4 ms·

The Bill of Rights affords citizens protections from their government. They weren't written as inalienable human rights. So it has long been debated whether tho

by ip26 7y ago

The Bill of Rights affords citizens protections from their government. They weren't written as inalienable human rights. So it has long been debated whether those protections are owed to non-citizens.

Ensorceled 7y ago
Yes, those are exactly the types of disturbing discussions I was talking about.
bregma 7y ago
> 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again. The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime. There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.
- murph-almighty 7y ago
  While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.
  - naasking 7y ago
    It seems like it would provide quite a bit of relevant background to originalist interpretations of the constitution, and those are fairly common.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      Originalism as a legal doctrine means looking at the original meaning of words in the Constitution. It explicitly rejects as too wishy-washy trying to figure out the intent behind laws from other writings and using that to decide what they mean. > Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did. https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/07/what-is-the-relevance-of-the-declaration-of-independence-for-interpreting-the-constitutionmichael-ra.html https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/201... (Note: Blog by UC San Diego prof.)
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  > The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote. Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
And thus slavery was legal. Do you think slavery should be legal?

by ip26 7y ago

Ensorceled 7y ago

Yes, those are exactly the types of disturbing discussions I was talking about.

bregma 7y ago

> 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again. The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime. There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.

murph-almighty 7y ago
While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.
- naasking 7y ago
  It seems like it would provide quite a bit of relevant background to originalist interpretations of the constitution, and those are fairly common.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    Originalism as a legal doctrine means looking at the original meaning of words in the Constitution. It explicitly rejects as too wishy-washy trying to figure out the intent behind laws from other writings and using that to decide what they mean. > Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did. https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/07/what-is-the-relevance-of-the-declaration-of-independence-for-interpreting-the-constitutionmichael-ra.html https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/201... (Note: Blog by UC San Diego prof.)
thomascgalvin 7y ago
> The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote. Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

And thus slavery was legal. Do you think slavery should be legal?