THIS VIDEO CAN NOT BE RE-UPLOADED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM MAINMD PRODS -MainMD © All Rights Reserved-
BizOppMania – Resell Rights Packages
Slipped Disc ¦ Treatment and Symptoms
March 8th, 2013 12:28 AM | by Simeon Nava | Network Marketing.
Given the protection of rights in the body of the Constitution, would you have agreed or disagreed with the Anti-Federalists’ argument for the addition of a bill of rights? Why?
What additional rights, if any, do you think should be added to the Constitution? Why?
The Constitution does not “give” any rights to individuals. It acknowledges that individuals have rights simply because they are human. Their rights to life, liberty, and private property are inherent to the human condition and laws were made to protect them, they were not created by laws. Citizens have an inherent right to the life given to them by their creator, they have an inherent right to freely use their talents in any way they choose that does not violate the natural rights of another individual, and they have a right to keep the rewards realized from the application of their talents to the resources around them.
Applying an 18th Century standard, I would likely have agreed with the Anti-Federalists. No one at the Constitutional Convention was arguing that the Federal Government would be the default authority on all items not specifically listed in the constitution. The need to underscore the most egregious violations of individual rights commonly enacted by governments could reasonably be seen as necessary under the conditions that existed at that time. All parties at the constitutional convention were aware of the aggressive nature of a powerful central authority. They agreed on the basics and chose to call out the most common abuses of strong central authorities that inevitably lead to eliminating individual freedom. The Bill of Rights does not give citizens rights, it bars the federal government from violating the rights of individual citizens. The records of the Constitutional Convention and the Ratification Conventions of the states are clear that omitted issues fell under the 10th amendment and were NOT left open for the federal government to claim because the locus of accountability was closer to the individual citizen. The Bill of Rights was the line in the sand that, if crossed, would be met with justified secession and warranted revolution from the sovereign states.
Applying a 21st Century standard, the Bill of Rights has come to represent the rights that the government gave to us, rather than the rights we refused to yield to a federal authority under any circumstance. The public school “educated”, mindless masses now see the government as their benevolent provider. They are willing to take everything their government hands to them regardless of who the government took from in order to provide. They do not understand the principles for which the Revolution was fought and, to some degree, deserve to be the wards of the state that they have become. Unfortunately, the tax payer is stuck with the bill and their inherent private property rights are routinely violated. As their numbers fall, the recipients of government aid outnumber the tax payers. At that point, the incentive for politicians to respect the rights of the tax payers evaporates because the majority of the electorate is not paying the bill.
Considering the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of government to those items specifically listed in articles 1, 2, and 3; any additional powers given to government necessarily limit the rights of individual citizens. The powers given to the government under the Constitution were purposely limited to the powers necessary to facilitate the basic functions of a federal authority. More expansive powers were debated and rejected because of their threat to individual liberty. Your final question really is asking: “What individual rights would you choose to give up to the federal government?” My answer would be none, and we should role back most of the excesses that have been added.
How are human rights likely to be endangered by the growth of the world’s population? What rights are most necessary to protect? How can governments and quasi-governmental organizations protect human rights in the face of the changing world?
The more people we have, the more
restrictions we have to control the
masses.
Each new ordinance detracts from
human rights.
Much of this is brought about because
there are always those who believe
they can fix everything by enacting a
new law,
Some good examples would be: guns,
seatbelts, civic codes, etc.
The ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people”.
Does this suggest that rights are presupposed to exist?
Are rights presupposed to exist or are rights granted by the government?
It depends on the system…In America, rights are presupposed…In some countries, they are granted…
In America, everything is legal unless there is a law that says you can’t do it…In some countries, everything is illegal unless there is a law that says you can…
Obviously, gays are deprived of many rights by not being allowed to marry. I was wondering what type of rights they were deprived of, such as medical, legal, etc. I know that joint medical decisions and visitation rights are limited to immediate family. If there is a gay couple, and one of them is in the hospital, his or her partner would nto be considered immediate family and would therefore not be able to have visitation rights or help make decisions. What other rights like these are gays deprived of?
Well here is a site that tells about all the rights and benefits of marriage (3 Pages, I separated them for you; from same site):
Page 1; Tax Benefits, Estate Planning Benefits, and Government Benefits: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/
Page 2; Employment Benefits, Death Benefis, Family Benefits, Housing Benefits, Consumer Benefits: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/
Page 3; Other Legal Rights & Benefits: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/3/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/
Legal marriage is different from religious marriage and people confuse the 2. People think marriage is where you stand side by side on an alter, make wedding vows and exchange rings. That is the religious marriage. But the legal marriage is simply a contract that grants the couple a collection of rights and benefits, some VERY important. The above link shows the rights and benefits of LEGAL marriage.
I’ve always wondered what rights Hispanic and Asian people had during the civil rights movement. Mainly because I’m Hispanic and have tan skin and I wonder how much different my life would be during that time.
There weren’t many hispanics and asians in the south during that time. They were mostly on the west coast, so honestly I wouldn’t know what rights they had.
Obviously, gays are deprived of many rights by not being allowed to marry. I was wondering what type of rights they were deprived of, such as medical, legal, etc. I know that joint medical decisions and visitation rights are limited to immediate family. If there is a gay couple, and one of them is in the hospital, his or her partner would nto be considered immediate family and would therefore not be able to have visitation rights or help make decisions. What other rights like these are gays deprived of?
They are being treated as second class citizens. Who inherits if a one member of a gay, unmarried, couple dies without a will? They can not adopt in all locations. They can not supply health benefits to their spouse. If they move, they can’t divorce if the new state does not recognize gay marriage.
BTW, this is emphatically NOT a state issue. This is a Bill of Rights issue. The Fathers never meant state powers to be used to establish a “royal” legislature. The purpose of the Bill is prevent states, e.g., TX, FL, from allowing the tyranny of the majority.
Embrace freedom – it is a wonderful thing.
Civil rights means freedom from discrimination and equal treatment under the law. However, civil rights are often abrogated by the government in the name of “national security.”
well just imagine your treatment if you were an American in Japan what civil rights you would have. American POW’s will tell you they were treated like vile animals. the Japanese would do sick things like bury a man in the sand and pin his eyelids up forced to stare into the sunlight. to my knownlege the US didn’t do sick things like that to people because people had rights.
Positive Rights (such as the right to health care)
Negative Rights (such as free speech)
The more positive rights and the less negative rights, the more progressive?
The more negative rights and the less positive rights, the more libertarian?
I guess it’s about where you think our rights come from. If you think our rights come from the government, then you would think the Constitution is negative, because it limits what the GOVERNMENT can do TO you. In reality, the less the government can tell us what to do (or what not to do) the more freedom we have as individuals.
BTW, health care is not a right. Nor is it correct for them to make us buy it. However, if Ed wants to call Laura a slut, that IS his right. Freedom, its all about freedom to choose your own path, not have someone else make the decision for us.
What are the rights that are extended to a person accused of a crime?
None are “extended”. Every person in the US anyway, has the same legal rights. No additional rights are given if you are charged with a crime.
You always hear about the rights that the defendant has–right to not take the stand, right to privacy and things must be concealed to prevent a tainted jury, etc…
but what rights does the complainant have?
None, with the exception of not being threatened.
Everything in their history that is relevant to the case is fair game. For example, your pattern of posting obsessive questions about the telephone harassment you were engaged in under multiple accounts could potentially be admitted as evidence – if this was relevant to the case. The defense as the right to subpoena you for a deposition (unusual because this would be expensive for the defendant, but not unheard of) and can ask you virtually any question and can require that you provide any records they want to review.