Rand's view of rights

[ralex]

Here you are buddy.
Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session
Volume 18, Part 1
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=18

The intro on this site says:

Beginning with the Continental Congress in 1774, America's national legislative bodies have kept records of their proceedings. The records of the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the United States Congress make up a rich documentary history of the construction of the nation and the development of the federal government and its role in the national life. These documents record American history in the words of those who built our government.

Books on the law formed a major part of the holdings of the Library of Congress from its beginning. In 1832, Congress established the Law Library of Congress as a separate department of the Library. It houses one of the most complete collections of U.S. Congressional documents in their original format. In order to make these records more easily accessible to students, scholars, and interested citizens, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation brings together online the records and acts of Congress from the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention through the 43rd Congress, including the first three volumes of the Congressional Record, 1873-75.

---

[SIZE=-1]The mission of the Library of Congress is to make its resources available and useful to Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations. The goal of the Library's National Digital Library Program is to offer broad public access to a wide range of historical and cultural documents as a contribution to education and lifelong learning. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The Library of Congress presents these documents as part of the record of the past. These primary historical documents reflect the attitudes, perspectives, and beliefs of different times. The Library of Congress does not endorse the views expressed in these collections, which may contain materials offensive to some readers. [/SIZE]

It doesn't say that every document is an enforceable law. In the case of the DOI, it doesn't even attempt to make any laws. It says that we're breaking away from Britain and these are the reasons why.

Even if it did make law, it wouldn't settle the abortion issue. Yes, it says that people have a right to life, but the abortion dispute is over when an entity gains personhood, and thus gains that right,and the DOI doesn't mention that. The court said that a fetus doesn't have the right to life until the third trimester. You can yell all you want that the DOI says people have the right to life, and Roe v. Wade will just respond "not until the third trimester".

You might think they're wrong. You might be right. But the issue you're arguing over is the timing of the embryo's personhood. You're not arguing over whether people have a right to life (you an the court both say "yes" to this), and you're not arguing over whether privacy is more important than life (you and the court both say "no" to this).

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Here you are buddy.
Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session
Volume 18, Part 1
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=18

... which of course is not 18 USCA

Really? Read volume 18 USCA, buddy.

... but it IS linked on this site: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/

... where your original little cut-to-paste blurb came from (including "2) The Article of Confederation;")

It's finally there in step 11: "If you keep clicking “Next Image” 40 more times, you’ll come to the end of the text and index for the Constitution—and the end of the section entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=72 "


LOL!!! Did you really click "Next Image" 40 times?!

Be sure to "secure a credible copy of these documents that is admissible at law. You want to secure a credible copy of these documents while you still can."

After all, "the pages comprising The Organic Law of The United States of America have no identifying numbers in the search engine. I don’t believe this is an accident. I am convinced that the powers that be don’t want you find The Organic Law of The United States of America."

 

[klamath]

... which of course is not 18 USCA



... but it IS linked on this site: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/

... where your original little cut-to-paste blurb came from (including "2) The Article of Confederation;")

It's finally there in step 11: "If you keep clicking “Next Image” 40 more times, you’ll come to the end of the text and index for the Constitution—and the end of the section entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=72 "


LOL!!! Did you really click "Next Image" 40 times?!

Be sure to "secure a credible copy of these documents that is admissible at law. You want to secure a credible copy of these documents while you still can."

After all, "the pages comprising The Organic Law of The United States of America have no identifying numbers in the search engine. I don’t believe this is an accident. I am convinced that the powers that be don’t want you find The Organic Law of The United States of America."

Typed by your very own fingers.

Of course, you won't find a "volume 18"

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Typed by your very own fingers.

"Of course, you won't find a "volume 18""

Right. Of USCA (United States Code Annotated). Which you haven't found, because there is no such thing.

Cut-and-pasted by your very own mouse.

Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session
Volume 18, Part 1

 

[jjdoyle]

MY assumptions were that it was just like the email that's been in the news and available for two years, that's public knowledge, that he's not hiding from in any way, and that it could be found by a simple search:
"rand paul" fundraising letter roe v wade

I guess I'm just smarter - or more informed about Rand Paul - than you. IMAGINE that.

More informed that the physical letter was also in email form, perhaps. But, I wasn't assuming to know a member that just signed up was talking about letters from last year (or, two years ago, as you said), and not recently. It's why asking for a picture of the letter, made sense to me. Because I interpreted his post as meaning a physical letter(s), and recent at that: "But I get pro-life letters signed by Rand Paul...".

You can keep guessing all you want, but you are the one in RED reps, not me. IMAGINE that.

Clearly if the letters are from last year, or two years ago, this is an issue that Bob must be bothered by still. I'm curious though Bob, if you can't support Rand over this issue, who have you supported in the past?

 

[ralex]

The Paul letter was quite accurate on each point made in the above excerpt. Prior to Roe, there were not 5 constitutional scholars on the face of the earth who would have argued with a straight face that there was a privacy right to an abortion in the Constitution.

The right to privacy was held to exist in Griswold v. Connecticut, 6 years before Roe. So Rand is wrong when he says that Roe "discovered" a right to privacy.

Of course, it hadn't been applied to abortion at the Supreme Court level until Roe. Roe was the first time the SC considered the question. But Rand doesn't talk about "the right to privacy as applied to abortion": he just talks about the right to privacy.

their is no such thing as a privacy right that cancels somebody else's right to life, for example.

Roe doesn't say that it does. It says (rightly or wrongly) that the right to life doesn't exist before the third trimester.

For Rand to merely point this out does not make him narrow, just correct.

Well, I've shown how Rand's statements are incorrect. But I'm more concerned about his opinions (see my original post). Why is he attacking the right to privacy? Does he not believe in a right to privacy? Does he believe that our rights are limited to what's enumerated in the amendments? Is he a fair-weather friend of rights, i.e. supporting them only when it serves his purpose?

The best explanation, I think, would be that he's just unthinkingly parroting pro-life rhetoric that doesn't really line up with his views. I hope that's the case, but I have no evidence.

 

[ralex]

Clearly if the letters are from last year, or two years ago, this is an issue that Bob must be bothered by still.

I got one of the letters 6 months ago and another copy this week.

I'm curious though Bob, if you can't support Rand over this issue, who have you supported in the past?

Just to reiterate: the issue I'm concerned about is not abortion, it's Rand's philosophy about rights. I'm pro-choice, but I see it as a metaphysical issue (i.e. when does an embryo gain human rights?) and I respect the pro-life position. I don't base my vote on the abortion issue.

Typically, I vote Libertarian. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries in '08 and '12 and had he won the nomination, I probably would've voted for him, even being aware of his shortcomings. I keep vacillating on Rand. Sometimes he does things I really like, and other times he really pisses me off. To be fair, I don't know of any prominent Republican who I like better.

 

[klamath]

I don't know why I got caught up in the semantics of this. We have liberal that says the organic laws in the USCA which includes the US constitution is non enforceable. What is new there. Then we have a supposed libertarian trying to pick apart the vague wording of a fund raising letter to prove Rand is against privacy despite all he has done for privacy.
Oh well, enough feeding trolls.

 

[ralex]

I don't know why I got caught up in the semantics of this. We have liberal that says the organic laws in the USCA which includes the US constitution is non enforceable.

He's saying nothing of the sort. He's saying that not everything in that collection of documents is enforceable. That's undeniable: the collection includes the Articles of Confederation!

Then we have a supposed libertarian trying to pick apart the vague wording of a fund raising letter to prove Rand is against privacy despite all he has done for privacy.
Oh well, enough feeding trolls.

I collected signatures signatures for Ron Paul in 1988. I've contributed money to several of his projects over the last 26 years. I voted for him in 88, '08, and '12. His son Rand has me on his mailing list and sends me letters that he doesn't bother sending to many of the other people on this list. What other credentials do I need to be able to post in the Ron Paul Forums without being a troll?

- Bob

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ralex, you don't have a right to privacy to kill another human being. Why is that so strange to you? Rand's position is no different than Ron's on this and a couple of people have posted proof of that.

Frankly, I don't see why you keep claiming that Rand believes our only rights are from the 10 amendments. Where has he ever said that?

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

What other credentials do I need to be able to post in the Ron Paul Forums without being a troll?

- Bob

You're a new poster. Unless you've been lurking a while, you cannot appreciate the delicious irony of this thread.

jjdoyle often has to fend off the controlled opposition label for questioning the integrity and astuteness of Paul, Inc.

And klamath himself has often been called a troll, mainly for doubting the RT view of the universe.

Welcome to the funhouse.

 

[klamath]

He's saying nothing of the sort. He's saying that not everything in that collection of documents is enforceable. That's undeniable: the collection includes the Articles of Confederation!



I collected signatures signatures for Ron Paul in 1988. I've contributed money to several of his projects over the last 26 years. I voted for him in 88, '08, and '12. His son Rand has me on his mailing list and sends me letters that he doesn't bother sending to many of the other people on this list. What other credentials do I need to be able to post in the Ron Paul Forums without being a troll?

- Bob

You are on the RAND Paul forum. If you want to do your Rand bashing you might think about having your thread moved to general politics. This subforum is mainly designed for RAND supporters to organize. Since you are a brand new signup you might be excused for it because you don't know the history of the major fights that have happened over the last year about this. Most of the long time member Ron only supporters have agreed to respect the idea behind the Rand subforum and confine their dislike of Rand to other subforums. If you already know this then yes you are a troll.

 

[ralex]

Ralex, you don't have a right to privacy to kill another human being. Why is that so strange to you?

LibertyEagle, I quote below eight excerpts from my posts. If you had read and understood any of them, you wouldn't have asked that question. And if you haven't read and understood anything I've written so far, I have no hope of explaining it to you in yet another post.

- Bob

"Rand Paul adheres to the radical notion that slaughtering infants is wrong. He doesn't think the Constitution protects anybody's right to kill babies that they don't want. Hope this clears things up for you."

I have no problem with that. My complaint is that he attacks the right to privacy.

You assumed I believed in positive rights, and that I was arguing in favor of abortions. Please re-read my original post.

Klamath, are you under the impression that I was defending the right to an abortion? I was not! Please re-read what I wrote.

Says you. The Supreme Court says the right to privacy protects acts that many do not believe to be peaceful and that should not be thought of as private affairs.

Their justification for that is twofold: 1) the fetus does not have a right to life before the third trimester and 2) therefore a woman's right to privacy prohibits the gov't from intervening.

Klamath, your objection is not to the right to privacy, but to the "right to kill". Roe v. Wade concluded that the fetus doesn't have a right to life before the 3rd trimester so, because there's no right to life involved (according to the court) the right to privacy is the only important issue.

Roe v. Wade should be attacked not on privacy grounds, but on the issue of when an embryo has a right to life.

2) The Supreme Court said - rightly or wrongly - that a right to life wasn't at issue before the third trimester. Thus, they said, privacy is the reigning issue in the first two trimesters, and life is the reigning issue in the final trimester.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that: they said privacy is important, but life is more important. Don't we all agree with that? The problem is when the court said that there's no right to life before the third trimester. That's what pro-lifers disagree with!

their is no such thing as a privacy right that cancels somebody else's right to life, for example.

Roe doesn't say that it does. It says (rightly or wrongly) that the right to life doesn't exist before the third trimester.

Just to reiterate: the issue I'm concerned about is not abortion, it's Rand's philosophy about rights.

 

[ralex]

And klamath himself has often been called a troll, mainly for doubting the RT view of the universe.

I'm sorry, but what is "RT"?

- Bob

 

[ralex]

You are on the RAND Paul forum. If you want to do your Rand bashing you might think about having your thread moved to general politics. This subforum is mainly designed for RAND supporters to organize. Since you are a brand new signup you might be excused for it because you don't know the history of the major fights that have happened over the last year about this. Most of the long time member Ron only supporters have agreed to respect the idea behind the Rand subforum and confine their dislike of Rand to other subforums. If you already know this then yes you are a troll.

Sorry. I had assumed this was a group for discussing Rand, not limited to just advocating for him.

- Bob

 

[klamath]

Sorry. I had assumed this was a group for discussing Rand, not limited to just advocating for him.

- Bob

You are inadvertently hitting on all the same points that created major divisions before that has since quieted down. Do a search back 6 or 8 months.

To answer your question RT is Russia Today news outlet.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

I'm sorry, but what is "RT"?

- Bob

RT (used to be Russia TV) is a Russian government owned and operated cable tv propaganda organ that is gospel to many around here.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The right to privacy was held to exist in Griswold v. Connecticut, 6 years before Roe. So Rand is wrong when he says that Roe "discovered" a right to privacy.

Of course, it hadn't been applied to abortion at the Supreme Court level until Roe. Roe was the first time the SC considered the question. But Rand doesn't talk about "the right to privacy as applied to abortion": he just talks about the right to privacy.

Rand's letter spoke about privacy in the context of abortion, in a message that was more about abortion than it was about privacy. So yes, he was talking about the right to privacy as applied to abortion.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Sorry. I had assumed this was a group for discussing Rand, not limited to just advocating for him.

- Bob

 

[klamath]

Ralex, you can flag your OP and request that your thread be moved to general politics. You will get a lot more people agreeing with you there. The people that hang out here have generally decided despite his faults to support Rand.