You will know the true source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law.

wow, this is a great thread. I guess that as humans we create documents that state our rights and goverments enforce the laws.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

No a creator deity is not mentioned in the Constitution that I can recall. I started this thread from some lines I found in the document that explains why we as a people decided to throw off the government of England.

It goes something like this,
"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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And that document would be, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

I was just thinking they might have had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

I LOVE the second amendment! And thank you so much for putting it in the right context. It is there to ensure the people can defend themselves against the government. Not so I can go hunting on the weekend.

I also can embrace the idea that nobody has the right to anything until they have the will and the power to stand up and take it as their right. Only the strong people and strong groups have rights. The weak, poor and underprivileged must live with what scraps the strong decide to give them! Now that is the kind of PROGRESSIVE government I can really get behind. No complicating things with stupid ideas of "right and wrong". Just what do I want and am I and my friends strong enough to get it! Truly Beautiful.

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about rights expressed therein were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "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; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.

Very interesting, where did you gleen all this from? I'd like research more.

I do have a problem with this part, "and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" may be unalienable, but they are not absolute."
Unalienable means we can't be separated or taken away from us. I don't catch the meaning of this phrase. Can Someone explain?

There are no absolute rights. All rights are subject to law that defines their limitation. There is nothing in the course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. To say that one has a right to anything can only be validated by law.

According to a few of the Founders the rights came from God.

He didn't make an argument, he asked questions.

Do you even know what inalienable means?

That isn't why we have the second amendment.

Again, according to quotes be the Founders the rights came from God. You can disagree with them, the people who wrote the Constitution, if you want.

OK. How can a law violate somebodys' "Rights" when the law validates the right? "All rights are subject to law that defines their limitation."
Doesn't it follow that there must be rights "out there" somewhere that can't be changed by the Laws of Man or we wouldn't run into this problem time and time again?

I don't understand how you can have no rights but those given by law and rights that can't be changed by law? It seems a little "having it both ways" to me. It looks like if the courts don't like the new rule of law they can say YOU CAN"T CHANGE THIS its an unalienable right. On the other hand we can give rights by law to things unthought of before. Double standard?

I agree completely....

There is nothing inalienable about rights at all. It's a nice thought...but they exist because we've agreed they should exist.....

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

The idea of so-called "natural rights" is a fiction. All rights are the creation of law. As Bentham put it: "[N]atural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).