What would be the effect on the law if the the people of this country seized these rights back, overthrowing the laws and nullifying the precedents that are responsible for stealing them away? I know it’s impossible in the same way it was impossible to found Fedex. Let’s just find out what might happen if it was possible.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

The rest of the comment doesn’t really fit with the first paragraph.

Can’t be sure though.

He was in my son’s school book.
I believe he was Catholic, We can start looking at some Catholic sources? I gotta find the book when I get off work. Hopefully it didn’t make it’s way to the thrift store already.:)

There are lots of black leaders in my son’s books. Many were religious like nuns or priests and did so much for education and healthcare. I’ll tryt list them out. They are totally ignored during black history months and in the public schools. If I ever have extra money I want to donate it to good publishers that write K-12 books.

I found it! Sorry it was in his reading comprehension book, not history. I typed it out below.
A few pages later there is a story about Mother Mary Elizabeth Lange and how the Oblate Sisters educated black children and freedmen. It’s so upsetting you never hear about these people during black history month.

One of the most prominent (important and well known) black Catholic laymen in the United States of America was Mr Alexander Pierre Tureaud (pronounced tour-row). He was known as a faithful Catholic and a loyal American who worked for civil and racial equality for all people.
A T was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the year 1899. Some of his ancestors were Negroes while others were French. Alexander was a “cradle Catholic” because his family was Catholic for many generations. Alexander was taught his catechism from an early age.
Alexander’s family moved to Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, when he was still a young student. Alexander worked very hard at his studies and was determined to become a lawyer.
After he grew up and became a lawyer, Alexander discovered that not all young persons were treated equally. Negroes (or black people) often did not have the same educational and civil rights as white people. For example, blacks and mulattos (persons of mixed black and white ancestry) were not permitted to attend the Louisiana State University. Attorney (lawyer) T presented this and many other segregation (seperation) problems to the United States courts. By the grace of God, through prayer and hard work, Alexander won all his cases in court. As a result, many segregation laws were changed. Black and white children would no longer be segregated but could attend the same schools. All were to be treated equally.
A T also helped black people recieve the same pay as everyone else who worked on the same job. He helped black people obtain the right to equal use of public transportation, such as trains and buses.
Mr. T was not only concerned about peoples’ rights ut also their responsibilities. He hleped black people to learn to work, to earn money, to pay their bills, and then to share with others. He taught students at Xavier University and helped students at Catholic University.
To help young black lawyers, Attorney T founded the Martinet Society. The young laywers would meet in his law office, have a snack, discuss the unjust laws and how to peacefully change them with good laws. Mr. R even allowed the young lawyers to use his many books. He would give them advice and they began to call him the “Dean of Lawyers.”
Even though he was very busy with his good works. Attorney T always found time for God and his family.. AP T reserved Sundays and holy days for God. He attended Mass at Corpus Christi Church in New Orleans. He liked to say aloud the Latin responses during Mass.
For vacations, Mr T and his family would visit cities where the Catholic organizations, the Knights of Saint Peter Claver, were holding thier annual (once a year) meetings. Mr T, as an officer of the Knights of Saint Peter Claver, would then attend the meetings. Between the meetings, the family would visit the many religious and historical places in the area.
In the year 1964 the T faily visited Europe. While there, they went to the Vatican and were honored with a meeting with Pope Paul VI.
Because of Attorney T’s wonderful work helping people to help themselves, he recieved many awards. Just a year before his death in 1971, he recieved the Gold Medal Award from the Knights of Saint Peter Claver. He continued to recieve awards, the last only one week before his death.
As you can see, Attorney A P T well earned the title “Mr. Civil Rights.” As Catholics, we can be proud of Mr. T and his work for equal rights.

He mostly sued public universities that wouldn’t admit students based on the color of their skin. That’s government segregation flat out.

That said, I agree that individuals ought to be able to discriminate against customers. But if they form a cartel with the intent of discriminating or get government monopoly protection of their business then that should be prosecuted just like any other cartel or monopoly.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

But so would be not being arrested/searched without warrant, Habeus Corpus and the right to be secure in your property until convictred. And yes, asset forfiture laws are an abomination.

Yes indeed, right here on Redstate.

Most anarcho-libertarians I know are very fond of the Declaration of Independence and the Bible.

It is big-bully, utilitarian statists who hate those pesky things like natural rights that provide a firm moral ground to oppose large, intrusive government.

I also differ, to state it mildly, on Jefferson.

Cheers!

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

The man was a follower of John Locke. He was an individualist. Wrote about the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Argued for property rights and believed in the individual ownership of land. Argued against large, powerful central governments.

None of that is even remotely Marxist. Marx rejects any and all vestiges of capitalism, including individualism and property ownership, and argued for a powerful central government to shape us all into good communists.

Sorry, I don’t see the connection.

rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence. I have written extensively on this at Redstate over the years. See archives as this will be my only attempt to steer you from your extremist postions, not merely “proto” extreme, on the DOI and Jefferson.

I am in prayer for you. Truly.

…for the rights enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution does not “grant” rights. Rather, it recognizes that those rights have always existed, and codifies them.

“Natural rights” are the ones we have which do not take away from the rights of others. A quick reading of the Constitution and the first ten Amendments verifies this: These are the rights we have that do not infringe upon the rights of others, and guarantee a free, open and productive society.

This does not mean that any old “right” can just be “added,” but the 9th Amendment leaves open the possibility (or rather, probability) that the Founders missed a few.

As for our system of Law, the Constitution itself states that we shall use Common Law, a system of law by precedent, which extends from well before the Constitution existed. The Founders recognized that the legal decisions of Old England and the 13 colonies would have to be recognized, so long as they did not conflict with the new Constitution itself.

Since the DoI is essentially a “redress of grievances” issued to the Sovereign Power under Common Law, it can be recognized as a source in areas the Constitution does not cover or does not specifically contradict.

Is the DoI a governing document? No. The Constitution is a governing document, and supersedes any preceding Common Law concepts or documents. Is the DoI a source of Common Law doctrine? Yes. In areas where the Constitution is silent, using the DoI is perfectly acceptable under our system of Common Law.

BS as well. We are a nation of positive law framed by the Constitution – period.

Look, I don’t think your a big government statist. What I was merely pointing out the other day, and what I maintain now, is that human beings have inherent rights by their very being human. As the DOI states, “Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (property).” No government, and especially our federal government as defined by the US Constitution, has any authority or justification of violating those rights.

There are, first and foremost, places the federal government has no authority due to Constitutional limitations (Congress has no authority under Article 1, Sec 8 or any subsequent amendment). Our Constitution provides for a very, very, very small federal government, with most government being on the state and local levels.

Secondarily, beyond the explicit limitations of the Constitution, I would argue that ANY government is RESTRAINED by the people’s natural (God given, creator-given, whatever you call it) rights. All I am saying is that if you don’t accept some kind of framework in which man’s rights to life, liberty, and property are inalienable, then you don’t have any basis on which to oppose a repressive regime that wants to make arbitrary, stupid laws (like, say, the Obama administration). In the absence of recognizing man’s natural rights, the state becomes the imposition of raw force on one group by another.

The US Constitution is a compact amongst the states to establish a framework under which they would operate. It is a brilliant document that has served this nation well over its history. But it was a document that recognized that it is not government that grants us our rights, but that those rights are pre-existing and not “granted” by the government. I would love to see us go back to actually adhering to the Constitution in a manner that our founders intended.

Trust me, I cannot stand all the crap that the judiciary has been reading into the Constitution (especially since the New Deal). I am not advocating judges looking at foreign law or anything other than what the Constitution SAYS in making judgments.

As Edmund Burke and so many others have pointed out that so-called “rights” that infringe on the rights of others (like universal healthcare or universal college education, for example) are not true rights. We, as individuals or as a government, don’t have a right to our neighbors property or the fruits of his labor.

The right to self governance… This is important, many of the individuals of this country fail to understand that this applies to them, that this is not the Federal, State, County, City, town, township or home owner association governance, it is the individual; therefore, for this means the individual is responsible for himself and the resultant actions and outcomes of the choices the individual makes, and that includes the negative outcomes that are resultant from those choices.

The idea of self governance for me has been one of those rights you discuss above that I actually think about on a daily basis. When I see families not governing their affairs properly or persons making awful choices or expecting the Government to control their affairs, actions and outcomes. That is the problem in this country, people are refusing to take individual responsibilty (or self governance) and accepting the outcomes of their choices.

The founders may not have thought that when talking about self governance, but I believe that applies to the smallest part of the American Govenrment that is the individual. So, if all of the upper levels of Government (Fed, State, County, Town, HOA) are supposed to answer to the people, then the people are part of the self govenance. I hope that made sense and if it doesn’t see my comment above, for a great explanation of why it would not make sense.

Do you see what you made me do? You spurred me to think? How dare you! Have a good night I recommend.