Sacrifice for a Better America ?

[Camille Eonich]

As an American citizen, what right(s), as guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, would you be willing to sacrifice to create a better America? And can you justify abolishing said right(s) for yourself and the nation as a whole and how would it make our nation better?

As an American citizen, it's my opinion that abolishing any of those rights would only degrade the nation as a whole.  No, I don't have any facts to back up my opinion...

[PJ Hardtack]

Camille

You don't need facts beyond history ....

Sacrificing individual rights for the collective good is merely a way of stripping them away. Governments are fond of saying that collective rights trump individual rights, but that winds up by stripping away collective rights as well.

Liberal/nanny states are socialist by nature. 'They' know what is best for you, how best to raise your children, etc., etc.

"It takes a village to raise a child."  Bill Clinton  What he meant was "... to raise the village idiot ..."

"The difference between a welfare state and an authoritarian state is just a matter of time."   Ayn Rand

[Bugscuffle]

Au contraire Mr. PJ. Sacraficing individual "rights" IS sometimes good for the collective. Even today we occasionally hear of some idiot claiming that racial predjudice is a right protected under the freedom of speech clause of the First Ammendment. Does sacrificing a womans right to choose justify the criminalization of abortion, or more accurately making abortion unavailable? Abortion in this country IS LEGAL. Remember Roe Vs. Wade? Is defunding Planned Parenthood an organization that provides breast cancer screenings and cancer screenings and contraceptives to hundreds of thousands of low income women in both Texas and Arizona justified because some people disagree with abortion which is only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does and none of the funding that is being disallowed goes toward abortion services? Did the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments abrogate a persons "right" to own slaves? At that time some people thought so.

Camille

You don't need facts beyond history ....

Sacrificing individual rights for the collective good is merely a way of stripping them away. Governments are fond of saying that collective rights trump individual rights, but that winds up by stripping away collective rights as well.

Liberal/nanny states are socialist by nature. 'They' know what is best for you, how best to raise your children, etc., etc.

"It takes a village to raise a child."  Bill Clinton  What he meant was "... to raise the village idiot ..."

"The difference between a welfare state and an authoritarian state is just a matter of time."   Ayn Rand

[Gen Lew Wallace]

Being a 20 year USAF retiree I would immediately say NONE.  I served to defend and protect them.  Give up one and the rest are soon to go.

[PJ Hardtack]

Ah, the voice of the politically correct left speaks ....

I think I'll go have an objective discussion with the dog .....

[Forty Rod]

Au contraire Mr. PJ. Sacraficing individual "rights" IS sometimes good for the collective. Even today we occasionally hear of some idiot claiming that racial predjudice is a right protected under the freedom of speech clause of the First Ammendment. Does sacrificing a womans right to choose justify the criminalization of abortion, or more accurately making abortion unavailable? Abortion in this country IS LEGAL. Remember Roe Vs. Wade? Is defunding Planned Parenthood an organization that provides breast cancer screenings and cancer screenings and contraceptives to hundreds of thousands of low income women in both Texas and Arizona justified because some people disagree with abortion which is only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does and none of the funding that is being disallowed goes toward abortion services? Did the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments abrogate a persons "right" to own slaves? At that time some people thought so.

Bugs, your argument falls apart the second that someone else has to pay for those "rights" like abortion, cancer screening, etc.  I don't think it violates anyone's rights to insist that they pay their own way, but it damn sure violates MINE for the government to steal money from me to give to someone else to pay for rights that don't exist under the Constitution.

[Camille Eonich]

I have to agree, I don't think that just because something is legal that means that it is a right.  Some things are actually privileges such as drivers licenses and diriving.  Freedom of speech is a right and just because I don't agree with what someone else says doesn't mean that I want to take that right away.  Many people don't agree with what I say...oh now don't act surprised, oh say that was a look a look of amusement rather than surprise...but I still have the right to say it.  I'm not inciting any riots...not on purpose although...


well enough said I hope you get my point.

[Bugscuffle]

Bugs, your argument falls apart the second that someone else has to pay for those "rights" like abortion, cancer screening, etc.  I don't think it violates anyone's rights to insist that they pay their own way, but it damn sure violates MINE for the government to steal money from me to give to someone else to pay for rights that don't exist under the Constitution.

Roe Vs Wade was a Supreme Court Decision and the basis of that decision was "personal privacy". That IS a right guaranteed by the Fourth Ammendment of The Constitution. The cancer screenings that I referred to, as supplied by Planned Parenthood were given at taxpayer expense to low income women. Women that live at or below the poverty level and cannot afford them otherwise. Now tell me that you would deny poor women the protection of cancer screening. The only right that this "violates" in your case is your right to be mercilessly cheap. Abortions are NOT payed for or subsidized by taxpayer money. There are Federal Laws prohibiting that and they have been in affect for years.

[Forty Rod]

Roe Vs Wade was a Supreme Court Decision and the basis of that decision was "personal privacy". That IS a right guaranteed by the Fourth Ammendment of The Constitution. The cancer screenings that I referred to, as supplied by Planned Parenthood were given at taxpayer expense to low income women. Women that live at or below the poverty level and cannot afford them otherwise. Now tell me that you would deny poor women the protection of cancer screening. The only right that this "violates" in your case is your right to be mercilessly cheap. Abortions are NOT payed for or subsidized by taxpayer money. There are Federal Laws prohibiting that and they have been in affect for years.

I'll overlook your "mercilessly cheap" comment with only three short comments:

1. This is still MY money that is being confiscated under duress.

2.  I average over $4,000 a year in personal contributions (IN ADDITION TO TAXES) to charities that my wife and I select.

3. How I spend my money and on what is none of your damned business and it certainly isn't the governments place to select and force me to pay into their "charities", and I don't appreciate you claiming to know me nor anything about me.

[PJ Hardtack]

Yesterday Obama 'came out of the closet' in favour of gay marriage - not civil union, despite the fact that the majority of blacks are opposed to gay marriage and many states have the opposite view.

Is this a 'right', part and parcel of the pursuit of happiness as per the American dream?

It has the potential of being very divisive amongst his supporters, but does draw attention away from the economy, a topic of much more concern to many.

[Bugscuffle]

P.J., yes, P.J. thjis is a right. It is a civil right, and all civil rights ARE part and parcel to the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by our Constitution. Half of the population agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that it does not affect nor diminish heterosexual marriages in the least. It's an even split in the opinion polls. What we have here is a religious argument blocking a civil right. What difference does it make that the majority of blacks are opposed to gay marriage? Are you saying that because the President is black he should fall in line with the thinking of the majority of blacks? He is President of The United States, not President of the black part of the U.S. At one time the majority of whites opposed integration of schools, eliminating poll tax, litteracy testing for voting purposes, integration of restuaunts. But we eventually saw the true light and changed the way we lived.


John, Please see my responses below.

1. This is still MY money that is being confiscated under duress.

No, it is notyour money. Once it is collected as tax, it becomes the governments money. The government is spending that money trying to protect a portion of the population that is helpless in that they cannot afford the health care that Family Planning provides for free.

2.  I average over $4,000 a year in personal contributions (IN ADDITION TO TAXES) to charities that my wife and I select.

So what? What does that have to do with anything? And besides, your charitable contributions are tax deductible.

3. How I spend my money and on what is none of your damned business and it certainly isn't the governments place to select and force me to pay into their "charities", and I don't appreciate you claiming to know me nor anything about me.

I didn't say a word about how you spend your money. I said something about how the government spends its money. It is the governments place to determine who in this country needs additional help and then provide that help to them.

[Forty Rod]

P.J., yes, P.J. thjis is a right. It is a civil right, and all civil rights ARE part and parcel to the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed by our Constitution. Half of the population agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that it does not affect nor diminish heterosexual marriages in the least. It's an even split in the opinion polls. What we have here is a religious argument blocking a civil right. What difference does it make that the majority of blacks are opposed to gay marriage? Are you saying that because the President is black he should fall in line with the thinking of the majority of blacks? He is President of The United States, not President of the black part of the U.S. At one time the majority of whites opposed integration of schools, eliminating poll tax, litteracy testing for voting purposes, integration of restuaunts. But we eventually saw the true light and changed the way we lived.


John, Please see my responses below.

1. This is still MY money that is being confiscated under duress.

No, it is notyour money. Once it is collected as tax, UNDER DURESS, it becomes the governments money. The government is spending that money trying to protect a portion of the population that is helpless in that they cannot afford the health care that Family Planning provides for free.  IT IS NOT FREE. NOTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS EVER FREE!  I'M PAYING FOR IT.

IT IS MY MONEY TAKEN FROM ME IN AN ACT OF ARMED ROBBERY AND AGAINST MY WILL.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOTHING TO EARN NOR TO  DESERVE IT, AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOVERNMENT MONEY UNLESS THEY TAKE IT FROM PEOPLE UNDER DURESS!

2.  I average over $4,000 a year in personal contributions (IN ADDITION TO TAXES) to charities that my wife and I select.

So what? What does that have to do with anything? And besides, your charitable contributions are tax deductible.

THAT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT I AM FIGHTING THIS ROBBERY BECAUSE I AM CHEAP.  YES THEY ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE BUT I WOULD RATHER I DIDN'T HAVE TO DEDUCT THEM FROM MY TAXES AT ALL.  I'D RATHER KEEP MY MONEY AND SPEND IT AS I SEE FIT AND NOT HAVE TO DEDUCT A PORTION OF IT..

3. How I spend my money and on what is none of your damned business and it certainly isn't the governments place to select and force me to pay into their "charities", and I don't appreciate you claiming to know me nor anything about me.

I didn't say a word about how you spend your money. I said something about how the government spends its money. It is the governments place to determine who in this country needs additional help and then provide that help to them.

1. YOU DID SAY HOW I SHOULD SPEND MY MONEY BY SAYING IT'S RIGHT TO BE BENDING OVER AND LETTING THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THEIR WAY WITH IT.

2. NOWHERE CAN I FIND WHERE IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT NOR OBLIGATION TO TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR BASED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S "PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO...NEEDS ADDITIONAL HELP AND THEM PROVIDE THAT HELP TO THEM"
WHEN YOU MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT...OR ANY OTHE BS STATEMENT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S "PLACE" PROVE IT BY CITING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR IT.

Otherwise you're just another leftist blowhard pushing your agenda for conquest of everything that we have earned and fought for for a couple of hundred years with nothing to back up your contentions.

AND, by the way (and just a matter of pride)  MY NAME IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN "JOHN", JACK!!  IT'S TOM.

Guess I've overstayed my welcome on this subject.  Time to move on.

[Camille Eonich]

Speaking of civil rights reminds me of civil posts...let's keep them civil please.

[Bugscuffle]

Fory Rod, my sincerest apologies for having gotten your name wrong. Now, on to your reply.

IT IS MY MONEY TAKEN FROM ME IN AN ACT OF ARMED ROBBERY AND AGAINST MY WILL.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOTHING TO EARN NOR TO  DESERVE IT, AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOVERNMENT MONEY UNLESS THEY TAKE IT FROM PEOPLE UNDER DURESS!

Again, NO, it is not your money. please see The U.S. Constitution, Amendment Sixteen.  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/
Any one that fails to pay his/her just taxes or pays his or her taxes feeling that his/her money is being taken "under duress" is just plain unpatriotic. The government did "nothing" to earn it? You of course are joking?

THAT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT I AM FIGHTING THIS ROBBERY BECAUSE I AM CHEAP.  YES THEY ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE BUT I WOULD RATHER I DIDN'T HAVE TO DEDUCT THEM FROM MY TAXES AT ALL.  I'D RATHER KEEP MY MONEY AND SPEND IT AS I SEE FIT AND NOT HAVE TO DEDUCT A PORTION OF IT..

Sorry Pard, but that sounds pretty stingy to me.

1. YOU DID SAY HOW I SHOULD SPEND MY MONEY BY SAYING IT'S RIGHT TO BE BENDING OVER AND LETTING THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THEIR WAY WITH IT.


There is a big difference between telling you how to spend your money, which I did NOT do, and asking you to obey the law and pay your fair shared of taxes.



2. NOWHERE CAN I FIND WHERE IT IS WRITTEN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT NOR OBLIGATION TO TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR BASED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S "PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO...NEEDS ADDITIONAL HELP AND THEM PROVIDE THAT HELP TO THEM"
WHEN YOU MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT...OR ANY OTHE BS STATEMENT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S "PLACE" PROVE IT BY CITING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR IT.

Again i refer you to the Sixteenth Amendment to The Constitution of the U.S. As to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. Is that enough documentation for you?

[Camille Eonich]

The topic is

As an American citizen, what right(s), as guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, would you be willing to sacrifice to create a better America? And can you justify abolishing said right(s) for yourself and the nation as a whole and how would it make our nation better?

Head back that way.

[PJ Hardtack]

Lose the 2nd Amendment and the others simply don't matter - much.

Is firearms ownership an individual/collective right or not? Is it in the best interest of society and the common good if firearms of any type are banned?

[Bugscuffle]

O.K. Camile, I'll get back on track. My apologies to all for having taken this thread off on a tangent.

I would be very hesitant to "sacrifice" a right that I have under the Constitution to gain a percieved advantage in some other area. An Example of this would be to abrogate my right to keep and bear arms to gain a percieved amount of safety. That argument has already been shown to be spurious. I might waive a right such as my right to not self incriminate for an agreement with the prosecution for immunity from prosecution. But that would make for a better America only for me, not for everyone. It would be a very extreme situation where I would be willing to do away with a guaranteed right for a gain in another area that involved everyone. In fact, I cannot think of a situation where I would do that.

On a related note, Col Dan, whose opinions I very seldom agree with, wrote a very good article in the political section of The Cowboy Chronicle this month explaining very clearly that there are alienable, inalienable and unalienable rights and the differences among them. It is interesting to note that there are only three "rights" specifically listed in the Constitution that are unalienable, that is cannot be abridged or abrogated by anyone, including yourself. They are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The wording of the clause, however leaves ground to believe that there may be others. The clause reads, "among these are...". It does not limit them to these three and it does not list ny others as being unalienable. I suggest that you read this very interesting article to get the full meanings of these three  highly nuanced words. It is important that we know and understand them.

[Will Ketchum]

O.K. Camile, I'll get back on track. My apologies to all for having taken this thread off on a tangent.

I would be very hesitant to "sacrifice" a right that I have under the Constitution to gain a percieved advantage in some other area. An Example of this would be to abrogate my right to keep and bear arms to gain a percieved amount of safety. That argument has already been shown to be spurious. I might waive a right such as my right to not self incriminate for an agreement with the prosecution for immunity from prosecution. But that would make for a better America only for me, not for everyone. It would be a very extreme situation where I would be willing to do away with a guaranteed right for a gain in another area that involved everyone. In fact, I cannot think of a situation where I would do that.

On a related note, Col Dan, whose opinions I very seldom agree with, wrote a very good article in the political section of The Cowboy Chronicle this month explaining very clearly that there are alienable, inalienable and unalienable rights and the differences among them. It is interesting to note that there are only three "rights" specifically listed in the Constitution that are unalienable, that is cannot be abridged or abrogated by anyone, including yourself. They are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The wording of the clause, however leaves ground to believe that there may be others. The clause reads, "among these are...". It does not limit them to these three and it does not list ny others as being unalienable. I suggest that you read this very interesting article to get the full meanings of these three  highly nuanced words. It is important that we know and understand them.

Bugscuffle, I am astounded at your post.  It is well reasoned and stated and for once I find myself in agreement with you.  On the other hand, I find myself nearly always agreeing with Col. Dan

Will ketchum

[Stu Kettle]

I'm not a big col. Dan fan, a bit too paranoid for my taste but I just read the article that Bugscuffle quoted before I commented on the quote, which I suspected was incorrect.  I don't have my copy of Black,s here at home, but the online version confirmed my suspicion that Bugs accurately quoted Col. Dan's inaccurate "quote" from Black's. Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing.

[Bugscuffle]

I'm not a big col. Dan fan, a bit too paranoid for my taste but I just read the article that Bugscuffle quoted before I commented on the quote, which I suspected was incorrect.  I don't have my copy of Black,s here at home, but the online version confirmed my suspicion that Bugs accurately quoted Col. Dan's inaccurate "quote" from Black's. Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing.

Stu, You have beaten me at my own game and caught me with my pants down! I am somewhat known around these parts for taking people to task for not having properly researched their own claims and here you have done it to me in spades. I made the assumption that Col Dan's references to Black's law Dictionary were both researched and correct. Your brief search through the Internet has proven both his statements and my assumption to be WRONG!
vis a vis
Definition of ALIENABLE
Proper to be the subject of alienation or transfer.


Definition of INALIENABLE
Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers andpublic highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.

UNALIENABLE | Definition of UNALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
thelawdictionary.org
thelawdictionary.org/unalienable/

[Stu Kettle]

Bugscuffle,
I seldom agree with your political opines in these forums, but in this case I would defend your postition - you cited an article by Col. Dan in which he claimed to be citing his source.  Turns out what he said was not true and not what his source said.  On the other hand, what he said was exactly what you quoted him as saying.

[Bugscuffle]

Bugscuffle,
I seldom agree with your political opines in these forums, but in this case I would defend your postition - you cited an article by Col. Dan in which he claimed to be citing his source.  Turns out what he said was not true and not what his source said.  On the other hand, what he said was exactly what you quoted him as saying.

No doubt about it Stu. I did not do my due diligence and check the "facts" that I put forward. In doing so I spread the erroneous message that Col. Dan put out. I am as guilty of echoing falsehoods as some others are when extreemists on either side of any discussion blast out "facts" without first "fact checking" them. I can only apologize for my error, beg forgiveness and make an effort to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

[Bugscuffle]

One more quick reply and I'm out of here, before i get thrownout. The Constitution states that there are three unalienable rights, life librerty and the pursuit of happiness. It infers that there may be more in that it reads ".....among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say what others, if any, there are "among" these. All of the other rights are either alienable, can be waived by judgement or decree, such as giving immunity from prosecution in exchange for self incriminating evidence or testimony (fifth amendment guarantee) or inalienable, those that can be surrendered only with the permission of the person holding those rights. Rights such as freedom of speech. The article in The Cowboy Chronicle says this, but obfuscates the facts in such a way as to incite us to anger over a misconception and implies that all of our rights are really unalienable rights, not inalienable rights. That just isn't true. Again I am sorry for not researching this completely before posting, but it is a convoluted question and is easily misunderstood.

[ChuckBurrows]

The Constitution states that there are three unalienable rights, life librerty and the pursuit of happiness.

Check your facts - the Constitution says no such thing - that statement is the first sentence of the first paragraph of the second section of 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ......"

The Constitution states via the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

[Bugscuffle]

Check your facts - the Constitution says no such thing - that statement is the first sentence of the first paragraph of the second section of 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ......"

The Constitution states via the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

OH!! you got me, right in the breadbasket. You are exactly correct. It is in the Declaration of Independence and not in the Constitution. But then again it brings up a reasonable question. Which document is correct? If the right to life is UNLAIENABLE, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, The government cannot deprive a person of it irrespective of “due process”. That would make it an ALIENABLE right or possibly an INALIENABLE right depending upon whether or not it was done with the permission of the person holding that right. Only The Creator has jurisdiction over UNALIENABLE rights. Your quote from the Declaration fell just a little bit short.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,…….”

The Declaration of Independence does NOT say that the government has jurisdiction over life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It states that the government is established to INSURE them, and if the government tries to adjudicate these rights the populace has the right to abolish the government And replace it. The Constitution does say that the government has this right. So which is correct? Hmmmmmmm.