Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there people who argued that NO women had the right to vote prior to the Constitutional Amendment? I haven't seen it.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there people who argued that NO women had the right to vote prior to the Constitutional Amendment? I haven't seen it.



[/ QUOTE ] Well, evidently, according to the book, the same teachers who were teaching that folks in the old days thought the earth was flat were teaching that no women had the right to vote. I can't remember what I was taught about women's suffrage. But I did find that book interesting. It'd be interesting to check out the exact wording in an old high school textbook. ( the myth about the earth being flat, by the way, was all started with a fictional book written by Washington Irving in which the hero, Colombus was the only living person who reckoned the earth was round - completely fabricated, but people took off with it from there. Same guy that wrote the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. )

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that the federal government doesn't have the ability to stop one, as its not provided in the Constitution. And lets be clear we are talking about what can and can't be done, according to the constitution, not this ideolgical discussion you and Elwood were having. You said stop basing statements on the constitution, but it is the degree of law which we live by; it is all that matters in a legal discussion.

And as such, I would look at the 10th amendment which to me would indicate a local government does have the ability to pass a law like the one passed in (Belmont?), California, without violating any of the limits on government stated in the Constitution.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But thats exactly my point. Even without the Constitution, I would absolutely have the right to vote (given the reality of democracy). There might be those who would infringe on that right, but just because someone rapes me does not mean I do not have the right to self-ownership. If the Constitution had never been amended to include universal suffrage I would still have that right. It follows logically from my other rights. The government would simply not RECOGNIZE the right that I do, in fact, still have.

Thats the whole point of discussions like these. The legislature could get together tomorrow and pass twenty new amendments to the Constitution, taking away and granting me any sort of arbitrary rights they happened to think were clever. But when I wake up, I do not have any more or less rights than I do right now. Some of the rights I currently have might get trampled on, and the government might start recognizing rights that I've had all along, but the number of rights I currently have is not contingent on the United States government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats the whole point of discussions like these. The legislature could get together tomorrow and pass twenty new amendments to the Constitution, taking away and granting me any sort of arbitrary rights they happened to think were clever. But when I wake up, I do not have any more or less rights than I do right now. Some of the rights I currently have might get trampled on, and the government might start recognizing rights that I've had all along, but the number of rights I currently have is not contingent on the United States government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding.

Further, the specific words chosen in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and please, let's not even for a minute pretend that these words were casually chosen) indicate that the authors specifically agreed with this particular point of view. The constitution only mentions RIGHTS as possessions of INDIVIDUALS, never as possessed by states. And it's clear that the rights *recognized* therein are rights that the document forbids the government from violating, not rights that it is bestowing upon some chosen recipients.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But thats exactly my point. Even without the Constitution, I would absolutely have the right to vote (given the reality of democracy). There might be those who would infringe on that right, but just because someone rapes me does not mean I do not have the right to self-ownership. If the Constitution had never been amended to include universal suffrage I would still have that right. It follows logically from my other rights. The government would simply not RECOGNIZE the right that I do, in fact, still have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's put it this way. There are two concepts: Right and Natural Right. Is your definition of the former any different than the latter? If so, in what ways. Bonus points: name 1 right (derived from anywhere) that is not a natural right.

My suspicion is that you desperately want the word "right" to be narrower than the commonly used/dictionary definition of the term.


Forget for a moment the right to vote. How about the right to a jury trial or the right to citizenship at birth. Are you suggesting that absent the Constitution, you would absolutely have the right to a jury trial??