On 5/19/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding has been that it is there to protect the people from the government.
(We obviously disagree on this point, but....)
That the purpose of the Bill of Rights (from what I understand) is to make it so that there are certain freedoms the government can NOT take away from the people.
The government "embodies" this concept in what it calls "rights". (BTW, the history of the word "right", in this context, is pretty interesting and seems to go back to nautical tradition... but anyways.) These "rights" are freedoms that the government is NOT allowed to take away from you. (We'll ignore the fact that the government repeatitively takes away these freedoms anyways, that are suppose to be protected by those rights.)
I find it often better to reword things and use the word "freedom" instead of "rights". Things become much more clear that way.
See ya
On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Meade wrote:Charles the Bill of Rights isn't about government self regulation really. It has wording such as "congress shall pass no law that ... " but its REALLY about setting the legal edicts that guide the country.
According to whom? That's a rather striking reinterpretation.
? Reinterpretation ? Thats just the way it works. Congress creates laws. The Judicial branch rules on them ... and the Executive branch breaks them. :-P
The Bill of Rights wasnt drawn up for the sake of congress ... it was drawn up for the sake of The People. It lays out the legal framework that protects the people.
My understanding has been that it is there to protect the people from the government.
(We obviously disagree on this point, but....)
That the purpose of the Bill of Rights (from what I understand) is to make it so that there are certain freedoms the government can NOT take away from the people.
The government "embodies" this concept in what it calls "rights". (BTW, the history of the word "right", in this context, is pretty interesting and seems to go back to nautical tradition... but anyways.) These "rights" are freedoms that the government is NOT allowed to take away from you. (We'll ignore the fact that the government repeatitively takes away these freedoms anyways, that are suppose to be protected by those rights.)
I find it often better to reword things and use the word "freedom" instead of "rights". Things become much more clear that way.
See ya
Its symantics I guess ... but the truth is that The Intent of the Bill of Rights was not simply to take away rights from the government, but to ensure certain rights are protected for The People. It may have done both in order to accomplish that ... but its called The Bill of Rights not "The Bill of Limitations on Congress"
Its a document about The People and the rights they can expect to be protected by congress ... not simply a list of things congress can and cant do.
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Typepad |
| Use | Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
