In celebration of Constitution Day, a local community college had several events. Readings, re-enactments, dunking booth, whatever.
One of the items was a bit of an experiment. They offered food to anyone who would sign a document essentially giving up ALL their Constitutionally protected rights.
75 students signed the document.
Telling....
Thoughts?
Is there bacon on the burger? That would definitely sway my decision.
Interesting question. Now realistically, I would not give up my rights for a cheeseburger. I like my rights after all.
But, since I'm always looking for a deal.... I immediately wonder exactly how legally binding this document is. Says that 75 people signed it, I imagine a lot of them were like "hurrrrr free food hurrr" but I have to imagine at least one or two of them got all OCD about checking the actual document out.
Now I kinda wanna see this document.... and I want a cheeseburger.
The question is...
Would I misrepresent myself by signing the names of a few founding fathers to gorge on free cheeseburgers, knowing full well the kid with the clipboard has no idea who they were?
The answer is yes.
The 75 are probably just smart people who were hungry.
I believe the whole point of Constitutional rights is that they CAN'T be taken away, no matter what you sign! So they got free food and gave up nothing!
Do you think if someone signed a document that gave up their right to not be enslaved that would hold up in court? I think not!
aircooled wrote: ...I believe the whole point of Constitutional rights is that they CAN'T be taken away...
At least not until they are inconvenient
aircooled wrote: The 75 are probably just smart people who were hungry. I believe the whole point of Constitutional rights is that they CAN'T be taken away, no matter what you sign! So they got free food and gave up nothing! Do you think if someone signed a document that gave up their right to not be enslaved that would hold up in court? I think not!
While you are legally correct, I disagree that they "got free food and gave up nothing".
They gave up honor. They gave up respect. Let's hope those documents don't ever resurface if any of those 75 ever run for political office. Then we'll see what they give up.
I wouldn't sign a piece of paper that violated my convictions, regardless of how enforceable it was.
Plus, GPS is right. Our history has shown that stuff doesn't always go as planned.
I think in this instance it's more of a character trait than anything, selling out to the lowest bidder. Likely nothing will ever come to it, but it does go to show that some people can be bought for less than others.
Begs another interesting question..... how many people do you think would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery? I remember a TV show a few years ago did exactly that to expose some arcane law in... Alabama? maybe... that still allowed slavery, if the slave volunteered for such duty. Granted, I consider my job slavery, but we're talkin' OLD SCHOOL slavery. Except for the whole whips and chains thing.
The idea behind the Constitution is that there are natural rights that belong to each individual and that these cannot be taken away by Government decree. The Government cannot grant rights, only recognize them.
They can, however, be violated by Government. The purpose of the Constitution was to forbid the Federal Government from doing that.
These are called negative rights or "freedom from". Rights cannot force anyone to do something for you; they only keep someone from doing something to you. e.g. You have the right from Government intrusion on your speech.
In the WWII case that you reference, those rights were not taken away by the Government, they were illegally violated. Important distinction.
When the Government "grants rights" (positive rights or "rights to") it's really only granting privileges, not actual rights. If it decides that you have the "right to food", that's really the Government saying that it will force someone else to provide food for you as a privilege of being a citizen.... and in doing so is violating the very real property rights of someone else. And with privileges, Government can change its mind....
You're right, wce.
That's why I said "Constitutionally protected rights", not "Consitutionally granted rights".
wcelliot wrote: The idea behind the Constitution is that there are natural rights that belong to each individual and that these cannot be taken away by Government decree. The Government cannot grant rights, only recognize them.
The Constitution got along ok for a few years before anyone decided we had any individual rights. The idea behind the original document was that we should all get together and have a country. The good stuff was all added on later.
The scientific process was not exactly followed in this case and especially for people who understood what was going on, they would conclude this document could not have any viability in the court of law. Of course if they did not allow people to read what they were agreeing to, then basically you're sampling the number of complete imbeciles you can PT Barnum rather than statists.
paanta wrote: The Constitution got along ok for a few years before anyone decided we had any individual rights. The idea behind the original document was that we should all get together and have a country. The good stuff was all added on later.
Um, no. That was the underlying assumption with which the original document was written.
But even if you're talking about the Bill of Rights coming later, it wasn't much later... and in fact was required by several of the states as a condition of their initial ratification.
Constitution created: September 17, 1787 Ratified: June 21, 1788 Bill of Rights: September 25, 1789
wcelliot wrote: In the WWII case that you reference, those rights were not taken away by the Government, they were illegally violated. Important distinction.
I hear what you are saying - but I am not sure that I agree that there is any distinction at all. There is a lot of wordplay around what is a right, privilege, law, rule, etc... but they are all just words the Government agrees to at one time and does or does not at another based on its current need and how difficult it will be. Overthrow being one possible outcome, the Patriot Act another (new rules...) but with a lot of gray area in the middle for imprisonments and military tribunals.
Oh, I don't know about THAT:
"...that they are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable Rights..."
How many people didn't sign?
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I hear what you are saying - but I am not sure that I agree that there is any distinction at all. There is a lot of wordplay around what is a right, privilege, law, rule, etc... but they are all just words the Government agrees to at one time and does or does not at another based on its current need and how difficult it will be. Overthrow being one possible outcome, the Patriot Act another (new rules...) but with a lot of gray area in the middle for imprisonments and military tribunals.
No, in religion, it's wordplay.
Here the words have meaning.
A right is something that you have whether the Government grants it, acknowledges, etc. It can never be taken away, it can only be violated by Government.
Any privilege that the Government gives you (whether they call it a right, benefit, etc) can always be taken away.
That's the basis of Government that is based on the philosophy of individual rights and is what our Government and Constitution are based on.
However, if you base Government on the philosophy of that of societal rights, then you are denying the existence of natural rights and ALL rights are actually privileges to be granted and taken away by the Government at its discretion. That's the general philosophy our Government and courts have been following for the last several decades, completely reversing the philosophical basis of our Government.
The Constitution was written such that the powers of the Federal Government were specifically listed. Not listed, no power. Today, the basic view is that if the Constitution doesn't clearly forbid the Government from doing something, it's fair game if 51% of the voters agree (societal rights). Completely the opposite from the original design... and the basis of a great deal of conflict from those who favor the original philosophy.
wcelliot wrote: No, in religion, it's wordplay. Here the words have meaning. A _right_ is something that you have whether the Government grants it, acknowledges, etc. It can never be taken away, it can only be violated by Government. Any _privilege_ that the Government gives you (whether they call it a right, benefit, etc) can always be taken away. That's the basis of Government that is based on the philosophy of individual rights and is what our Government and Constitution are based on.
Legality is only as good as the government's will to abide. While it is nice to believe that we all have unassailable rights granted to us by human birth - if no one agrees to honor them then they don't exist "really". No legal document is helpful if there is no legal entity that will bring its might to bear them up.
The Government we have now, more or less, keeps the agreement but has certainly made a few roughshod runs over them when it deemed it necessary. Calling it illegal is a mere technicality. There is no penalty. There is no doubt in my mind that the rules will bent again whenever a reason presents itself.
Legality is only as good as the government's will to abide. While it is nice to believe that we all have unassailable rights granted to us by human birth - if no one agrees to honor them then they don't exist "really". No legal document is helpful if there is no legal entity that will bring its might to bear them up.
I see your point, but actually it's a critical distinction... because it goes to the very basis of the legitimacy of the Government.
If a Government does not recognize natural rights, it is illegtimate... and this is also important .... EVEN IF the majority (even vast majoriy) of citizens support it.
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the philosophy of individual rights and that of collective rights.
Bill
< Homer > Burgers... < /drool >
Ok, this makes me think. While this may be entirely offtopic, y'all got me not thinking about tires. What if the philosophical intent was meant to be different than the changes in the interpretation over the last 200+ years? Take the right to bare arms for example. Literally translated, (at least as I understand it) it means you have the right to possess and use a firearm. Now was that the literal intent of the time? Possibly. Things were a lot different back then. Does it hold true now? Probably not. Now for the philosophical intent- I tend to think it means that everyone born as a human being has a right to protect themselves from harm, and do what is neccessary to preserve life. That doesn't mean that you can carry around a .50cal just because you feel safer, but if there is an intruder in your home, or if you are in danger of losing your life in the commitment of a crime- you have the right to mess the other dude up. Now- it gets a little gray, because I'm fairly certain a bat to the knees is going to be as effective as a bullet to the brain when it comes down to someone trying to kill me. But at the same time, certain demographics have proven they can lose that right. If you're a convicted felon, you're not legally allowed to possess a firearm. If you murder someone- at least in certain states, they'll go ahead and murder you back. (ok so I don't believe the death penalty is murder...) I guess the real question here- at what point is it reasonable to assume someone has become a danger to the point that they are to have their rights violated to protect the group as a whole? I mean, it's been proven before that the government is willing to violate the rights of one person, or even millions, in what it believes is the protection of the larger group at hand.
I think that might be the tricky part.... where does one lose their rights, and further, at what point does one DESERVE to lose their rights?
SVreX wrote: Oh, I don't know about THAT: "...that they are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable Rights..."
That was sarcasm I presume.
If I wrote down that we as men are entitled to certain things... and then "ratified" it - it means exactly nothing unless I have the means to effect it. Just like the Bill of Rights. It is only meaningful if it is upheld by men. Men said it, and in this case - made it real for a time. If they decided it wasn't worth the effort, it would vanish. I might be eroded by small "changes" or interpretations. It is not unalienable or unassailable. Its just words on paper and the deeds of men who believe in the idea.
This is an important thing to remember - because there is a lot of bad that can happen if we forget that those "rights" are only as real as WE make them.
GPS- you're amazing the hell out of me today. Normally I get a good laugh out of whatever you post.... and this has been some of the best reading I've seen on a forum in MONTHS.
/randomness.
Y'all re ALWAYS making me HUNGRY! 
You'll need to log in to post.
