Is a right that can be removed through due process really a "right"?

[armyowalgreens]

[orpupilofnature57]

1. It was until 2000

[Enrique]

2. I have the right not to be put in a jail cell

unless I kill someone and that right is removed through due process.

[armyowalgreens]

3. You didn't answer my question.

[Enrique]

7. the answer is yes n/t

[armyowalgreens]

9. Okay, so if rights can be removed, who gets to decide who gets to keep them?

Isn't that the point of a right? Something that is inherent. Something that cannot be taken from you.

[Enrique]

10. there may be a class of rights which can't be taken from you

but the government has power over you. It can take some of your money, it can make you move, it can lock you up, all of which violate various rights.

[armyowalgreens]

17. I think we often confuse priveleges with rights. If something can be taken away...

it wasn't a right.

[damntexdem]

19. Then freedom isn't a right, because it can be taken away.

Since Charles Manson has been in prison for decades, that would prove that freedom is not a right.

And the rest of us are just enjoying the 'privilege' of not being imprisoned -- because we could be imprisoned if found guilty of crimes via due process.

Hmm, strange world, that.

[armyowalgreens]

21. That's exactly my point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. No one has to decide who keeps them. Courts decide from whom they can be taken.

Criminals do not have many of the rights that citizens enjoy.

I'm okay with that.

[armyowalgreens]

14. You speak of "courts" as if they aren't occupied by humans.

I'll ask again, who gets to decide who gets to keep their rights?

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Me. Happy? n/t

[armyowalgreens]

67. No. This is a serious question and you are joking around.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. I tried being serious.

Judges, juries.... "courts" decide who has forfeited their liberty because of violations of law as established by lawmakers.

You won't accept courts as the correct answer that it clearly is, so I simply follow your lead into silly-dom.

[billyoc]

16. A jury of your peers, can remove any and all rights, including the right to life itself.

Where are you going with this?

[armyowalgreens]

18. I think that something that can be taken away is a privelege, not a right.

Therefore, if someone can order your life to be taken, there is no right to life.

[elocs]

4. Liberty is a right that can be removed through due process. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

6. Again, you guys are simply restated my OP. You aren't answering the question.

[elocs]

11. My goodness, shame on us! I think I'll just skip this one. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

30. You have the right to a trial by a jury of your peers

You have the privilege of retaining a lawyer good enough to use that right to help you keep your freedom under the man-made rules of the court, and the rule of law.

You have a right to freedom of speech. You have the privilege of being able to defend what you say in court against a charge of libel, again, if you can afford a lawyer who will use your fair trial rights to defend your right to say what you said.

You have a right to freedom of religion. You have the privilege of being able to hire a lawyer to defend your right to practice that religion if it involves something that your neighbors find offensive, such as polygamy, child brides, peyote, etc.

Rights never stand alone on their own, magically protected by a two centuries old piece of paper. They are protected by diligent action to defend them against those who would take them. Sometimes, that involves a lawyer, sometimes more is necessary.

That's why we have the Second Amendment.

[armyowalgreens]

33. If you can have it taken away, it isn't a right. It's a privilege.

[Beer on a stick]

37. Then there are no rights becauase everything can be taken away.

Seems like you're more interested in word games that actual discussion.

[armyowalgreens]

39. It's called "semantics" and yes that's what I'm interested in.

The right word is extremely important.

[Beer on a stick]

43. Yes, I'm very familiar with semantics, thanks.

And since, given your statement, there can be no rights, since everything can be taken away, your choice of discussion seems rather pointless.

[armyowalgreens]

49. The discussion isn't pointless. Rights might exist, we simply ignore them.

[Beer on a stick]

50. You haven't demonstrated that we ignore them.

[armyowalgreens]

51. Capital punishment exists. You don't think there is a right to life?

[Beer on a stick]

53. Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say a right is something that....

cannot be taken away.

Then you state that we 'ignore' them, possibly through the DP.

Well, which is it? Does a right exist, and it's something that cannot be taken away, or does it exist and it actually can be taken away?

[armyowalgreens]

55. I'm saying we are constantly violating rights. That isn't being contradictory

[Beer on a stick]

57. Yes, it is. You specifically stated that rights cannot be taken away.

And yet, they are, so what's happening, by your own definition, is not a violation of rights.

[armyowalgreens]

58. No, rights cannot be taken away. We simply violate them.

There is a difference between removing rights and violating rights.


We may say that we can "remove" rights. But that doesn't mean that we actually do so.

[Beer on a stick]

59. I'm sorry, did you actually have a point? Somewhere?

[armyowalgreens]

60. Let me try this again...

1. Do you believe that we have an inalienable right to life?

[Beer on a stick]

65. I believe that we have that right, and it can be taken away.

I've already explained that to you.

[armyowalgreens]

70. So we have a right to life, but it is not inalienable.

Is that what you are saying?

[Beer on a stick]

79. You need to go somewhere with this, quickly.

I'm simply not interested in cutsie-poo semantic games.

[armyowalgreens]

80. This isn't meant to go quickly. I am arguing to refine my own position.

What may seem insignificant to you is extremely important to me.

[customerserviceguy]

84. They cannot take away your right to a fair trial

presuming you are considered covered under the Constitution. And for anybody born here, or living here, even illegally, that's a pretty easy test to pass. These days. Of course, certain Japanese citizens found something else entirely sixty-five years ago, but that's another story.

What happens at that trial is up to the facts, the witnesses, you, your lawyer, and the laws. But you have the right to that trial, and it will be honored except for certain forms of martial law, like Executive Order 9066 or the Patriot Act.

[Taverner]

5. Carlin spelled it all out once...

Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious ****ing rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

[Coyote_Bandit]

8. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

You can lose 'em all. And it doesn't get more fundamental than that.

[armyowalgreens]

40. Those rights are "inalienable". They cannot be taken away.

[Beer on a stick]

46. Except, of course, that they can, and they're from the DOI, NOT the USC.

[armyowalgreens]

47. So you don't think that we have an inalienable right to life?

[Beer on a stick]

52. I didn't say that. We do, but it can be taken away under our current system.

[armyowalgreens]

54. So then our current system is unconstitutional.

[Beer on a stick]

56. How's that?

[armyowalgreens]

61. Excuse me, I should have said our current system is "wrong".

[Coyote_Bandit]

66. Use your dictionary

Inalienable means that the rights cannot be transferred or repudiated (i.e., rejected or disowned).

That does not mean that some dumb fuck criminal may not be forced to surrender his/her rights as punishment for a criminal offense after notice and hearing (including the right to confront witnesses and present evidence) resulting in a criminal conviction. Execution and incarceration are consequences of criminal culpability.

[armyowalgreens]

69. I don't know what dictionary you used...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>


To alienate means to withdraw. Something that is incapable of being alienated is something that cannot be withdrawn or taken away.

[Coyote_Bandit]

81. You are confusing

common usage with the legal meaning of a word used in a legal document which governs the foundation of our government. Use a legal dictionary.

[sabbat hunter]

13. which right are you refering to?

you have a right to have a gun, if part of a well regulated militia. However if you commit a crime, are convicted thru due process you lose the right to have a gun.

[armyowalgreens]

15. I'm referring to all rights.

[sabbat hunter]

22. Well then

yes some rights can be taken away by due process as I outlined above. Mainly the loss of rights would be due to being convicted of criminal activity.

[armyowalgreens]

23. Are rights not inherent? It seems that we confuse priveleges with rights.

[sabbat hunter]

24. under the constitution

we have the right to own a gun (to what extreme we can debate another time)

But if you are convicted of a felony, you lose that right. You also lose the right to freedom if you are jailed, vote while you are convict, etc.

It is called the bill of rights for a reason. But no right is limitless. You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater, etc.

[armyowalgreens]

25. I'm questioning the accuracy of our founding fathers. I'm questioning the constitution.

Either they got it wrong, or we are violating the constitution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow." - H.L. Mencken

[abumbyanyothername]

26. Bored in Philosophy Class Again? nt

[armyowalgreens]

27. Nah. Bored in my room.

[sam sarrha]

28. ask the ReThuglicans,.. they are the experts at that.

[rug]

29. Yes, there's lots of ways to forfeit rights.

[armyowalgreens]

41. What about inalienable rights?

[rug]

62. You can forfeit the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.

[armyowalgreens]

64. So they are not inalienable rights?

[rug]

71. Inalienable neans they cannot be removed from you, which is not the same as forfeiture.

[armyowalgreens]

73. Okay, but I don't forfeit my right to life if I murder someone.

I would have to come out and declare that I was giving up my right to life.

[rug]

75. No, all poltical theory upholds the right of the state to execute a murderer.

By the murder you've forfeited your right to live.

[armyowalgreens]

77. Why? How does the act of murder imply that you forfeit your right to life?

[armyowalgreens]

74. Also, inalienable is also defined as being incapable of being surrendered.

So technically, an inalienable right is incapable of being given up.

[rug]

76. Jefferson could have been more precise had he used innate instead.

[armyowalgreens]

78. Okay, that's what I'm looking for. So he was wrong.

[robcon]

31. Of course. Someone who commits armed robbery no longer has a right to freedom.

That's been a long-time rule of law... Rights can be withheld for criminal misbehavior.

[armyowalgreens]

32. So they are privileges, not rights. There is no right to freedom.

[robcon]

34. Ok, if you want to define it that way.

I think freedom is a right. If you disagree, or if you want to define it away, have a great time doing so.

I think your post is hysterical - in both meanings of hysterical.

[armyowalgreens]

35. If rights are inherent, they cannot be taken away. That is the point of having the right.

If something can be taken away, it wasn't a right.

[robcon]

36. Says you. If it makes your day to define rights that way... enjoy.

n/t

[TexasObserver]

38. Yes. Law exists and it defines your rights, and how they can be proscribed.

Law exists and defines what your rights are and what they are not, while your opinion is just your personal opinion. Most of us wish our rights were paramount, but they are not.

[JVS]

42. Is voting a right?

Your right to vote is removed by due process when you get convicted of a crime.

[armyowalgreens]

45. I am aware that we remove rights. The question is whether or not we should.

[reflection]

44. Absolutely.

You'll have to change word number 3 to something else in order to keep the question from being circular.

[BlooInBloo]

48. Yes.

[Hekate]

72. ..."Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Yes, even if you are tortured ...

... you STILL have the God-given right to not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishments."

Rights can be broken, as men can be broken, but they are still rights, and still men.

Hekate

[QC]

82. Ask the married same-sex couples in California. n/t

[scrinmaster]

83. They can be taken away, but only if you do something deserving of it.

You've got freedom, but you'll go to jail if you commit a crime.