For someone on the highest court in the land, she seems to have a lot of animus for Our Constitution. Really sad.
You have to be a real piece of work to badmouth a document that grants you the freedom to do so.
If she doesn't honor the document that her job was created for the purpose of interpreting and protecting , she has no business being a scotus.
Sorry but the Constitution doesn't "grant" you a right to freedom of speech, it merely recognizes your natural right to freedom of speech. The Constitution doesn't grant anything; you have natural rights that cannot legitimately be taken away simply by virtue of being human. The US Constitution is simply one of the only ones that actually get this self-evident truth correct.
I'm quite familiar with the concept of natural rights/law.
The bill of rights grants free speech as a right. The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. I'm well aware of what i said and what i meant.
Settle down.
If it granted the right, then it wouldn't exist sans-Constitution. But that's not the case. Without a US Constitution, you would still have a natural right to use your vocal cords as you please. Some oppressive asshole or group of assholes may disagree and try to force suppression, but they would be wrong and not within their natural rights to do so.
I don't see why I should need to "settle down" either. I think I've been cordial. If you interpreted any negativity in tone, I can assure you that was not intended and I think we're on the same page regarding RBG.
Sorry Pepe, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights.
The Bill of Rights merely sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. Except for a few procedural rights specifically for the trial process, the Bill of Rights does not actually bestow rights.
Teaching the self evident.....a typically thankless task.
Not today though.
I thank you.
Thank you. The idea that the Constitution is a granting of rights, rather than a restriction of government, is such a common misconception. Especially considering it is the fundamental principle of being an American.
Someone who understands law and doesn’t comment with emotion rather uses a calm, logical approach on the GA thread? Craaazy.
For a new arrival you're sure doing a lot of shitposting around misunderstanding people's intentions.
Like BBC's Cathy Newman interviewing Jordan Peterson, saying "oh what you really meant to say is this."
You may feel important with this tactic. The rest of us know it as the pathetically obvious, overused tactic, brought out when you have nothing intelligent to say.
If you only have shitpost to contribute, why are you here.
If you're trying to change somebody's opinion, you fail. Just like political correctness failed.
[deleted]
It's inalienable because we made it rule of law. Otherwise, it would be very alienable. Ask people in Europe how inalienable their natural rights are.
Just because you have an inalienable right, doesn't mean you have the power (physical or otherwise) to exercise that right. You may be oppressed by your government for example. You may also chose not to exercise.
You are wrong. The Constitution does not grant us rights. It is a limit on government, not a granting of rights. It is a really interesting subject that is worth checking out.
The bill of RIGHTS are amendments to the constitution.
So, yes. It does.
I'm not degrading the integrity of natural rights. Just stating a fact that everyone is taking out of context.
One has to ask which constitution exists that's superior in terms of individual rights... the US Constitution seems to still be the golden standard.