|
TreasureKY -> RE: Rights, nature vs. enviroment (10/11/2013 7:51:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
My point in reality is you, like DesideriScuri and BamaD are confusing the concept of ability to act with the one of rights, I used slavery as an example because this kind of thinking process seems to me some sort of twisted way to get over the contrast of a society that claimed to be free but allowed slavery for one century, difference in the two views could also be due that having a common law system you don't feel the need of legally define something untill there is an issue with it, but also politesub53 comes from a common law country and seems to think id differently.
To make it clear I never said it is the governament that gives rights, I say it's the people that gives itself a law and so the rights, than the governament has the duty tu act in the best interest of the people and to provide everything it's needed to grant their rights.
I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe anyone here has limited rights to simply the ability to act, though actions are affected. And I don't believe that constricting the identification of rights based on their being able to be interfered with is accurate, either.
The very definition of right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." It would seem that where you focus on the legal entitlement, we give more credence to the moral aspect.
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
By the way your right of self-determonation is protected by the 14th amendment section 1
Not really. This section has been quite controversial and much debated from nearly the time it was ratified. I won't go into the details here, but you can read more at the Cornell University Law School here.
Suffice it to say, the following is my clumsy attempt to boil down more than a century of philosophical discussions and legal decisions:
The only privileges which the Fourteenth Amendment protected against state encroachment were declared to be those “which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.” These privileges, however, had been available to United States citizens and protected from state interference by operation of federal supremacy even prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.
Although the Court has expressed a reluctance to attempt a definitive enumeration of those privileges and immunities of United States citizens which are protected against state encroachment, in the Slaughterhouse cases (83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 71, 77–79 (1873)), it identified the right of access to the seat of Government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several States, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty.
Further decisions over the years have identified the following additional rights protected by the 14th Amendment:
The right to the carrying on of interstate commerce;
The right to pass freely from State to State;
The right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances;
The right to vote for national officers;
The right to enter public lands;
The right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal; and
The right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws.
Of course, I won't pretend that this is an all-inclusive list. There are many other lawsuits over the years seeking protection of rights under this Amendment... some successful, some not successful.
It must also be noted that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is only one of two "Privileges and Immunities" clauses in the Constitution. The other is contained in Article 4, Section 2 which prohibits states from discriminating against those who are not state citizens or from favoring its own citizens over citizens of other states. The Privileges and Immunities Clause has been interpreted to create a right to travel, in that it allows citizens of one state to go to another state and enjoy the same privileges and immunities as that state's citizens.
All this being said, my point is that this is a much more complicated issue than one might think and it certainly isn't all addressed under one small section of our National Constitution. The United States is a republic... we have 50 States, each having their own laws and Constitutions.
I provided an example of what I believe to be a "natural" right... one to take a partner if I choose (and a partner is available and willing, of course.) You defined this right along with others I enumerated as "self-determination", stating that this is protected under the 14th Amendment.
If that were the case... pure and simple... then there would be no issue with same-sex marriage in this Country. Nor would same-sex marriages in one State not be recognized in another.
|
|
|
|
