Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Apr 3, 2007 14:39:59 GMT -6
Cap'n Nic,
While I appreciate your attempt at trimming the fat, I think you're taking the other extreme side of the spectrum. You (correctly) imply that it is impossible to name all inherent rights and it would also be ludicrous to try. But since naming them all can't be done, not naming any rights goes too far the other way.
Believe me, I appreciate non-legalese bottom lines very much. I'm only a pilot and am not very smart. Most of the time I just want the end-user information, and press the "I Believe" button for most of the rest. I don't really care how it works, as long as it works. This amendment strikes me as trying to fix something that isn't broken, and that rarely improves, and usually fouls up the functioning process.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 4, 2007 0:42:24 GMT -6
If I may add to my argument, and address your questions:
"Even students are having to fight for their rights for something as insignificant as wearing t-shirts with messages they believe in. "
Methinks, they don't understand what their message may convey. They may bear the words of hate, of derogatory words, of insults- because they don't know better.
While the youth of a nation may decide to bear slogans on their chests- we must teach them that some things are "Fighting Words".
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
While this is a comment by our sister state , the USA, I think we can learn from them.
"As of now, common sense and respect for others of different beliefs would prevent this. In the future it is possible these things would no longer remain. There are ways and means around said covenants though: laws could be enacted that would not explicitly violate the covenants, but would restrict the rights of some, perhaps without many knowing it."
As I read Talossian History, sometimes "Common Sense" is completely ignored. We need the Majority of *ALL* Talossians to agree. Our "rights" that are granted by Org Law would take a majority of ALL citizens to override this provision.
Finally:
"So, if society decided that it was okay to kill another person would you consider that a right? I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint, which, I must admit, is rather foreign to me."
I don't necessarily agree with what 'Society" says is correct. 'Society' says that it is ok to show people being murdered on Television , but it's not ok to see a naked person. I don't agree. We are all naked at one time, but rarely are any of us subject to Violence.
'Society' says that we can have (in the USA) that we require our coins to say "In God We Trust". I don't agree.
I don't necessarily agree that whatever 'Society' says is ok,. But I live by the current laws of that 'Society'. I personally believe that all life is sacred. I would say that no person should be condemned to death, because of Society mores. But, by being a citizen, I can protest against the idea. I have the right to protest, thanks to the Covenants and the Bill of Rights.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 4, 2007 8:51:49 GMT -6
We have various legal rights, which (in a pragmatic sense) are granted by the government or the society. That is, if the people around us generally won't recognize those rights, we aren't going to be able to exercise them very effectively.
But I think the rights Nic was asking about aren't just our legal rights, but the real objective Rights that underlie those legal rights, the Rights that our laws more-or-less reflect. For instance, I think we mostly agree that in some overarching sense, above and beyond human law, as a matter of justice, we have Rights not to be killed, to enjoy our own property, to choose our own spouse, to worship (or not) as we prefer, to say what we think about political questions, to dress how we like, to get paid for our work, to have a say in our government.
Now, none of these Rights are absolute; there are possible exceptions and adjustments to all of them. But in general, we all feel that when the laws don't protect and foster these Rights, and others like them, those laws are themselves unjust. For instance, if I'm a slave in Alabama in 1830, I have no legal rights to enjoy the fruits of my labour, to live where I like, and so on; but my very lack of legal rights means that my real Rights are being violated. Note this well: The law itself is sometimes unjust. And if that's true, if we really have a yardstick by which we can measure the justice, the rightness, of human law, it means that there's a Law above law, a Justice above humanly enforceable justice.
That higher Law and Justice is what the Romans called ius gentium, what the Church calls "Natural Law", and what the Declaration of Independence calls "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Ultimately, we don't have Rights because Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights or the Organic Law or the Gallup Poll says so; we have rights because of what we are — human beings — and the nature of the world as it really is.
— John R
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 4, 2007 9:03:58 GMT -6
I'm only a pilot and am not very smart. A modest pilot?? Is that what they're turning out of military flight school these days?
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Apr 4, 2007 20:57:52 GMT -6
I'm only a pilot and am not very smart. A modest pilot?? Is that what they're turning out of military flight school these days? Oh, I'm the best there's ever been when it comes to wiggling the sticks, don't misunderstand me. But there are people who compensate for lack of skills with insane knowledge levels. I'm too busy to bother myself with learning everything, I just fake it til I make it and accept that I don't know everything. Don't confuse me with the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Apr 13, 2007 14:03:38 GMT -6
The king is right of course. That is what I was getting at in my blundering way.
I am beginning to understand everyone else's points of view better now.
I agree. However, these words are not "fighting words" in all cases.
I can understand that. However, it seems to me that was what they were doing when the Organic Law was written.
Okay, well, really before the idea of a bill of rights it was just assumed that everybody had these rights: nobody would have conceived of taking them away. Once you list rights you open up the possibility of other rights being taken merely because they are not listed. If I understand our judiciary properly, then its duty is the same as what the US Supreme Court's should be: namely, to interpret the constitution. That means to abide by what is written within it only and not to go beyond it, even for such rights as we all agree are our rights.
So perhaps what I was attempting to do is going too far. What I really have a problem with is the listing of specific rights for the reasons I have said. Everyone seems to feel a need for an assertion of rights though. Thus maybe instead of having a listing of a few individual rights we should have a general assertion of rights. (I am not even going to try to write that though: that would take someone with a lot more legal knowledge.) Sort of a compromise...I don't know.... What's everyone think?
I'll think about it some more too. I hope I'm actually making sense.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Apr 22, 2007 8:39:13 GMT -6
Yes, I think the green curtains will look very nice in the living room too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2007 18:30:34 GMT -6
The hardest part of philosophizing is subjecting your idea to public scrutiny. The wisest part of philosophizing is not taking the critique personally.
Good intentions, no doubt. But I'm always reluctant to get rid of something unless it is the direct cause of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 5, 2007 21:18:45 GMT -6
S:reu, while there are no restrictions inasmuch as I am aware, I think it is wholly inappropriate for you to post in this forum, which is intended for Talossan legislators. You are not a legislator or official, and are not even a citizen. Please understand that this is not due to any animosity, but simply a sense of propriety. Thank you very much EDIT: The person in question has removed his post, so mine probably requires this notation now, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 19:07:57 GMT -6
S:reu, while there are no restrictions inasmuch as I am aware, I think it is wholly inappropriate for you to post in this forum, which is intended for Talossan legislators. You are not a legislator or official, and are not even a citizen. Please understand that this is not due to any animosity, but simply a sense of propriety. Thank you very much EDIT: The person in question has removed his post, so mine probably requires this notation now, hehe. Who was it?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 8, 2007 19:25:09 GMT -6
He removed his post, so I don't think it's fair to say. It's not a biggie.
|
|