On 2017-03-21 09:58, Disaster Master wrote:
On 3/20/2017, 10:08:34 PM, Wolf K. <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-03-20 13:14, Disaster Master wrote:
It (mostly in the Amendments) is also a powerful list of things the
government can NOT do with respect to violations of our Rights to Life,
Liberty and Property (they should have left it like that instead of
changing it to the more esoteric 'pursuit of happiness' nonsense).
That's not in the Constitution.
I didn't actually say it was now did I?
The Declaration of Independence however does start like this:
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.
Nothing about the right to Property there.
No, but it was in an earlier draft. As I said, they should have LEFT IT
THERE, which means it was there at one point, but it was changed
You might try reading the documents that actually make it very clear
what all of the words in the Constitution mean, as well as the intent of
the different pieces. The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers,
Elliot's Debates, etc... very eye opening, and will quickly reveal just
how far down the Statist rabbit hole we have gone.
The government has the right to take private property for public purposes,
That isn't a right, it is a power, there is a bug difference.
The Constitution says otherwise, since everything it names is a right.
Implementation of a right requires law (hence the reference to "due
process"), and enforcement requires power. That power is, in the US
context, granted by the People, not by some god. So your harping on the
power of the gun comes down to your dislike of the fact that other
people share the planet with you. Sartre knew the effect of that, which
is why I quoted him.
Like almost all the powers and rights of the US Government (including
those of the States), eminent domain derives from the powers and rights
of the Crown. The founders had only that model of a working government,
plus some theories about how gov't should work (based on their
understanding of Roman history, etc). They argued and horse-traded, as
people are wont to do, and came up the the Constitution. It's a flawed
document, but it's all you've got. Complaining that it doesn't meet your
standards is useless. Piss or get off the pot.
You probably have no problem with the asset forfeiture laws either. They
are, after all, laws duly passed by your God Government.
No, I don't like them at all (we have similar laws in Canada). But
unlike you, I accept that government, flawed and messy and inefficient
as it is, is better than no government. It is a human construct, after
all. And it's my duty to do what I can to make it better. Maundering on
about how you can't stand it is of no help at all.
"What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
general mailing list