You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] antiplebbitor ago 

In a true negative-liberty document, enumeration of positive-rights is not only futile, but self-defeating. Why list explicit rights if the people retain all rights except those explicit powers granted to government?

I love the Constitution of the United States of America, but the Amendments are pretty shit in the negative-liberty sense. They also provide room for tyrants to erode those vast, expansive rights which are not explicitly/positively included...

0
0

[–] Malek ago 

Da Fuq you talking about? There is always an exception to every right enumerated to in the Constitution. Additional, there is right that is NOT expressively enumerated in the Constitution. It is considered to be in the Penumbra of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, those tyrants that they are, added a new right to the Constitution, privacy.

Furthermore, all power not given to the Federal Government is retained by the states, not the people. People don't govern anything, elected officials govern.

I go back to why the Jeffersionians lost and the Federalists won. What is your alternative? Do you have a better solution?

0
0

[–] antiplebbitor ago  (edited ago)

Uh, no, I explicitly stated my point: what the fuck are you talking about?

There is - and can be - no exception to any innate right, by the very definition of the word 'right'.

Secondly, do you understand the difference between negative, unenumerated liberty and positive, enumerated liberties?

From your quip, it doesn't appear as though you do.

Lastly, the Tenth Amendment does reserve all powers not explicitly granted to the national government to the several States, and those which the States themselves have not explicitly embraced are - as per the concept of the Constitution's negative-liberty - absolutely reserved to the People.

Please read the document in question before attempting to toss your proverbial hat into the ring.