I would argue that the Declaration grants me no rights, I agree. Those rights come from God, or some outside power other than the government. The DOI simply stated this fact. The alternative is that rights come from government or society, in which case they can take them away as they see fit. I'm not down with that.
http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html Why would MLK make himself look dumb by referring to something that wasn't a "legal document"?
Civil rights, being civil, are granted by the gov't can be taken away. Human rights also exist, and, in theory, are had just by virtue of being a person. Of course, there is not really a consensus on what rights are included in that list of human rights. Efforts to enumerate them are largely treaty based. Obviously, both of these are constructs of humanity and gov't.
Well, the DEA and FDA are part of the executive branch, headed by George W. Bush. Why do you trust them to define a "legitimate use"?
Good grief......King was speaking about the Declaration in the sense that it conveys ideals our country should try to uphold. But it's not a legal document in the same sense that the Constitution is. You're being purposefully obtuse on this point.....because I know you're not that dumb.
Aww geez, does someone need to go over the entire concept of the executive branch and the Administrative Procedure Act now?
See above. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but do you really think this is something he's making a pet project?
For those of you playing the home game, score yourself 50 points the next time nice uses the Magna Carte in a post. Score yourself 100 points plus a free roll if anyone uses either the "Treaty of Versaille" or the "Diet of Worms"...
I don't know. He is big on the War on Drugs, and this would fall into that category. It may not have been his idea, but I don't see him taking steps to eliminate it.
Well, you can take my comments on the DOI in the same spirit as his. Now I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one, but this line seems pretty darn "legal" to me. My concern isn't about it being a legal document or anything (note I'm not the one that brought that up). I'm more concerned about the principles expressed therein.
.....a fact made painfully obvious nearly every time you post. Yet you continue these bizarre attempts at legal analysis. Yeah, legal in the sense King was making a UCC argument regarding the legitimacy of promissory notes........ Geez, it's rhetoric......wonderful, beautiful rhetoric and sentiments with which I agree.....but it's not a legal argument. If you walked into any court room in the nation trying to vindicate some wrong you feel you've suffered....and the only basis for your claim is the Declaration of Independence...........you're out on your ear. You keep saying this....but then you keep bringing up the King speech, etc. If you really mean that it's not your concern.....then quit with the obfuscation. .....and who has said these principles are meaningless? No one. But admitting that these principles have meaning does not equate with allowing you to buy up all the sudafed you want except under your bizarre pseudo-libertarianarchistic world view. The Declaration says we have these inalienable rights, but it recognizes in the very next sentence that government is the vehicle by which to secure those rights. If you don't understand that government can in some circumstances also take away those rights......well there's no point in having any further discussions with you.
Why exactly? That is fine, but when asked to present a legal document to prove a point, don't use the Declaration as an example.
I disagree. If rights are unalienable and come from "the Creator", then government by definition can't take them away. It also says the purpose of government is to "secure these rights". To me, any argument to take away rights would have to be a whole lot more compelling then "someone might make meth with too many pills".
Unless something new has happened that I haven't heard of, this is not a federal thing. Sudafed controls vary from state to state and store to store. Some stores put restrictions on sales that aren't necessarily mandated by anyone. They just don't want all their sudafed walking out the door in some kid's backpack.
So which is it? The government can't ever take away your right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Funny. Government takes away liberty interests all the time. Or can they only take away rights if they have a compelling reason? You've contradicted yourself in the short course of one post. Unalienable rights can't be taken away.....unalienable rights can be taken away with a compelling reason. Which is it?
That they do, and that's the problem. I would go with the former unless someone can convince me otherwise. I'll allow for the possibility in theory.
The government can't take away rights that it doesn't give you. They can interfere with the exercise of rights that you think the big bearded one in the sky bestowed upon you. There is no point in you pretending to be interested in rational discourse on rights since you have admitted they are magical. In fact, your continued posting of odd and incoherent statements undermines your whole rational actor self-interest economic pseudo-claim from earlier. You don't play the game of reason - you are not rational. Do you understand? You seem sort of interested in these issues. You might honestly consider recognizing your position of ignorance and getting an education in them. Until you accept that you don't know what you are talking about, you are parading around in some fine new clothes. You must be so disappointed that Socrates is already dead.
The rest of what you wrote is too funny. Whether you believe rights come from God, the Tooth Fairy, the Earth, or just from being human is irrelevant to me. It all ends up with the same effect. I am interested to know from where or whom you believe rights come from?
The origin of rights is kind of important to their standing. And you seem to talk a lot about them. Seriously, get an education. Start with logic.