, to be utter nonsense.

...does not imply that "people who disagree with {me} about the right to bear arms" "hate America." At least not to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

I know the subject is related to gun rights, but read more carefully.

[iverglas]

14. I missed that because I actually didn't read all the crap

What I find offensive is that often on this board, people who despise America and her legal traditions haughtily presume to condemn us and our laws. As part of their efforts, they often attempt to teach what they don’t understand. This is one of the subjects about which I have been “taught” what seems, to me at least, to be utter nonsense.

Now, would you like to have the guts to stand up on your hind legs and name your target(s)? (I add the "(s)" in jest, of course.)

Or are you a gutless wonder?

[TPaine7]

18. The shoe fits the apendage on Your Sophistry's hind leg, but there is no single "target."

Don't be so sensitive, Your Sophistry. You are certainly not the only pompous, blowhard anti-American who despises America and her legal traditions. And there are several people of that ilk who attempt to teach what they don’t understand.

You are not unique.

[iverglas]

25. well then let's do this

Provide us with a quotation of something said on this website to back up your assertion.

I'm in this thread, so there would be no "calling out", would there?

You've done what you might have thought you weren't doing: identified me as:

You are certainly not the only pompous, blowhard anti-American who despises America and her legal traditions. And there are several people of that ilk who attempt to teach what they don’t understand.
You are not unique.

So let's be having it.

Let's have the proof of your bile pudding.

[TPaine7]

32. Step to it, iverglas.

I seem to recall a couple of unanswered questions and challenges of mine out there for Your Sophistry--the original Gutless Wonder.

If I find your answers satisfying, I will consider answering you here.

Step to it!

[SteveM]

19. I think this is where "macho posturing" applies.

:D :D

[TPaine7]

21. "I missed that..." Really? Is Your Sophisty also DanTex?

If not (and I seriously doubt it) isn't Your Sophistry doing something she pretends to despise when she imagines others are doing it... butting in?

[iverglas]

26. aren't you making a false statement about me?

Yes, you are.

[DanTex]

16. I'm sorry I depress you. But I'm glad that I "might not be anti-American".

What a relief! Too bad my IQ seems to not be above room temperature. Nobody's perfect, I guess.

For future reference, when you start accusing people of hating (err, I mean despising) America, it really takes away from any sort of cogent argument you might have had going.

[TPaine7]

22. Are you bright enough to understand that when people say, for instance, that America is

backwards and uncivilized that they despise it?

As for your opinions about the cogency of my arguments, I guess I'll have to live with your disapproval. Oh well...

[iverglas]

27. I actually think you are bright enough to know

that when you say

when people say, for instance, that America is backwards and uncivilized that they despise it

you are not speaking the truth.

My goodness, I'd call, oh, England in the 12th century backward and uncivilized. I certainly don't despise it!

[TPaine7]

30. Yes, and if I said you were not a very bright bulb I would be insulting you.

If I said the same about a 25 watt light bulb (or even a mentally disabled person I cared about) it would not be an insult.

You may deny it as much as you like; there are people on this board who make it abundantly clear that they despise America and her legal traditions.

[Starboard Tack]

59. They are probably some of those who support toting guns around

on the off chance that they may have the opportunity to shoot some of their fellow Americans. Only in self defense, of course. Defending themselves against their beloved fellow citizens. Exercising their inalienable right to intimidate with impunity.

[DanTex]

33. I dunno, I'm kinda dim, as you noted in your last post...

I think waterboarding is backwards and uncivilized. I think that the income inequality here could be considered backwards and uncivilized. I think the lack of full LBGT equality is backwards and uncivilized. Etc.

I don't think any of that warrants pulling out the "you hate America" card, though. I'd leave that one for the talk radio blowhards.

[TPaine7]

60. Make no mistake, DanTex, I don't think you're dumb.

Wrong? Mistaken? Biased? Not careful enough in reading opposing opinions? Yeah, I do think that.

Read my post again. The point wasn't that you have an IQ lower than room temperature, it was that you weren't careful enough in your reading.

[DissedByBush]

51. Rights are rights, except the ones I don't like

Anybody who disagrees with the right to keep and bear arms is being quite selective.

If you can dismiss a right simply because you disagree with it, then you put the entire Bill of Rights in serious jeopardy -- no right has any basis anymore.

Learn to separate your likes and dislikes from the rights of the people.

I think taking drugs is a right. Yes I do, right there in privacy, the inviolability of the person, the government doesn't get to control you. I promote legalization.

But I absolutely despise the illegal drugs, am even very wary of prescription drugs.

IOW, you are only truly on the side of rights if you're willing to support those you disagree with.

If not, you just want what you want, screw everybody's rights.

[Starboard Tack]

61. "I think taking drugs is a right. Yes I do, right there in privacy, the inviolability of the person"

So how about you keep your guns in the privacy of your own home, because most of us do not want you carrying them around?
That way, the tokers won't have to blow smoke in the faces of the toters.
You despise illegal drugs. Some of us enjoy them.
I despise handguns. Maybe you enjoy them.

[DissedByBush]

63. "I despise handguns. Maybe you enjoy them."

I do enjoy them.

But I'm not the one trying to take away your right.

Which one of us is actually on the side of freedom and liberty?

You don't blow smoke in my face, I won't shoot you in the face. Neither of our "likes" directly infringed on the freedom of the other.

But I don't give a damn if you want to carry your bong down main street. It does me no harm.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Wrong! You interfere with the rights of the people to pursue happiness.

Guns kill, they are designed to kill. You can deny it all you like, but it's true. What do you enjoy about toting a gun?
You have a right to have sex, but not in public. You have no civil right to tote guns in public.

[DissedByBush]

68. I don't enjoy toting a gun

You made an assumption. I don't carry.

Yet another right of others that I support, while not enjoying it myself.

Notice a pattern here?

Me for rights, you against.

[Starboard Tack]

69. OK. Fine. You enjoy guns, but not toting them. Me too.

There is no pattern here. We differ only on the toting part, which I do not consider a right, in spite of SCOTUS decisions to the contrary. Decisions made by RW justices, usually in 5-4 decisions.
That said, if folk want to tote, they should do so openly and honestly. Concealed carry, IMO, is deceitful and cowardly.

[DissedByBush]

71. Right to keep and BEAR arms?

A right is worthless if you are not allowed the mechanism by which to exercise it.

Concealed carry does have an interesting history. Long ago it was considered deceitful as you say, and any prohibitions against it were because it was considered that only criminals would do so -- gentlemen would carry openly, which was perfectly socially acceptable. But times have changed. As evidenced by your reaction and others, some people have an irrational fear of seeing guns openly carried in public. In the climate of our current society, concealed carry may even be the more gentlemanly thing -- not "showing off" or scaring the sheep.

"which I do not consider a right, in spite of SCOTUS decisions to the contrary"

That's the general anti-rights attitude. Republicans somehow can't see a "right" in there to allow for abortions, they can't see a "right" for gays to be treated equally. You can't see a "right" to keep and bear arms even though that one's explicitly in the Constitution.

It's all based on the root attitude: The only legitimate rights are those you agree with.

Learn to recognize rights you don't like. Then you truly will be for rights.

[Starboard Tack]

73. I do not have an irrational fear of guns carried openly.

That is absolute nonsense. I find it honest on the part of the toter and it gives me and others ample opportunity to not share immediate space. I have a rational distrust and disdain for anyone who carries concealed. The only legitimate rights are not the one's I agree with, nor are they only the ones you agree with. The "right" of an individual to carry outside of a militia is not part of 2A, nor is carrying for hunting part of 2A (though I consider it a right). 2A has been reinterpreted by people with your beliefs and agenda and they happen to be conservative Republicans. Don't blame me and most other Democrats for your poor choice in bedmates and behavior.

[TPaine7]

75. The guys who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment--those evil, right-wing, abolitionist Republicans--

just weren't as knowledgeable as you.

They thought the Second Amendment protected an individual right against the federal government, and they changed the Constitution to make it a protection against the states as well.

To bad you weren't there to teach these authors of the Constitution what it really meant, and what it would continue to mean even after their Amendment was ratified.

No doubt we should all feel honored to be in your presence.

And yet, somehow, I don't. I wonder why...

[Starboard Tack]

79. LOL. You compare the Republican Party of Lincoln to the party of Scalia and Thomas

Back to school with you. Your namesake would turn in his grave, if he saw the drivel you spew.

[TPaine7]

83. You are profound, my friend. Too deep for little old me! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

84. You bet.

[DissedByBush]

87. Why do I not begrudge you carrying dope?

Carry it concealed or openly, doesn't bother me even though I despise dope.

"The "right" of an individual to carry outside of a militia is not part of 2A,"

The militia consists of all of the people, aside from the fact that linguistically and historically the right isn't limited to within a militia.

I read the decision, it was very, very clear. This was a case where liberals with an anti-gun agenda failed us, torturing logic to try to keep up the power of government over the little guy. Four justices had your attitude -- anti-rights. They voted for what they wanted in opposition to the rights of the people because of their personal anti-gun agenda.

"2A has been reinterpreted by people with your beliefs and agenda and they happen to be conservative Republicans."

The anti-gun interpretation is pretty recent in history, and it was corrected. Most interpretations allowing gun bans were related to the then-accepted idea that blacks weren't really citizens, because the early bans were aimed at keeping them defenseless. NOBODY back then thought such restrictions could ever be applied to white people, who had full right to keep and bear arms individually.

BTW, the NRA helped arm many of those blacks to defend themselves against the KKK, in opposition to the current racist climate.

[Starboard Tack]

101. "Four justices had your attitude -- anti-rights." And I don't carry dope.

You think those 4 are anti-rights? They support the rights of the people over the rights of individuals. That's one of the big difference between Left and Right.

[TPaine7]

70. "Guns kill, they are designed to kill. You can deny it all you like, but it's true."

So what's wrong with killing people?

[Starboard Tack]

72. You need some serious help

[We_Have_A_Problem]

77. Why do you say that?

Why do you believe he needs help? Because he puts his rights to be armed ahead of your desire to not have to view a gun?

[Starboard Tack]

78. At least you admit you have a problem. Maybe you can get a 2 for one deal.

Where did I ever say I had a desire to not have to view a gun? Au contraire, I want to see it if it is being toted. His rights to be armed with a gun are no different from my rights to be armed with the knowledge of who around me is armed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

80. You have no right

to know who is or is not armed. Just as you have no right to know who is Jewish, Catholic, Gay, or whatever.

In fact, you have no right to know anything about anyone that they do not choose to tell you.

[Starboard Tack]

81. What a crock. Your being armed interferes with others' right to pursue happiness.

Your being Jewish or atheist has no bearing on my or anyone else's happiness, or pursuit thereof.
In common law your behavior is conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. No it doesn't.

Not in any tangible way anyway.

If you're afraid of something, that is YOUR problem.

Mere carriage of a firearm does not in any way present a threat or danger, anymore than driving a car on the road does anyway.

As far as your pursuit of happiness, that must always be balanced against the right of others for the same. In other words, you cannot force others to give up what makes them happy simply because it scares you.

BTW - i could argue just as effectively that your being openly gay for example is a breach of peace as well - and it would be just as irrational and irrelevant.

[Starboard Tack]

85. "Not in any tangible way anyway. "

Ah, so you accept that it does pose a threat to others' pursuit of happiness, just not a "tangible" one. So, what would it be, a psychological one? Sounds like the rationale of a guy who says "I don't beat my wife, I just call her names".

To answer your deflections: Nobody gets behind the wheel of a car thinking "I need to be ready to kill someone with this car". I am curious as to how an openly gay couple could be causing a breach of the peace. Could you please explain that?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. No....

I accept that your fear may be real, and you may consider it a threat, but that does not, in fact, make it one.

No, a person does not get in a car thinking he needs to be ready to kill someone. However, he DOES know he needs to be able to use it properly. Pretty much the same thing with a gun. Someone who carries a gun needs to understand and recognize that proper use of the tool may well kill someone, and he needs to be prepared for that possibility. This does not mean he is looking to kill somebody, but it means that he needs to accept the responsibility.

As far as how an openly gay couple could cause a breach of the peace, its not any different than someone carrying a firearm. The irrational fears of others who see two men holding hands, or two women kissing in public, equate to the same "breach of peace" as someone with a gun on his hip.

In other words - purely subjective and based entirely upon the prejudices of the other person, not upon the acts of the law abiding.

[Starboard Tack]

91. Thank you for finally admitting it and making my argument for me.

"Someone who carries a gun needs to understand and recognize that proper use of the tool may well kill someone"

Now let's look at this little doozy.

"As far as how an openly gay couple could cause a breach of the peace, its not any different than someone carrying a firearm. The irrational fears of others who see two men holding hands, or two women kissing in public, equate to the same "breach of peace" as someone with a gun on his hip."

TWO MEN HOLDING HANDS IS THE SAME AS SOMEONE CARRYING A FIREARM

Only on your planet my friend. You definitely have more than one problem.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

92. I haven't made your argument for you.

Recognizing that a gun can be used to kill and treating it with the necessary respect is not supporting your argument that someone carrying a gun is a breach of peace.

Yes - two men holding hands is the same level of "breach of peace" as someone with a gun on his hip. Both are engaged in a perfectly legal act which, while it may make some uncomfortable, causes no actual harm or breach of peace.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Unbelievable

"Yes - two men holding hands is the same level of "breach of peace" as someone with a gun on his hip"

Are you equating homophobia with public distaste for guns?
Another example of GRANDIOSITY

[We_Have_A_Problem]

94. No, i am equating....

...the subjective distaste of homosexual behavior with the subjective distaste of carrying a gun in public.

Both situations fall into the category of legal activity which the ignorant and bigoted attempt to claim is a breach of peace.

[Starboard Tack]

95. You are the one who called holding hands a breach of the peace.

How is holding hands a public health hazard. If 30,000 people a year died from holding hands, it would probably be illegal. If holding hands cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars annually in healthcare costs, it would probably be illegal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

96. And you are the one...

...who called legal carry of a firearm a breach of the peace.

Oddly, you have simultaneously stated that CCW is dishonest but OC is a breach of peace...

If you can actually prove that the act of carrying is a public health hazard, that 30K people a year died from it and it alone, then you MIGHT have an argument.

However, you cant. You can only prove that illegal misuse of a firearm caused about 10K deaths last year.

[Starboard Tack]

97. I said that under Common Law it was conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

OK 10,000 deaths from toting, legally and illegally combined. Do you think the victims care if the shooter had a CC permit or not? I'm suggesting that all toting be made illegal, not just the good guys.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. No It Does NOT

A LEGAL action cannot be considered illegal just because someone doesn't like it. Why is that so fucking difficult for you to understand? Yes, even under common law. There is a difference between actual legal "breach of peace" and Starboard Tack's concept of "breach of peace".


Equating legal CCW holders with criminals is despicable. Besides, it is already illegal to carry a firearm in the commission of a crime. How much more illegal do you want to make it?

[Starboard Tack]

99. What does not? Your post makes no sense. Sorry.

"A LEGAL action cannot be considered illegal just because someone doesn't like it"
When did I say anything to the contrary.
"There is a difference between actual legal "breach of peace" and Starboard Tack's concept of "breach of peace"."
Again I said "Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace", not an actual "breach of the peace".

I don't equate CCW holders with criminals. CCW holders carry guns and sometimes commit crimes. Criminals commit crimes and sometimes carry guns. Most don't.

How much more illegal would I want to make it? Nobody would be able to carry a gun in public.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

100. My post only makes no sense...

...when you are attempting to parse what you originally said.

You indicated that the legal action of open carry is a breach of peace or could be conduct likely to cause one. No, it simply cannot. The legal act of carrying a firearm in a legal manner cannot be construed to create a breach of peace. Legally that argument has no more standing than saying that two homosexuals walking down the street holding hands caused a breach of peace as they walked past a church. It just doesn't fly.

By equating law abiding people who carry with criminals who carry, and wanting to make the actions of the law abiding illegal, you are absolutely equating CCW with criminal behavior.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you actually say and how it comes across.

[gravity556]

107. You're quite free to wander about without a gun.

However, wanting to take mine away because you're scared of the thought of someone carrying a concealed firearm really only sparks a response of "Well put on your Superman underoos and be a brave little boy." You've nothing to fear except the thousands of armed criminals who don't give a flying fuck that it's illegal to carry a gun, nor are they put off by the fact that it's also illegal to rob, burgle and murder. And then you'd be happy for a concealed carrier to be in your proximity.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. What you want really doesn't matter.

Someone carrying a firearm poses no threat to you and does not infringe upon any of your rights.

[SteveM]

10. Excellent post! I still have miss-givings about the death penalty...

While due process is presumably used to determine that a person has forfeited his right to life (as I understand the post), due process can never be "accessed" again by the defendant. I don't favor the death penalty for this reason, and for the evident (to me) unequal protection of the law. It is not due to the Eighth Amendment.

[TPaine7]

15. I'm right with you.

Or at least in substantial agreement.

Mistakes can be made and prosecutors cheat and lie. Furthermore, black and poor men are overrepresented. Rich people don't get executed. Women murderers are rarely executed.

I think the death penalty is unfairly implemented and dangerous to the innocent even when correctly implemented. So I oppose it in its current form, even though the death penalty is clearly constitutional as such. (It might, however, be vulnerable as implemented to a challenged based on equal protection as you perceptively point out. Assuming a less conservative Court, of course.)

I would have no problem with the death penalty if it were implemented by an infallible unbiased system.

[iverglas]

31. oh my goodness, you *almost* sound like the Supreme Court of Canada

It didn't come out and say this bit:

I would have no problem with the death penalty if it were implemented by an infallible unbiased system.

because that would have been obiter and improper since the issue did not have to be determined in order to decide the case in front of it and the court should avoid pre-determining issues that may come before it.

But here's what it did say about capital punishment as practised in US states (I quote from the headnote, which is called a "syllabus" generally south of the border, and I break up some text for readability). Note that due process is one component of "fundamental justice".

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc7/2001scc7.html

United States v. Burns, <2001> 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7

Minister of Justice
Appellant

v.

Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay
Respondents

and

Amnesty International,
the International Centre for Criminal Law & Human Rights,
the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario),
the Washington Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers and
the Senate of the Republic of Italy
Interveners

... The respondents are each wanted on three counts of aggravated first degree murder in the State of Washington. If found guilty, they will face either the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The respondents are both Canadian citizens and were 18 years old when the father, mother and sister of the respondent Rafay were found bludgeoned to death in their home in Bellevue, Washington, in July 1994. Both Burns and Rafay, who had been friends at high school in British Columbia, admit that they were at the Rafay home on the night of the murders. They claim to have gone out on the evening of July 12, 1994 and when they returned, they say, they found the bodies of the three murdered Rafay family members.

Thereafter, the respondents returned to Canada. As a result of investigative work by undercover RCMP officers, they were eventually arrested. The Attorney General of British Columbia decided against a prosecution in that province. United States authorities commenced proceedings to extradite the respondents to the State of Washington for trial.

The Minister of Justice for Canada, after evaluating the respondents’ particular circumstances, including their age and their Canadian nationality, ordered their extradition pursuant to s. 25 of the Extradition Act without seeking assurances from the United States under Article 6 of the extradition treaty between the two countries that the death penalty would not be imposed, or, if imposed, would not be carried out.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, ruled that the unconditional extradition order would violate the mobility rights of the respondents under s. 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the Minister’s decision and directed him to seek assurances as a condition of surrender.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

... Section 7 (“fundamental justice”) applies because the extradition order would, if implemented, deprive the respondents of their rights of liberty and security of the person since their lives are potentially at risk.* The issue is whether the threatened deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 7 is concerned not only with the act of extradition, but also with its potential consequences. The balancing process set out in Kindler and Ng is the proper analytical approach.

The “shocks the conscience” language signals the possibility that even though the rights of the fugitive are to be considered in the context of other applicable principles of fundamental justice, which are normally of sufficient importance to uphold the extradition, a particular treatment or punishment may sufficiently violate our sense of fundamental justice as to tilt the balance against extradition. The rule is not that departures from fundamental justice are to be tolerated unless in a particular case it shocks the conscience. An extradition that violates the principles of fundamental justice will always shock the conscience.

... Fourth, the accelerating concern about potential wrongful convictions is a factor of increased weight since Kindler and Ng were decided. The avoidance of conviction and punishment of the innocent has long been in the forefront of “the basic tenets of our legal system”.

The recent and continuing disclosures of wrongful convictions for murder in Canada and the United States provide tragic testimony to the fallibility of the legal system, despite its elaborate safeguards for the protection of the innocent.** This history weighs powerfully in the balance against extradition without assurances when fugitives are sought to be tried for murder by a retentionist state, however similar in other respects to our own legal system.

... A review of the factors for and against unconditional extradition therefore leads to the conclusion that assurances are constitutionally required in all but exceptional cases. This case does not present the exceptional circumstances that must be shown. A balance which tilted in favour of extradition without assurances in Kindler and Ng now tilts against the constitutionality of such an outcome.***

* The language is very poor here, since it is the exercise of the right, not the right itself, that will be taken away; life, not the right to life. The headnote writer, rather than the Court, is to blame, since the decision itself actually says: "It is evident that the respondents are deprived of their liberty and security of the person by the extradition order: ... Their lives are potentially at risk. The issue is whether the threatened deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." Once again, I am right.

** Starting at para. 95 the Court reviews the famous Canadian trio of wrongful murder convictions: Marshall, Milgaard, Morin. Starting at para. 106 it reviews the application of the death penaltiy in the US.

*** This is the Court's subtle way of saying the previous two cases were bad decisions, and it isn't likely to find such exceptional circumstances in future, in my own opinion.


It would be interesting to see what your courts have said in constitutional challenges to the death penalty, wouldn't it??

Let's see whether you can find a court saying that a person convicted of murder has forfeited their right to life ... or their life ... you don't seem to be able to make up your mind which it is, but either one would do.

[iverglas]

20. why don't you try submitting this for grading?

Paragraph 9 (Paraphrase/Summary): The antisocial behavior that justifies imprisonment forfeits, not the right but its full exercise. Prisoners still have some liberty of action but their incarceration severely limits the exercise of that liberty.

Adler is conflating partial loss of liberty with full loss of liberty. As I pointed out above, full loss of liberty is impossible for conscious, living prisoners. The judge hasn’t sentenced them to full loss of liberty nor could she. But the liberty that they have lost was not in their possession—they had forfeited part of their right to liberty before being deprived of it.

Uh, no, grasshopper.

You are conflating liberty with the right to liberty.

Adler got it precisely right: the full EXERCISE of the right, and not the right, is denied.

It's so very bleeding simple.

If a prisoner lost the RIGHT to liberty, they could simply be thrown into the dungeon and left there for life.

What is inalienable is the RIGHT. No one may give up that right, and the right may not be taken away from anyone. It is inherent as well as inalienable, recall?

The exercise of the right may be restricted, in accordance with the requirements recognized for determining whether a restriction is legitimate and justified. Our exercise of our right to liberty is restricted the moment we walk out the door: the bylaws against jaywalking prohibit you from just proceeding on across the street.

This screed doesn't rise to the level of sophomoric. Maybe if you submitted it to a grade 11 teacher they would be impressed with your spelling skills.

I just can't help peeking a little farther ...

The death penalty does not take away the right to life. The state cannot take away the right to life, it can only take away life. If the state is operating legitimately, it can only take away life from someone who has already forfeited their life and any and all rights to it. To take the life of someone who has not forfeited that life is a human rights violation.

The mind boggles.

A state that imposes the death penalty, assuming that the state in question is one that recognizes fundamental human rights and operates under the rule of law, has determined that execution is a JUSTIFIED VIOLATION of the right to life.

The state has NOT, repeat: NOT, absolutely NOT somehow determined that the individual has forfeited the right to life, or forfeited their life, or whatever mumbo jumbo you are spitting around.

The mind really and truly boggles that an individual living in this century and exposed to / with access to all of the resources a literate person has could compose such godawful garbage.

[TPaine7]

28. Read the definition of "unalienable" and get some helpful adult to explain it to you.

I know your "mind" boggles; I'm not responsible for its capacity. Maybe someone kind and sane Canadian adult can explain it to you.

Imprisonment and execution are not "JUSTIFIED VIOLATION{s}" no matter how loudly you scream or stamp your foot. The justly convicted felon has no right to not be imprisoned. The justly convicted person in the electric chair has no right not to be executed. That is why the Supreme Court of the Unites States of America talks about RESTORATIONS of rights. That is also why the instant the Governor restores the death penalty prisoner's right to life, he can no longer be executed. It is not because his death penalty is no longer justified--and certainly not because of some BS having to do with a "justified violation." His execution cannot be carried out, not because he doesn't deserve it but because the right he forfeited has been restored.

Why don't you go explain to someone impressed by your hysterics that the 5th Amendment requires a person to flee their home when offered a deadly threat if they can safely do so, or that there is no right to self-defense?

[iverglas]

34. well I've already kind of asked

but I'll put it directly:

Your constitution doesn't contain the word "unalienable", or "inalienable". (Neither does mine, btw.)

I showed you what your constitution does say.

So what is the purpose of this thread anyhow?

The only thing I can take from it is that you are seeking to justify extra-judicial executions.

Have I got that right?

And if so, how do you get around that bit of your Bill of Rights that I quoted?

Your Declaration of Independence really doesn't come into any of this, from what I can see. Is it some kind of enforceable instrument?

[TPaine7]

37. Well you see iverglas, when I come to this place I am faced with appalling ignorance.

For example, see the quotes in post 36 below. One of them demonstrates this appalling ignorance. Can you pick out the offending post?

I am simply trying to dispel the darkness. I don't want honest people of good will to believe your drivel.

As to your imagining (or more likely pretending to imagine) that I am trying to justify extra-judicial "executions", extra-judicial killings that result from legitimate self-defense need no justification from me. But by all means, you keep up your pretense if it makes you feel good. You're probably fooling at least one person whose screen name isn't "iverglas."

[TPaine7]

36. Riddle me this, iverglas

Let's see if you can separate the wheat from the partially digested chaff.

Four of these quotes are from respected legal authorities who actually know or knew what they were talking about. One is from a blowhard sophist and is not worth a teaspoon of BS. (Real BS has a legitimate purpose—it can help plants grow.)

Main Entry: un•alien•able
Pronunciation: "&n-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: not alienable : INALIENABLE

Main Entry: alien•able
Pronunciation: 'Al-y&-n&-b&l, 'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: that may be changed over to another's ownership alienable interest in property> — alien•abil•i•ty /"Al-y&-n&-'bil-&-tE, "A-lE-&-/ noun

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Unalienable: incapable of being transferred.

…The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE.

Source: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.
Source: Blackstone

One of the core meanings of "inalienable" is "not subject to forfeiture", for fuck's sake.
Source: iverglass at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x447511#448831

Can you tell which quote is worthless and based in profound ignorance?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

65. Sure, why not? Her Sophisty has a busy schedule, and hasn't been able to take the time to reply.

Even if you give your kind assistance, Her Sophistry can still stop in later and deliver her definitive line of bull.

Be my guest.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

88. Not quite. You didn't do it the proper way.

I know this for certain, since you arrived at the correct answer.

I know that iverglas would never arrive at the correct answer, at least to this question. Beyond that, Her Sophistry's ways are exceedingly hard to predict. It takes tremendous skill to predict the twisted path that iverglas will take to an incorrect answer, and which of the wrong answers (if any) will be selected.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that Her Sophistry's answer in this case is that the question does not exist!

Devious but effective, don't you think?

[oneshooter]

89. Perhaps to herself. I have had her on ignore for the last six months or so.

I find that it makes the forum much more readable and pleasant. Besides I can gather what is said by the replies of saner posters. Thank you for letting me play the game, I won, but in doing so I lost.
Such is life.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

106. read the rules lately, Mr Turd?

[TPaine7]

38. "It is inherent as well as inalienable, recall?"

What is inalienable is the RIGHT. No one may give up that right, and the right may not be taken away from anyone. It is inherent as well as inalienable, recall?

Where should I recall that from, iverglas? It isn't in the Declaration. It isn't in any of my quotations. Are you trying to foist some "international" BS on me, some document signed by dictators, warlords and Canadians?

I see you iverglas.

[iverglas]

42. Eleanor Roosevelt ...

dictator, warlord or Canadian?

http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm

[TPaine7]

45. Was Eleanor Roosevelt the only signer? Wow, iverglas.

Even if she was the only signer, what has that to do with your discredited BS? I have never debated Eleanor Roosevelt's writings with you.

Why do you always try to change the subject?

[iverglas]

48. quelle abject ignorance

You didn't even try to read the link I provided, did you?

Do individuals usually sign instruments produced under the auspices of the United Nations?

Yeesh. When is the actual education in law going to start? Or have you settled on computer repair?

Eleanor Roosevelt, for anyone in the vicinity without a clue, was one of the prime movers -- some might say the prime mover -- behind the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN.

Of course it must be admitted ... the first draft was indeed written by a Canadian.

Snork.

[TPaine7]

53. Good for you!

I am right on the subject under discussion. Your arguments on the subject at hand lie in pieces at my feet.

Your are (for the sake of discussion only) correct on Eleanor Roosevelt's contribution to an instrument "produced under the auspices of the United Nations."

I hope you are very impressed with yourself.

You are ignorant on what you loudly proclaim to anyone unfortunate enough to listen. You are ignorant on what you followed me around like a lost puppy asking me to acknowledge--the subject of your ignorant and uncouth rantings. You are ignorant on what you claim expertise in.

I am (according to you) ignorant on something I haven't made a statement on yet. We're all ignorant on something, iverglas. People like me, who are not ignorant on things we loudly and persistently proclaim, have the advantage of not being fools as well.

Congratulations on your alleged knowledge of Eleanor Roosevelt's contributions.

Good for you!

[iverglas]

55. so we are agreed

This thread was a call-out.

You are ignorant on what you followed me around like a lost puppy asking me to acknowledge--the subject of your ignorant and uncouth rantings.

And the subject of this thread -- your OP being a reply to the post of mine that you refused for so long to reply to:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=447511&mesg_id=448831
-- is actually my post in that thread.

Since you'd never heard of Mortimer J Adler before (no more had I), the sudden appearance of the opening post here, consisting of your attempt to refute the content of the article to which I referred you,
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/law111/AdlerInalienableRights.htm
which you had plainly never seen before, is no coincidence at all.

That was what I had already concluded, of course. Thanks.

[TPaine7]

57. The fact that you followed me around like a puppy doesn't make this thread a call out

no matter how devoutly you wish it did.

Since you'd never heard of Mortimer J Adler before (no more had I), the sudden appearance of the opening post here, consisting of your attempt to refute the content of the article to which I referred you,
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/law111/AdlerInalienab...
which you had plainly never seen before, is no coincidence at all.

You have no earthly idea whether I first heard of this from you, but you go ahead with your manufactured facts. Take them to the mods if you wish--I know you like to take things to the mods and even call them out when they don't follow your attempted orders.

Why not try being honest, for a change? In Canadian legal cases, is it common to assert "facts" about your opponent that are mere speculation? Are manufactured, convenient "facts" admissible in court? Do you think the mods here are silly enough to be impressed by your "facts?"

Even if they are, it won't affect reality. And it won't make your clueless positions about "inalienable rights" valid, either.

[iverglas]

54. for your further education

You really don't know Jack about the 20th century, do you?

http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html

Q: Who are the signatories of the Declaration?

A: Since the Declaration is not legally binding technically, there are no signatories to the Declaration. Instead, the Declaration was ratified through a proclamation by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions. This was considered a triumph as the vote unified very diverse, even conflicting political regimes.

Now, speaking of dictators, warlords and Canadians, who signed and who abstained?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions (all Soviet Bloc states <i.e., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine and The USSR>,Yugoslavia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia).<10>

The following countries voted in favour of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Nice bedmates, TP.

[TPaine7]

58. Yawn. Yes, iverglas, that's the real subject of this thread. I'm bored now. n/t

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

39. so just how do you feel, Mr TP

about dissent being deleted from your threads?

Smug, is my bet. Smug being your overriding characteristic, to all appearances.

[SteveM]

40. What/who caused "dissent being deleted?" Paine?

[iverglas]

43. are you he?

Did you answer my question?

[SteveM]

47. As you know, I don't have that power. Others do...

Perhaps they acted on what they read in YOUR post? I believe that is the standard procedure around here.

[TPaine7]

49. Less like taking candy from a baby and more like taking a bunny from a baby rattlesnake

I'm not smug, iverglas. Far from it. I'm alternately bored, tired and sad. Sometimes I almost feel guilty.

Why would I feel smug about refuting the BS that passes for logic under the Field?

It actually helps my cause to have the clueless rantings and vulgar insults of the rights opponents stay posted for all to read. Why do you think I quote your words so often?

But I don't feel smug or especially smart for refuting erudite and nuanced assertions like "there is no right to self-defense... duh" or the learned claim that inalienable means "'not subject to forfeiture', for fucks sake." Refuting your drivel actually makes me feel bad sometimes; it seems like stealing candy from a baby. But then I recall that you're opposing the human rights of people in another country and realize that it's more like taking a bunny from a baby rattlesnake. After all, there are innocent people who might actually be impressed by your self-important, smug, pseudo-intellectual bluster.

I'm quite humble, actually. Buffing my floor to a high sheen with your "arguments" is not exactly an accomplishment. I honestly think I could have done it in Jr. HS, so how could I possibly be impressed with the fact that I can do it now?! If I were arrogant, I might make myself some glorious title. You know, something like...

The God of Truth and Beauty

(Or The God of Truth and Manly Good Looks--you get the idea.)

[iverglas]

52. and you think Eleanor Roosevelt signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Wait for it .......




















SNORK.

[TPaine7]

56. Wow. You've got me there, iverglas.

I guess I did, not that I gave it much thought.

So what?

Show me where I followed you from thread to thread, trying to goad you into answering my post on Eleanor Roosevelt's connection to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would you? Show me where, after my argument about her was demolished, I stubbornly refused to admit it, would you?

(That last one will be tough, since I admitted it in the first two sentences of this post, but I have learned not to underestimate Your Sophistry.)

You see, iverglas, I can gladly admit when I'm wrong. This is due to a severe character flaw of mine:

in·teg·ri·ty
    Show IPA
noun
1.
adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

Read the OP slowly and carefully. Get help if you need it. If you understand it and agree (not screaming, "It's INALIENABLE, can't you F***ing read" and the like will probably help your reading comprehension) why not try admitting it? In a post? Why not try out that integrity stuff for yourself? Just for a change of pace?

(Bonus: People who acknowledge their errors tend to remember the lessons and don't look as stupid in the future. For example, in a year, you might not be caught spouting the same "'inalienable' means not subject to forfeiture" BS and have to be redirected to this thread, whereupon you will promptly "not care.")

Seriously, think about it. Integrity (probably) won't kill you.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

41. Inalienable rights

Inalienable rights only have significance at the very genesis of the establishment of government and then, only in/under the type of government founded on the following principles:

a) all power is derived from the people
b) government possesses only the limited powers specifically conferred (surrendered) to it, by the people.
c) there exist certain powers over one's self that are too important to ever be surrendered (un/inalienable).
d) no legitimate government (one established to protect the rights of the people) would accept the surrender of those powers if offered.

Inalienable rights are not universal, they do not exist for everyone everywhere so there are no inalienable rights under other forms of government and there are no inalienable rights in the coercive interactions of individuals (i.e., criminal acts or master/slave). . .

No matter what you believe, the term, "inalienable rights" only has meaning if a governing authority is being created to NOT surrender rights / powers to.

There is a dilemma involved here though, the protection of inalienable rights is not something that government can legitimately do. To argue that one would need to ignore on one hand that those rights are deemed inalienable but can on the other hand, be in the care and protection of government. To me, the only "enforcer" of inalienable rights is the people, because no authority whatsoever over those particular rights was ever surrendered by them; that is after all the definition of the term!

I believe that whatever governmental "protection" that could be said to exist is simply an unavoidable outcome of government honoring the limits of power inherent in our Constitution. The "protection" of inalienable rights is facilitated by government inaction, not action. In the end, the enforcement by the people of their inalienable rights is based in the people's original right to rescind their consent to be governed. When government violates the principles of its establishment, it simply loses its legitimacy to govern and can be abolished (with violence if necessary, see 2nd Amendment).

[iverglas]

44. and the voice of the liberal

was heard throughout the land.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

46. So

a 32 yr union member Democrat can't honor and adhere to the founding principles of the USA?

I thought the founders were liberals? Are you saying that's wrong?

Right-wingers were they?

I note there is not a syllable of actual rebuttal in your reply.

Hmmmmmm.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

66. Thank you for this post.

Well stated.

[TPaine7]

86. And thank you for your kind words.

[Euromutt]

102. That line from the Declaration is emotionally stirring, but rationally complete garbage

This one, to be perfectly clear:

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.

The rub lies in that first clause, "we hold these truths to be self-evident." While at first blush quite compelling, closer examination reveals there's no reasoned argument behind it; it's simply unsupported assertion ("it's true because I say it is"), and invites the Mandy Rhys Davies response (that being "Well, he would, wouldn't he?").

It's not that I don't think human beings have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that no other sentient being has the right to deprive them of; I do, but I base that idea on the "Negative Golden Rule" (as formulated by, among others, Confucius and Rabbi Hillel) that one should not do unto others as one would not have others do unto oneself. That is, in my belief, the foundation of human rights: that nobody has the right to impose upon others something that they would want to not have imposed upon themselves. You'll notice that anyone who has defended, or still does defend, something of the sort has to resort to special pleading to create an exemption for themselves (e.g. "no, I wouldn't want have Shariah imposed on me, but I adhere to the One True Faith, so it's okay for me to force that on other people" or "no I don't want to be a slave, but blacks/Slavs/non-monotheists are different and inferior").

[TPaine7]

103. Fascinating.

You're one of the minds I most respect on this board, and I couldn't disagree more. That probably means I'm about to have my POV challenged. I'm intrigued.

First, I would argue that all belief systems must have axiomatic or self-evident foundations that cannot themselves be supported by deeper evidence. No human can answer an infinite series of whys. There is always an end, and when you reach that end, there is no reasoned argument behind it.

Second, I would argue that special pleading is not necessary to believe that I should be able to wrong others and oppose others wronging me. You can get there straightforwardly from the idea that the crushing of the weaker by the stronger is the nature of reality--survival of the fittest--and has the pleasant side-effect of reducing the passage of defective genes. As a simple example, if all people who manifested a given genetic defect were killed, that gene would be far less prevalent in successive generations. If the genetic predisposition for stupidity, poor health, nearsightedness, and other "inferiority" was suppressed by the repression, reproductive disadvantaging and even killing of those who manifested these traits, the genes responsible would become less prevalent in the population. Hitler, IIRC, made an argument much like this in Mein Kamph.

Hitler's argument may be morally repugnant and depraved, but it is not, IMO, special pleading.

It's all a matter of premises--the axioms of the moral system. Without the right premises, the Golden Rule and the Negative Golden Rule are themselves special pleading. If, for instance, I do not accept the (self-evident or axiomatic) premise that I am awake, it is hard to see how either rule has any moral authority--even if I accept conventional morality. If I am dreaming or in an elaborate simulation, my failure to treat others fairly has no consequences. And I know of no way to prove that I am not having a very vivid dream or living in an incredible simulation--except for the reality of this reality being self-evident to my deepest intuition.

One more thing. On your Sharia comment, while I agree with you, I recognize that I can only agree because our premises are similar enough. If both of us saw a man trying to stab a child, we would try to stop him. If, as we were stopping him, he explained that he had to ventilate the child's heart to save his life, we would not be impressed. You see, we live in the ONE TRUE REALITY--the one in which puncturing the heart is not beneficial.

[Euromutt]

105. Well, this one of those situations where we can disagree about the "why"...

... without disagreeing about the "what."

It's worth noting that "axiomatic" and "self-evident" are not wholly interchangeable: any concept that is self-evident is ipso facto axiomatic, but there are axioms that are simply a premise that cannot be demonstrated, but "feels right," if you will. For example, the equation "2 + 2 = 4" is self-evident (taking it as read that the values of the terms "2" and "4" are understood by convention), but the notion that "all men are created equal" is, I concede, an unprovable premise. Actually, it's arguably demonstrably false--some people are, after all, born with the genetic disposition to be stronger, faster, smarter, etc. than others--but I think we can agree on the basis of evidence that such superiority is not derived from being descended from a guy who rose to power being he was the most ambitious, ruthless and outright vicious son of a bitch in the valley, and when you get right down to it, that's what "nobility" and "royalty" are.

And when it comes to Nazi theory on genetics etc., you bet there was a ton of special pleading involved; look no further than Heinrich Himmler to see an example of one "genetically predisposed" to physical inferiority, nearsightedness, not to mention a lifelong propensity for back-stabbing his associates, who nevertheless held the post of Reichsfuehrer-SS from 1929 onwards instead of being gassed as the supposedly inferior specimen he was (by Nazi standards). That's Exhibit A; Exhibit B is Jesse Owens. If the Nazis had honestly believed their own bullshit rhetoric, they should have subjected it some serious review after the 1936 Olympics, but instead they clung to their prejudicial beliefs, empirical evidence to the contrary be damned.

Now, I have to concede that there is nothing logically incorrect about hypocrisy. The very fact that "the pot calling the kettle black" is, in logical rhetoric, a tu quoque fallacy should be sufficient evidence of that. Actually, let me qualify that: the fact that the the pot is also black has no bearing on the veracity of the claim that the kettle is black, and that's as far as the fallacy goes. If the pot claims to be morally superior to the kettle on the basis that the kettle is soot-stained, when it's patently obvious that the pot is no less soot-stained than the kettle, it's not fallacious to point that out.

The long and short of it is that I grant you most of your points, but I think it would have been a stronger wording if Jefferson had simply written "we hold it to be true that all men are created equal" etc. thereby honestly stating upfront that that position is taken as axiomatic, rather than appealing to some non-existent self-evidence.

[TPaine7]

104. I also believe there is a much more direct argument against your position.

It seems to me that the Negative Golden Rule has, as it's own self-evident premises, the same principles as the Declaration:

1) You have rights--you are deserving of not having certain things done to you by other people (or sentient beings)
2) Other people are equal to you in some essential way

If the first premise were not true, you would have no justification for insisting that others avoid treating you in certain ways. If the second were not true, there would be no rational reason for not treating others as you would not want to be treated.

Thus I would argue that the Negative Golden Rule has the same self-evident bedrock as the Declaration.