Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

Quote:

Goodfielder argues that the people's rights are not innate (or intrinsic, or inherent, or inalienable) and that rights recognized by our forefathers had a "social origin." In an earlier post, he stated that the only rights a person may have are those that society gives to him.

Goodfielder's argument simply ignores that our founders believed that our rights are inalienable -- and that we don't form governments to give us rights -- we form governments to secure the rights we already have. When our founders created our government, it was our founders' intent that government SECURE our inalienable rights, and among those rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Accordingly, when we interpret our Constitution, we must interpret the words contained therein in accordance with the intent of our founders. Any interpretation that suggests that our rights are alienable and conferred by the constitution rather than inalienable and SECURED by the constitution is WRONG, plain and simple.

Debra_Law – repeating a point doesn’t make it any more persuasive. Yes, you already said all that. Let me summarise my position on this.

1. Humans don’t have innate rights. There is no concept of “rights” without a concept of society.
2. Therefore “rights” are socially determined. They are a creation of society.
3. No I don’t ignore the belief of the founders of the Constitution. I acknowledge it. I disagree with the statement that rights somehow exist pre-society. I would appreciate being contradicted on that point.
4. I haven’t argued that we form governments to give us rights. I suppose it’s possible to trace the origis of the existence of rights but I’m going to suggest, for the sake of argument, that they are socially determined from the first rudimentary human groupings. But I reiterate, they are socially determined.
5. It seems to me that the founders of the Constitution didn’t invent rights, they simply acknowledged those that were already known. Those rights were recognised because they had been identified in Europe. Read your history, Saxon common law recognised rights.
6. I don’t mind being wrong, I just want to be shown where I’m wrong.

goodfielder wrote:

Quote:

Goodfielder argues that the people's rights are not innate (or intrinsic, or inherent, or inalienable) and that rights recognized by our forefathers had a "social origin." In an earlier post, he stated that the only rights a person may have are those that society gives to him.

Goodfielder's argument simply ignores that our founders believed that our rights are inalienable -- and that we don't form governments to give us rights -- we form governments to secure the rights we already have. When our founders created our government, it was our founders' intent that government SECURE our inalienable rights, and among those rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Accordingly, when we interpret our Constitution, we must interpret the words contained therein in accordance with the intent of our founders. Any interpretation that suggests that our rights are alienable and conferred by the constitution rather than inalienable and SECURED by the constitution is WRONG, plain and simple.

Debra_Law - repeating a point doesn't make it any more persuasive. Yes, you already said all that. Let me summarise my position on this.

1. Humans don't have innate rights. There is no concept of "rights" without a concept of society.
2. Therefore "rights" are socially determined. They are a creation of society.
3. No I don't ignore the belief of the founders of the Constitution. I acknowledge it. I disagree with the statement that rights somehow exist pre-society. I would appreciate being contradicted on that point.
4. I haven't argued that we form governments to give us rights. I suppose it's possible to trace the origis of the existence of rights but I'm going to suggest, for the sake of argument, that they are socially determined from the first rudimentary human groupings. But I reiterate, they are socially determined.
5. It seems to me that the founders of the Constitution didn't invent rights, they simply acknowledged those that were already known. Those rights were recognised because they had been identified in Europe. Read your history, Saxon common law recognised rights.
6. I don't mind being wrong, I just want to be shown where I'm wrong.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if you are persuaded or not. You have decided what you want to believe while you ignore clearly established facts. I have provided irrefutable evidence of our founder's beliefs and intent when they established the United States of America. You might not agree with the founders, but your agreement is unnecessary to constitutional interpretation. The fact remains that the Constitution SECURES our inalienable rights, it does not confer rights.

. . . Humans don’t have innate rights. There is no concept of “rights” without a concept of society. . . .

Frankly, it doesn't matter if you are persuaded or not. You have decided what you want to believe while you ignore clearly established facts. I have provided irrefutable evidence of our founder's beliefs and intent when they established the United States of America. You might not agree with the founders, but your agreement is unnecessary to constitutional interpretation. The fact remains that the Constitution SECURES our inalienable rights, it does not confer rights.

No all you've done is make a claim that the founders believed in natural law. I'm not disputing that they believed in natural law. I agree that they did.

I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me:

Article 4. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.

Article 7. All facts put in issue before any judicature shall be tried by jury except, 1, in cases of admiralty jurisdiction, wherein a foreigner shall be interested; 2, in cases cognizable before a court martial concerning only the regular officers and soldiers of the United States, or members of the militia in actual service in time of war or insurrection; and 3, in impeachments allowed by the Constitution.

Article 8. No person shall be held in confinement more than -- days after he shall have demanded and been refused a writ of habeas corpus by the judge appointed by law, nor more than -- days after such a writ shall have been served on the person holding him in confinement, and no order given on due examination for his remandment or discharge, nor more than -- hours in any place at a greater distance than -- miles from the usual residence of some judge authorized to issue the writ of habeas corpus; nor shall that writ be suspended for any term exceeding one year, nor in any place more than -- miles distant from the State or encampment of enemies or of insurgents.

Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding -- years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose.

Article 10. All troops of the United States shall stand ipso facto disbanded at the expiration of the term for which their pay and subsistence shall have been last voted by Congress, and all officers and soldiers not natives of the United States shall be incapable of serving in their armies by land, except during a foreign war.

These restrictions, I think, are so guarded as to hinder evil only. However, if we do not have them now, I have so much confidence in my countrymen as to be satisfied that we shall have them as soon as the degeneracy of our government shall render them necessary." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450, Papers 15:367

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy never mentioned the names of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay or other conservative leaders who are out for his head.

But the genial justice's speech Friday at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Hollywood, Fla., could be interpreted as a low-key repudiation of their verbal attacks.

And in comments to a reporter afterward, Kennedy pointedly rejected Republican proposals to punish federal judges for their rulings and reduce the judges' discretion in criminal sentencing....