I believe that the FF (founding fathers) would disagree about characterizing them as constitutional: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
There was no Bill of Rights in the first draft of the Constitution because (a) an intent of the design was to LIMIT government, not mankind, and (b) listing out these rights might leave out some and give leeway for the government to infringe on them in the future. ------------- Max Charleston SC On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Floyd Thursby via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > He is mistaken. It is "constitutional rights" as I believe the courts > have asserted. > > But the original comments still apply. > > --R > > > > On 5/10/17 11:01 AM, Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes wrote: > >> Haha. I knew that would get a rise out of you. >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Curt Raymond <curtlud...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> By "protection" you mean "violation of civil rights"... >>> >>> -Curt >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
