Question about Rights and the Constitution

That's just another linguistic slight-of-hand, based on your reduction of society to two individuals.
Your right to housing confers an obligation on others (not one other) - and each of those others are reciprocally entitled to the same.

Absolutely it was put there for that reason. The states would not have ratified the Constitution without it, as they feared a strong central government could be tyrannical.

Don't take my word for it. Here's James Madison, fourth President and Father of the Constitution, from Federalist #46 (bold emphases mine):

I don't know what more I can provide than the very words of the man who was the chief framer of the Constitution.

They didn't cross out Amendment 2 when they wrote in Amendment 13.

And even if you believe the militia is obsolete, the right to keep and bear arms has already been determined to be an individual right that exists apart from any connection to the militia.

So if I say everyone has a right to health care, that's not a right per se as it confers a positive obligation onto someone?

How is that any different than the right to a fair trial? Someone pays for the trial. Why should I be obligated to do that?

My reasoning expands from 1:1 to 1:many without changing. My right to free speech confers an obligation on you (and you and you and you and...) not to infringe it.

It doesn't matter whether it's one other or a million others.

There is no mystical accounting somewhere that assures that everyone equals out in the end. And, indeed, with things like housing, this is unlikely to ever be the case.

There is nothing symmetrical about a person who owns capital and a person who doesn't own capital submitting to the concept of a right to property that defends the ownership of capital.

Indeed. And you can extend that to every part of government that actively protects any of your rights against others infringing them.

Well they might have been expecting a BIT of tension with the former "3/5ths" guys once the shackles were off. *I'da linked the Family Guy skit here but only two twats on YouTube loaded it and they filmed it on their goddamn phones because that's what America is these days.

By a court. Hardly "innate".

Your right to acquire property is no guarantee that you will, only that you are free to try, and any the rights in any property that you acquire will be respected.

Ours is a system of free people, not owners and proletarians.

Actually, the roots of American gun control are quite the reverse. Restrictions on owning and carrying firearms in many places were put in place to prevent blacks from exercising the right.

The highest court in the land.

I see innate, you say not, SCOTUS say it's an individual right. I think I win.

Any right that depends on having a 5-4 advantage in a lineup of "who will die next" lawyers ain't innate, pal. SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage a while back, is THAT an innate right? How about abortion? SCOTUS says it's a right. Won't stop the GOP trying to overthrow it.

Are rights awarded by the court innate? Or only ones you like? And the rest go on the "when we overthrow the regime!" pile as far as you're concerned?

Alas, that settles the matter in terms of the law. If it had gone 5-4 the other way, would you be so open-minded about the finality of the decision?

Marriage is a state-recognized legal construct; it is not in and of itself a right. SCOTUS ruled that gay people cannot be excluded from entering into marriage, as that violates their right to equal protection under the law (which is and should be a right). It is now the law of the land.

I myself am against abortion, but Roe v Wade says that the state does not have a legitimate interest in preventing a woman from having her pregnancy terminated within the first trimester. I don't like it, but it's the law of the land.

The GOP may try to restrict it, discourage it, curtail it with red tape--much like the left tries to do with guns--but efforts to completely outlaw it are probably futile, as SCOTUS generally allows prior rulings to stand in order to preserve stability.

Whether I like a SCOTUS ruling or not, I have to abide by it.

See, you said upthread that when government ain't defending your rights, it's time to overthrow it. So say they abolish the 2nd. You overthrow and the new regime (because they'll likely be right-wing) sets up new rules that void abortion right-to-choose and recognition of gay marriage. You gonna abide by that? If so, you're admitting you're fine with restricting others rights as long as you get the ones you like.

Either way, ain't nothing innate about rights won or lost each time there's a civil war.[/quote][/quote]

It is. That's pretty much the definition of tyrannical government.

If I get to pick the rules? Of course they would be in accord with my view of human rights. But it'd probably be a group effort; I'd be one voice among very many.

(By the way, Palatopia would not have state marriage, gay or otherwise; marriages would be private matters, sanctified with a contract. And abortion would be severely limited.)

Not sure what your point is. If, say, you were on the losing side and the winners said you no longer had freedom of speech, would you just accept it? If not, then your view of rights cannot be simply what the prevailing authorities proclaim them to be. I say people have rights simply for existing; if you say people should have certain rights, then you're not really all that opposed to my position, and the difference is mainly semantics.

There are differing visions of what peoples rights are. Although I have my beliefs about how they should be, in this society the Supreme Court is the final decision maker. If the make a decision I don't like, I can either (1) abide, (2) work to overturn their decision, or (3) revolt. I'm probably not choosing (3) unless it's a colossally bad decision.

Man, the ignorance displayed by leftforge is staggering.