You Can Double the Difference You Make for Vulnerable Seniors — Donate Today, and Your Gift Will Be Matched! Find Out More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

90 Views
Message 1 of 11

@umbarch64wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@umbarch64wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

There are three aspects of this worth looking at:

 

There are substantially more than three, but let's deal with the ones cited.

 

1. The Constitution says that a State shall not deprive but it does not say shall assure;

 

Consequences attach to choices or actions, made OR not made. 

 

- Clearly the state is prohibited from overt actions that will deprive a person of a 'Right'.  The Declaration of Independence stipulates in considerable detail that Government[s] are instituted among Men to secure their 'Rights' and the Constitution implements that.  

 

- Secure means to make safe or ensure.  Ensure means to secure, insure, make sure or certain, safe from harm.  In this context, 'assure' means to pledge or promise, give surety of; guarantee, to make sure, ensure, to secure or confirm, render safe or stable, to give confidence to, encourage, to insure as against loss.  The distinction you draw lacks merit.  IF, by inaction, the state does NOT secure a 'Right' the state has breached the responsibility with which it has been charged.  

 

-  The state IS obligated to secure legitimate and stipulated 'Rights' of the People to the People.  Life is one such enumerated.  Liberty is another.  Property is another.  Another poster has rightly made the point that Article IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  [underlined for emphasis].  The rights addressed run to the people, not to individual states to do as they will, as is sometimes erroneously asserted.

 

2. Capital Punishment - it does say "without due process of law";

 

Indeed it does.  Capital punishment is not prohibited.  Imposing that extreme punishment does require 'due process'.  I'm not sure the responsibility should rest with the individual state on this matter.  Too many instances of abuse.  This matter should, perhaps, be revisited.  IF capital punishment does not function as a deterrent, then it is useless for that purpose.  Revenge or retribution is something else entirely.

 

3. Abortion.

 

- I acknowledged the beginning of Life is pertinent.  It is irrelevant to the point I was making, however. A mandate has been given to 'the state' to secure a Right to the People.  Rationally, that 'Right' cannot extend to mental, hormonal or instinctive impulse[s] leading to procreation. And so it needs resolution.  Partisan legislators who shy at doing their job should be replaced.  It will, of course, end up in front of SCOTUS again.

 

- Consider, at the point at which a Life becomes viable by itself, it does become an independent Human Being....a People....and as such is entitled to ALL the Rights accorded any other Citizen.  That would include all the necessary bells and whistles to 'assure' LIFE itself to that being.  That would demand adequate pre-natal care be made available.

 

- Obviously, when SCOTUS has dealt with the interpretation issues, we will know better who 'got it right'.  [pun intended.]

 

- This is the same argument I made when pushing for Universal Health Care way back when.  The 'Right' to LIFE was involved then and still is.

 

I'm going to leave it at that.  

 

1.  Many words dodging the simple fact - "shall not deprive" does not mean "shall assure" - or secure - or ensure.

 

Nahhhh......the end result of refusing to supply the means by which life can continue is the same thing as pulling the plug. May take a bit longer.  What the hey.......it's only the ones who can't pay the 'tariff' that are directly affected.  The information I wrote was accurate and in full agreement with the rest of the words in our founding documents.  It seems you have little interest in that.

 

No dodge, just giving you a chance to understand...not that I thougt you'd take it.  It did afford me an opening to make a case to the 'audience' at your expense, however, and so was worth the effort.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. To me "shall not deprive" is very simple - you can't take it away. There is no "giving" in that. And what that has to do with an audience at my expense has no meaning to me.

 

2. "due process" means due process, nothing about deterrence nor retribution in that. 

 

No, there is not nor did I ever say so.  The sentence preceding the sentence in which those words occurred said, and I reiterate, "This matter should, perhaps, be revisited."  Did you miss something?

So then what is your point about 'due process"?

 

3. You are right - it is a SCOTUS thing, but we can still talk about it.

 

Of course we can.  I assure you it will not be by any rules you make up.  I'd be happy to play when it serves my purpose.

I don't make rules.


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

109 Views
Message 2 of 11

@rk9152wrote:

@umbarch64wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

There are three aspects of this worth looking at:

 

There are substantially more than three, but let's deal with the ones cited.

 

1. The Constitution says that a State shall not deprive but it does not say shall assure;

 

Consequences attach to choices or actions, made OR not made. 

 

- Clearly the state is prohibited from overt actions that will deprive a person of a 'Right'.  The Declaration of Independence stipulates in considerable detail that Government[s] are instituted among Men to secure their 'Rights' and the Constitution implements that.  

 

- Secure means to make safe or ensure.  Ensure means to secure, insure, make sure or certain, safe from harm.  In this context, 'assure' means to pledge or promise, give surety of; guarantee, to make sure, ensure, to secure or confirm, render safe or stable, to give confidence to, encourage, to insure as against loss.  The distinction you draw lacks merit.  IF, by inaction, the state does NOT secure a 'Right' the state has breached the responsibility with which it has been charged.  

 

-  The state IS obligated to secure legitimate and stipulated 'Rights' of the People to the People.  Life is one such enumerated.  Liberty is another.  Property is another.  Another poster has rightly made the point that Article IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  [underlined for emphasis].  The rights addressed run to the people, not to individual states to do as they will, as is sometimes erroneously asserted.

 

2. Capital Punishment - it does say "without due process of law";

 

Indeed it does.  Capital punishment is not prohibited.  Imposing that extreme punishment does require 'due process'.  I'm not sure the responsibility should rest with the individual state on this matter.  Too many instances of abuse.  This matter should, perhaps, be revisited.  IF capital punishment does not function as a deterrent, then it is useless for that purpose.  Revenge or retribution is something else entirely.

 

3. Abortion.

 

- I acknowledged the beginning of Life is pertinent.  It is irrelevant to the point I was making, however. A mandate has been given to 'the state' to secure a Right to the People.  Rationally, that 'Right' cannot extend to mental, hormonal or instinctive impulse[s] leading to procreation. And so it needs resolution.  Partisan legislators who shy at doing their job should be replaced.  It will, of course, end up in front of SCOTUS again.

 

- Consider, at the point at which a Life becomes viable by itself, it does become an independent Human Being....a People....and as such is entitled to ALL the Rights accorded any other Citizen.  That would include all the necessary bells and whistles to 'assure' LIFE itself to that being.  That would demand adequate pre-natal care be made available.

 

- Obviously, when SCOTUS has dealt with the interpretation issues, we will know better who 'got it right'.  [pun intended.]

 

- This is the same argument I made when pushing for Universal Health Care way back when.  The 'Right' to LIFE was involved then and still is.

 

I'm going to leave it at that.  

 

1.  Many words dodging the simple fact - "shall not deprive" does not mean "shall assure" - or secure - or ensure.

 

Nahhhh......the end result of refusing to supply the means by which life can continue is the same thing as pulling the plug. May take a bit longer.  What the hey.......it's only the ones who can't pay the 'tariff' that are directly affected.  The information I wrote was accurate and in full agreement with the rest of the words in our founding documents.  It seems you have little interest in that.

 

No dodge, just giving you a chance to understand...not that I thougt you'd take it.  It did afford me an opening to make a case to the 'audience' at your expense, however, and so was worth the effort.

 

2. "due process" means due process, nothing about deterrence nor retribution in that.

 

No, there is not nor did I ever say so.  The sentence preceding the sentence in which those words occurred said, and I reiterate, "This matter should, perhaps, be revisited."  Did you miss something?

 

3. You are right - it is a SCOTUS thing, but we can still talk about it.

 

Of course we can.  I assure you it will not be by any rules you make up.  I'd be happy to play when it serves my purpose.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

118 Views
Message 3 of 11

@umbarch64wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

There are three aspects of this worth looking at:

 

There are substantially more than three, but let's deal with the ones cited.

 

1. The Constitution says that a State shall not deprive but it does not say shall assure;

 

Consequences attach to choices or actions, made OR not made. 

 

- Clearly the state is prohibited from overt actions that will deprive a person of a 'Right'.  The Declaration of Independence stipulates in considerable detail that Government[s] are instituted among Men to secure their 'Rights' and the Constitution implements that.  

 

- Secure means to make safe or ensure.  Ensure means to secure, insure, make sure or certain, safe from harm.  In this context, 'assure' means to pledge or promise, give surety of; guarantee, to make sure, ensure, to secure or confirm, render safe or stable, to give confidence to, encourage, to insure as against loss.  The distinction you draw lacks merit.  IF, by inaction, the state does NOT secure a 'Right' the state has breached the responsibility with which it has been charged.  

 

-  The state IS obligated to secure legitimate and stipulated 'Rights' of the People to the People.  Life is one such enumerated.  Liberty is another.  Property is another.  Another poster has rightly made the point that Article IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  [underlined for emphasis].  The rights addressed run to the people, not to individual states to do as they will, as is sometimes erroneously asserted.

 

2. Capital Punishment - it does say "without due process of law";

 

Indeed it does.  Capital punishment is not prohibited.  Imposing that extreme punishment does require 'due process'.  I'm not sure the responsibility should rest with the individual state on this matter.  Too many instances of abuse.  This matter should, perhaps, be revisited.  IF capital punishment does not function as a deterrent, then it is useless for that purpose.  Revenge or retribution is something else entirely.

 

3. Abortion.

 

- I acknowledged the beginning of Life is pertinent.  It is irrelevant to the point I was making, however. A mandate has been given to 'the state' to secure a Right to the People.  Rationally, that 'Right' cannot extend to mental, hormonal or instinctive impulse[s] leading to procreation. And so it needs resolution.  Partisan legislators who shy at doing their job should be replaced.  It will, of course, end up in front of SCOTUS again.

 

- Consider, at the point at which a Life becomes viable by itself, it does become an independent Human Being....a People....and as such is entitled to ALL the Rights accorded any other Citizen.  That would include all the necessary bells and whistles to 'assure' LIFE itself to that being.  That would demand adequate pre-natal care be made available.

 

- Obviously, when SCOTUS has dealt with the interpretation issues, we will know better who 'got it right'.  [pun intended.]

 

- This is the same argument I made when pushing for Universal Health Care way back when.  The 'Right' to LIFE was involved then and still is.

 

I'm going to leave it at that.  

 

1.  Many words dodging the simple fact - "shall not deprive" does not mean "shall assure" - or secure - or ensure.

 

2. "due process" means due process, nothing about deterrence nor retribution in that.

 

3. You are right - it is a SCOTUS thing, but we can still talk about it.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

123 Views
Message 4 of 11

@rk9152wrote:

There are three aspects of this worth looking at:

 

There are substantially more than three, but let's deal with the ones cited.

 

1. The Constitution says that a State shall not deprive but it does not say shall assure;

 

Consequences attach to choices or actions, made OR not made. 

 

- Clearly the state is prohibited from overt actions that will deprive a person of a 'Right'.  The Declaration of Independence stipulates in considerable detail that Government[s] are instituted among Men to secure their 'Rights' and the Constitution implements that.  

 

- Secure means to make safe or ensure.  Ensure means to secure, insure, make sure or certain, safe from harm.  In this context, 'assure' means to pledge or promise, give surety of; guarantee, to make sure, ensure, to secure or confirm, render safe or stable, to give confidence to, encourage, to insure as against loss.  The distinction you draw lacks merit.  IF, by inaction, the state does NOT secure a 'Right' the state has breached the responsibility with which it has been charged.  

 

-  The state IS obligated to secure legitimate and stipulated 'Rights' of the People to the People.  Life is one such enumerated.  Liberty is another.  Property is another.  Another poster has rightly made the point that Article IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  [underlined for emphasis].  The rights addressed run to the people, not to individual states to do as they will, as is sometimes erroneously asserted.

 

2. Capital Punishment - it does say "without due process of law";

 

Indeed it does.  Capital punishment is not prohibited.  Imposing that extreme punishment does require 'due process'.  I'm not sure the responsibility should rest with the individual state on this matter.  Too many instances of abuse.  This matter should, perhaps, be revisited.  IF capital punishment does not function as a deterrent, then it is useless for that purpose.  Revenge or retribution is something else entirely.

 

3. Abortion.

 

- I acknowledged the beginning of Life is pertinent.  It is irrelevant to the point I was making, however. A mandate has been given to 'the state' to secure a Right to the People.  Rationally, that 'Right' cannot extend to mental, hormonal or instinctive impulse[s] leading to procreation. And so it needs resolution.  Partisan legislators who shy at doing their job should be replaced.  It will, of course, end up in front of SCOTUS again.

 

- Consider, at the point at which a Life becomes viable by itself, it does become an independent Human Being....a People....and as such is entitled to ALL the Rights accorded any other Citizen.  That would include all the necessary bells and whistles to 'assure' LIFE itself to that being.  That would demand adequate pre-natal care be made available.

 

- Obviously, when SCOTUS has dealt with the interpretation issues, we will know better who 'got it right'.  [pun intended.]

 

- This is the same argument I made when pushing for Universal Health Care way back when.  The 'Right' to LIFE was involved then and still is.

 

I'm going to leave it at that.  

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

167 Views
Message 5 of 11

There are three aspects of this worth looking at:

1. The Constitution says that a State shall not deprive but it does not say shall assure;

2. Capital Punishment - it does say "without due process of law";

3. Abortion.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

170 Views
Message 6 of 11

@gruffstuffwrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/15/poor-peoples-campaign-systemic-poverty-a-sin

 

America once fought a war against poverty – now it wages a war on the poor

 

After the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign declared silence was betrayal, we are coming together to stand up to the public policy violence that is ravaging our society

 

In 2013, Callie Greer’s daughter Venus died in her arms after a battle with breast cancer. If caught early, the five-year survival rate for women diagnosed with breast cancer is close to 100%. But Venus’s cancer went undiagnosed for months because she couldn’t afford health insurance. She lived in Alabama, a state that refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Venus’s death is not an isolated incident – more than 250,000 peoplelike her die in the United States from poverty and related issues every year.

 

Is it America that wages war on the poor, or is it Republicans?

 

 

What Republican inspired change caused the death of Venus?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

192 Views
Message 7 of 11

@NOTHAPPENINGwrote:

@umbarch64wrote:

I suppose 'discussion' about when life begins is an integral part of any discussion of life as a 'RIGHT'. Thomas Jefferson declared 'RIGHT to LIFE a self-evident truth in our Declaration of Independence. 

 

The Constitution implemented that concept in Article IV, Section 1 stating in part, ".....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   Article IV strayed a bit off topic when it cited property instead of happiness as something not to be denied...to anyone. Happiness is difficult to guarantee as a right considering what humans are.  Expediency and necessity to 'get something done' probably was the reason that change from Jefferson's list was made.

 

One thing at a time, however.  LIFE remains something that may not be denied by any state, right in there with liberty and property.  So says the Federal Constitution.  I'd suppose that makes it a law with which 'all' states 'shall' comply. 'They' have no choice in the matter.

 

Point:  When it IS possible to preserve LIFE within the limits of available technology, denying available treatment for any reason IS denying LIFE to a person without due process of law.

If that person is literally dying, I would agree. For "any reason", not so much!

 

I think I was specific.  I chose words consistent with those used in the Constitution....you did not.  You equivocate.  I think you have a reason for doing that.  Unless you write in complete candor, and you don't, no one will know the full extent of those reasons for sure. Perhaps that is your intent.

 

  Food,  water and shelter are other 'essentials' for LIFE. 

They are but there is no interpretation of the Constitution that would support this level of support.  Each state decides what level of support to provide, in fact you have some that relocate to obtain a better level of support.

 

Irrelevant.  I gave you precise words used in the documents.  Those words have definitions either in the body of the documents or in an authoritative source in use at the time they were written.  That, good sir, is what they mean.  Disingenuous arguments change nothing.

 

I, and you too, must presume the authors put them in place understanding them to mean exactly what the authors understood them to mean at the time they were memorialized.  The specific wording of completed legislation governs. I.e., the literal meaning of what is actually written down.  Preceding discussion, written or verbal, are only explanatory.  I understand you have a problem accepting that.  So does 'the donald'.  Those are your collective problems, NOT mine. They are your's to cure.

 

 

IF you say they are not, cite precisely when that would be.  Economics has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

If YOU think the Government owes the basic level of support (food, drink, and shelter) please state why and why should everyone encourage more to be dependent on welfare.

 

I am not obligated to prove or disprove any of what you claim is true or claim is false....you are.  I hope you understand what a 'negative fallacy' is.  IF you do not, easily accessible resources on the internet will cure that deficiency.  'Proving a negative' is an argument made from ignorance.  Once understood an honorable man will stop that practice. Your choice.  Always was and always will be.

 

Simplistic?  I think not.  It's what the words say.  By definition.  Poverty and the poor have nothing to do with it.  I know who blatantly and vehemently seeks to violate that concept AND that law for self-serving purpose. Hard to miss.  Supporting the spirit of the founding documents clearly is not what these people have in their mind.  My father would tell me, "you should know better". He'd say the same thing to these people.  He'd be right.  

 

I understand you 'preach to the choir'.  That audience grows smaller day by day.

 


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

216 Views
Message 8 of 11

They are but there is no interpretation of the Constitution that would support this level of support

 

 

 

The rights retained by the people are not limited to the the those rights enumerated in the Constitution.

 

 

 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

234 Views
Message 9 of 11

@umbarch64wrote:

I suppose 'discussion' about when life begins is an integral part of any discussion of life as a 'RIGHT'. Thomas Jefferson declared 'RIGHT to LIFE a self-evident truth in our Declaration of Independence. 

 

The Constitution implemented that concept in Article IV, Section 1 stating in part, ".....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   Article IV strayed a bit off topic when it cited property instead of happiness as something not to be denied...to anyone. Happiness is difficult to guarantee as a right considering what humans are.  Expediency and necessity to 'get something done' probably was the reason that change from Jefferson's list was made.

 

One thing at a time, however.  LIFE remains something that may not be denied by any state, right in there with liberty and property.  So says the Federal Constitution.  I'd suppose that makes it a law with which 'all' states 'shall' comply. 'They' have no choice in the matter.

 

Point:  When it IS possible to preserve LIFE within the limits of available technology, denying available treatment for any reason IS denying LIFE to a person without due process of law.

If that person is literally dying, I would agree. For "any reason", not so much!

  Food,  water and shelter are other 'essentials' for LIFE. 

They are but there is no interpretation of the Constitution that would support this level of support.  Each state decides what level of support to provide, in fact you have some that relocate to obtain a better level of support.

IF you say they are not, cite precisely when that would be.  Economics has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

If YOU think the Government owes the basic level of support (food, drink, and shelter) please state why and why should everyone encourage more to be dependent on welfare.

 

Simplistic?  I think not.  It's what the words say.  By definition.  Poverty and the poor have nothing to do with it.  I know who blatantly and vehemently seeks to violate that concept AND that law for self-serving purpose. Hard to miss.  Supporting the spirit of the founding documents clearly is not what these people have in their mind.  My father would tell me, "you should know better". He'd say the same thing to these people.  He'd be right.  

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: America

246 Views
Message 10 of 11

I suppose 'discussion' about when life begins is an integral part of any discussion of life as a 'RIGHT'. Thomas Jefferson declared 'RIGHT to LIFE a self-evident truth in our Declaration of Independence. 

 

The Constitution implemented that concept in Article IV, Section 1 stating in part, ".....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   Article IV strayed a bit off topic when it cited property instead of happiness as something not to be denied...to anyone. Happiness is difficult to guarantee as a right considering what humans are.  Expediency and necessity to 'get something done' probably was the reason that change from Jefferson's list was made.

 

One thing at a time, however.  LIFE remains something that may not be denied by any state, right in there with liberty and property.  So says the Federal Constitution.  I'd suppose that makes it a law with which 'all' states 'shall' comply. 'They' have no choice in the matter.

 

Point:  When it IS possible to preserve LIFE within the limits of available technology, denying available treatment for any reason IS denying LIFE to a person without due process of law.  Food,  water and shelter are other 'essentials' for LIFE.  IF you say they are not, cite precisely when that would be.  Economics has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

Simplistic?  I think not.  It's what the words say.  By definition.  Poverty and the poor have nothing to do with it.  I know who blatantly and vehemently seeks to violate that concept AND that law for self-serving purpose. Hard to miss.  Supporting the spirit of the founding documents clearly is not what these people have in their mind.  My father would tell me, "you should know better". He'd say the same thing to these people.  He'd be right.  

 

Report Inappropriate Content