Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution does not GRANT or GIVE *any* rights to *anyone*.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a complete falsity that has been repeated often on this forum.

Tell me which of these rights you would have without the Constitutional provisions granting them:
*The right to not have troups quartered in your house

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a right. And the constitution doesn't claim it is. And it doesn't grant it. It just says the government can't violate your (pre-existing!) property rights in this particular manner.

[ QUOTE ]
*The right to a warrant based on probable cause before your person, house, papers, or effects can be searched

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, try reading. The 4th amendment says your property rights "shall not be violated," it doesn't GRANT or create the right.

[ QUOTE ]
*The right to a grand jury indictment before prosecution for a federal crime
*The right to not be compelled to testify against yourself
*The right to not be tried twice for the same crime
*The right to a jury trial
*The right to a speedy trial
*The right to a public trial
*The right to a jury trial in civil cases valued over $20

[/ QUOTE ]

These aren't "rights" in any meaningful sense - they're more along the lines of comforts the government promises. Like a cigarette before your execution.

I guess you could make a case for "creation" of these rights. Like you would be creating a "right" by allowing a prisoner the "right" to choose between an orange jumpsuit and a blue one.

But again, the wording indicates that these types of things are actually pre-existing rights:

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"

Not granted.

[ QUOTE ]
*The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. This is a LIMITATION on GOVERNMENT POWER, not a grant of a right.

etc.

Short answer: humans have all of those rights regardless of what some piece of paper says. And from another viewpoint, they have none of those rights, because they aren't rights.

If you think the constitution actually GRANTS those rights, please quote the relevant passages and explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

The long and the short of it is that you believe you would have any of these "RIGHTS" absent the Constitution. I am genuinely curious where some of the more specific rights would come from (jury trial). Do you have a natural right to a trial by jury in criminal cases??? Even if you believe that they were pre-existing rights, the Constitution still grants you the right not to have them taken away (but for the Amendment process.) Assume for a moment that you had a pre-existing right to a trial by jury in a civil case where the amount in controversy was over $20 (don't know if this is the case or not) --- in a common law system that right could go away simply by a court no longer recognizing it. Once enshrined in the Constitution you have the right to the protections of the Constitution for that (allegedly) pre-existing right --- protections which are much greater than those existing in common law or by tradition.

[ QUOTE ]
Short answer: humans have all of those rights regardless of what some piece of paper says. And from another viewpoint, they have none of those rights, because they aren't rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

Assert, assert, assert your way to victory (to quote a philosopher I know.)

How do you define "right" so as to not include the right to a trial by jury?

Curious what you think about the right to be a citizen of the US at birth granted in the 14th Amendment?

[ QUOTE ]
[re: the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment] This is a LIMITATION on GOVERNMENT POWER, not a grant of a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is (and can be) both.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I am genuinely curious where some of the more specific rights would come from (jury trial). Do you have a natural right to a trial by jury in criminal cases???

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you didn't actually read my response, just like you didn't actually read the constitution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am genuinely curious where some of the more specific rights would come from (jury trial). Do you have a natural right to a trial by jury in criminal cases???

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you didn't actually read my response, just like you didn't actually read the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read your reply (and I've glanced over the Constitution a few times in the past.) In your reply, you sound like you want to change the meaning of "right" to fit your particularly ideology. You specifically say with regard to the various jury/trial rights "These aren't "rights" in any meaningful sense - they're more along the lines of comforts the government promises." I guess if you specifically exclude those rights that the government promises from your definition of "rights", then you are correct (by a simple truism) that the Constitution doesn't grant any rights.

Of course, that limitation on the definition isn't a commonly accepted one, though I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Still curious about the right to citizenship if born in the US (probably outside of your definition of "right" anyway.) Right to vote -- how about that one?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Still curious about the right to citizenship if born in the US (probably outside of your definition of "right" anyway.) Right to vote -- how about that one?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that there are two different meanings of the word "right".

A right of self-ownership, or to self-defense, or to property is not a right that can be granted by anyone.

The right to eat a particular cheeseburger (which is really just a *manifestation* of property rights) IS something that a legitimate property owner can bestow upon another.

Most of the time when we talk about rights in a political sense, we're talking about the first type.

I can grant you the (type 2) "right" to use my Xbox. I can't grant you a (type 1) right to use Xboxes in general.

I already allowed that the Constitution purports to grant some of these "made up" type 2 rights.

Do you think the "right" to be a member of my personal Michael Jackson Fan Club is a "right" which is interesting to discuss?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
A right of self-ownership, or to self-defense, or to property is not a right that can be granted by anyone.

The right to eat a particular cheeseburger (which is really just a *manifestation* of property rights) IS something that a legitimate property owner can bestow upon another.

Most of the time when we talk about rights in a political sense, we're talking about the first type

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Most of the time "we" are not talking about the first type, because when "we" do, we use more precise language like "natural rights" to distinguish them from the other type of rights that people talk about all the time (like the right to a jury trial, for example.) If you want to say that the Constitution didn't grant anyone any "natural rights" I don't think I'd disagree. When you use the less precise term "rights" then I think you are simply wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I already allowed that the Constitution purports to grant some of these "made up" type 2 rights.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really need to be more precise in your language then. If, when you get on your high horse about "rights", you should really use the term "natural rights."

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the "right" to be a member of my personal Michael Jackson Fan Club is a "right" which is interesting to discuss?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that particular right, no. I think the right to free association is, though (which is the underlying right). I do think the right to a speedy trial by jury is interesting. I think the right to vote is interesting to talk about. I think the right to citizenship, the right to be free from cruel punishment, the right to be counted for representation, the right to free travel are all interesting.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the 9th amendment, so put all the pieces together for me. How does the 9th amendment protect our "right to smoke"? I understand the 9th amendment to protect citizens from being denied fundamental rights simply because they were not enumerated in the constitution. But how is smoking a fundamental right protected by the 9th amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 9th amendment does not protect a right to smoke, because there is no fundamental right to smoke!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is certainly a right to put anything into my body I want to put into it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There is certainly a right to put anything into my body I want to put into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of, but it is not a distinct right. You have a property right in your body (self ownership). You don't NEED a RIGHT to put stuff in your body, because nobody has any right to stop you.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am genuinely curious where some of the more specific rights would come from (jury trial). Do you have a natural right to a trial by jury in criminal cases???

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you didn't actually read my response, just like you didn't actually read the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read your reply (and I've glanced over the Constitution a few times in the past.) In your reply, you sound like you want to change the meaning of "right" to fit your particularly ideology. You specifically say with regard to the various jury/trial rights "These aren't "rights" in any meaningful sense - they're more along the lines of comforts the government promises." I guess if you specifically exclude those rights that the government promises from your definition of "rights", then you are correct (by a simple truism) that the Constitution doesn't grant any rights.

Of course, that limitation on the definition isn't a commonly accepted one, though I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Still curious about the right to citizenship if born in the US (probably outside of your definition of "right" anyway.) Right to vote -- how about that one?

[/ QUOTE ]

The right to vote isn't granted by the government or the Constitution, it is logically derived from other more basic rights, like the right of self-ownership, combined with the reality of democracy. The fact that certain people were not able to EXPRESS this right that they ALWAYS HAD is not evidence that the government gave them this right. The government just eventually put two and two together and realized they had to write it down so other people didn't forget.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The right to vote isn't granted by the government or the Constitution, it is logically derived from other more basic rights, like the right of self-ownership, combined with the reality of democracy. The fact that certain people were not able to EXPRESS this right that they ALWAYS HAD is not evidence that the government gave them this right. The government just eventually put two and two together and realized they had to write it down so other people didn't forget.



[/ QUOTE ]

The book, “Lies my Teacher Told Me,” illustrated the partial myth of female suffrage. Prior to the constitutional amendment, States regulated who could and could not vote. Several states, such as (I believe) New Jersey always allowed women the right to vote. But even though other states didn’t give women the express right to vote, several recorded times in history, property owning women entered the voting booth, not once is there a record that such women were ever turned away.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am genuinely curious where some of the more specific rights would come from (jury trial). Do you have a natural right to a trial by jury in criminal cases???

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you didn't actually read my response, just like you didn't actually read the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read your reply (and I've glanced over the Constitution a few times in the past.) In your reply, you sound like you want to change the meaning of "right" to fit your particularly ideology. You specifically say with regard to the various jury/trial rights "These aren't "rights" in any meaningful sense - they're more along the lines of comforts the government promises." I guess if you specifically exclude those rights that the government promises from your definition of "rights", then you are correct (by a simple truism) that the Constitution doesn't grant any rights.

Of course, that limitation on the definition isn't a commonly accepted one, though I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Still curious about the right to citizenship if born in the US (probably outside of your definition of "right" anyway.) Right to vote -- how about that one?

[/ QUOTE ]

The right to vote isn't granted by the government or the Constitution, it is logically derived from other more basic rights, like the right of self-ownership, combined with the reality of democracy. The fact that certain people were not able to EXPRESS this right that they ALWAYS HAD is not evidence that the government gave them this right. The government just eventually put two and two together and realized they had to write it down so other people didn't forget.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the right to vote may or may not be based on another right does not diminish its value and character as an independent right. Again, we have a different word for the concept you are getting at --- "natural rights." Natural Rights are a subset of Rights. Don't bastardize the definition of the word to try to make some point just because it happens to fit your ideology. But for the Constitution there are several rights that you have today that you wouldn't have tomorrow. I have listed several (including the right to vote.) You might very well have the right of self-ownership, but without the Constitution you wouldn't have the specific right to vote. You wouldn't have the specific right to a jury trial. You wouldn't have the specific right to citizenship when you are born in the United States.