Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Doesn't the fact that the Founding Fathers set up rules for adding amendments to the Constitution prove that some things were meant to change?



Quote:

the G-man said:
Okay. Assuming you're correct, please tell us which Amendement delineated, for example, the "right" to free health care and when was it ratified by the states?




Quote:

Darknight613 said:


What made you think I was talking about health care? I was merely addressing the question of whether or not our Consitution was meant to change, and in what capacity. Health care was in no way related to my comment.



I used health care for an example.



That's not what it sounded like.

Quote:

If you don't want to talk about health care, find any Amendment after the first ten that added a "right" to any sort of financial benefit.



Once again, "I was merely addressing the question of whether or not our Consitution was meant to change, and in what capacity." That's it. It had nothing to do with health care, or anything financial, or any one specific issue. It was a general question unrelated to any one specific issue as part of a discussion about whether or not our Constitution was meant to change.

Quote:

In fact, point to any amdendment that creates any right at all. The only ones that come close are regarding voting rights and, in each of those cases, the intent was less about creating a right and more about clarifying who had the existing right.



I assume "any amdendment" means we're including the first ten now?

The second amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

The sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I don't get why you don't consider any of these to be rights. If they're not rights, then what are they?

Quote:

Most of the current "Rights" that people seem to want (health care being one example) are found no where in the constitution and, in fact, nothing even similar to them is found anywhere therein.



So? Why does that mean that some of the rights they want can't be added to the Constitution, or to the constitutions of the states where they live, reagrdles of whether there's anything similar already existing?

Last edited by Darknight613; 2005-02-26 9:13 PM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey "If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script