4 ms·

It’s a sacred right because the right to peaceably assemble has long been protected under the bill of rights. The 1a was incredibly clear on this. And despite t

It’s a sacred right because the right to peaceably assemble has long been protected under the bill of rights. The 1a was incredibly clear on this. And despite the wording, it applies to states too.

enjeyw 6y ago
To me, a "right" should be considered on the basis of what it actually provides to people. This might be an unpopular opinion that I hold as a non-american, but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. I'd be curious to know your take. Is it because you uphold that "decisions should be made based precedent" as being critical for stable society? Or do you consider the document to be literally sacred in its own right like the Ten Commandments or the Quran?
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  The Constitution is the source code of our country. It literally describes what rights we have (edit: it is not an exhaustive list to be clear), thus why we have a document called “the Bill of Rights” which is a set of constitutional amendments that enumerate a set of rights that the government does not have the power to infringe. So, respectfully, I actually see your confusion as a non-American; most countries don’t treat the concept of a constitution with any seriousness. > but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. That is, again, literally how it works. For example, that is why here in the United States it is not illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, whereas in Germany or France you will get fined and thrown in jail. Specifically Supreme Court decisions rely on precedent from previous cases; this is called Stare Decisis. Precedent is only to be overturned when clearly the wrong call was made (for example the SCOTUS decision permitting Japanese internment camps) —- To summarize, the genesis of America lies in the notion that we have inalienable rights that are not granted by the government but rather given by God (I think of this metaphorically since I don’t believe in a god). Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights. So in conclusion, despite the implication of your “Quran” question...yes, it really is a sacred document. Not just bevause it is the source code for our country, but because the ideas contsined within it are revolutionary and beautiful. For evidence of how revolutionary they are, I submit your (good-faith) incredulity with the entire concept :P
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    The constitution is written to enjoin the government from infringing on certain rights. To say that it describes the rights we have is a fundamental misunderstanding. It even says as much, in the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I mean, you could at least try to argue more clearly, and not trip over something so obvious.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      The 9th amendment is saying "just because we said we have rights X and Y explicitly, doesn't mean that we don't have Z just because we didn't say it". That's what it's saying. All I'm saying is the bill of rights describes rights that the government cannot infringe upon (with the exceptions established via judicial precedent, for example guns can be taken away from violent felons, etc) I never said that the Constitution was an exhaustive list of our rights so your snarky dismissal doesn't strike me as fair.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Your exact words are It literally describes what rights we have. The US constitution doesn't do that, it enjoins the government from infringing certain rights. If you are going to endlessly bloviate about it, do it with some clarity.
  - enjeyw 6y ago
    Thanks for engaging with this, I really appreciate the insight, and definitely see the merits of the position. >Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights. This in particular makes a lot of sense to me, and kinda what i was getting at with the comment about stability, though perhaps introducing the word precendent was a bad idea given its existing judicial meaning. There's a certain protection that this provides against governments implementing whatever happens to be "in vogue" at the time (abuses of ethnicities that are currently associated with "the enemy" for example). For the record, I wasn't trying to imply anything negative with the "Quran" question - I respect the decision to use religion as the fundemental basis for law (well to the extent that it doesn't violate what I'd consider more fundemental human rights, such as the right not to be raped, but that's a different discusion). Hypothetically, if you were against banning of public gatherings to protect against COVID only the grounds that it violates 1a, if you were to repatriate in a country that didn't enshrine 1a, would your position on this policy change? For the record, considering it myself, if I think i were to reptriate to america, I think my position WOULD change, and I'd be against public gatherings, on the grounds that the long term damage caused by violating 1a is far worse than the short term harm by allowing further spread of COVID (once again in a hypothetical world where the only thing that I have against the ban is 1a), but I'm not sure.

It’s a sacred right because the right to peaceably assemble has long been protected under the bill of rights. The 1a was incredibly clear on this. And despite the wording, it applies to states too.

enjeyw 6y ago

To me, a "right" should be considered on the basis of what it actually provides to people. This might be an unpopular opinion that I hold as a non-american, but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. I'd be curious to know your take. Is it because you uphold that "decisions should be made based precedent" as being critical for stable society? Or do you consider the document to be literally sacred in its own right like the Ten Commandments or the Quran?

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
The Constitution is the source code of our country. It literally describes what rights we have (edit: it is not an exhaustive list to be clear), thus why we have a document called “the Bill of Rights” which is a set of constitutional amendments that enumerate a set of rights that the government does not have the power to infringe. So, respectfully, I actually see your confusion as a non-American; most countries don’t treat the concept of a constitution with any seriousness. > but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. That is, again, literally how it works. For example, that is why here in the United States it is not illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, whereas in Germany or France you will get fined and thrown in jail. Specifically Supreme Court decisions rely on precedent from previous cases; this is called Stare Decisis. Precedent is only to be overturned when clearly the wrong call was made (for example the SCOTUS decision permitting Japanese internment camps) —- To summarize, the genesis of America lies in the notion that we have inalienable rights that are not granted by the government but rather given by God (I think of this metaphorically since I don’t believe in a god). Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights. So in conclusion, despite the implication of your “Quran” question...yes, it really is a sacred document. Not just bevause it is the source code for our country, but because the ideas contsined within it are revolutionary and beautiful. For evidence of how revolutionary they are, I submit your (good-faith) incredulity with the entire concept :P
- maxerickson 6y ago
  The constitution is written to enjoin the government from infringing on certain rights. To say that it describes the rights we have is a fundamental misunderstanding. It even says as much, in the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I mean, you could at least try to argue more clearly, and not trip over something so obvious.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    The 9th amendment is saying "just because we said we have rights X and Y explicitly, doesn't mean that we don't have Z just because we didn't say it". That's what it's saying. All I'm saying is the bill of rights describes rights that the government cannot infringe upon (with the exceptions established via judicial precedent, for example guns can be taken away from violent felons, etc) I never said that the Constitution was an exhaustive list of our rights so your snarky dismissal doesn't strike me as fair.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Your exact words are It literally describes what rights we have. The US constitution doesn't do that, it enjoins the government from infringing certain rights. If you are going to endlessly bloviate about it, do it with some clarity.
- enjeyw 6y ago
  Thanks for engaging with this, I really appreciate the insight, and definitely see the merits of the position. >Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights. This in particular makes a lot of sense to me, and kinda what i was getting at with the comment about stability, though perhaps introducing the word precendent was a bad idea given its existing judicial meaning. There's a certain protection that this provides against governments implementing whatever happens to be "in vogue" at the time (abuses of ethnicities that are currently associated with "the enemy" for example). For the record, I wasn't trying to imply anything negative with the "Quran" question - I respect the decision to use religion as the fundemental basis for law (well to the extent that it doesn't violate what I'd consider more fundemental human rights, such as the right not to be raped, but that's a different discusion). Hypothetically, if you were against banning of public gatherings to protect against COVID only the grounds that it violates 1a, if you were to repatriate in a country that didn't enshrine 1a, would your position on this policy change? For the record, considering it myself, if I think i were to reptriate to america, I think my position WOULD change, and I'd be against public gatherings, on the grounds that the long term damage caused by violating 1a is far worse than the short term harm by allowing further spread of COVID (once again in a hypothetical world where the only thing that I have against the ban is 1a), but I'm not sure.