Also something I feel like clarifying and adding to that particular paragraph. The assumption that the constitution constantly changes and under the noses of the people. When the fact is that changing or adding an amendment to the Constitution is the hardest thing you can do, and was purposely designed that way by the creators. And the last time it actually had anything change about it was in 1992. (I'm also pretty sure that there hasn't ever been a scenario where an amendment has been outright removed.) if you're really want to get into the more recent Amendments that were added later, you could get into that Constitutional argument.
I feel like that nihilistic idea doesn't really even make that much sense, especially if you're religious. Saying you don't have a right to anything, like self-preservation goes against the concept of humanity itself.
I shouldn't have to even explain this but the point I was making was entirely theoretical and based on general principles of constitutions. Hence I said constitution
s because the US of A does not have multiple constitutions. In Europe constitutions are changed very frequently. The issue I have furthermore with what you wrote is that the constitution for the US of A was
meant to be changed according to the actual person that, yknow, wrote it, but people later on decided they were lazy and constitutions should remain the same.
I disagree with you calling what we said nihilism too. It's not nihilism - it's the rejection of natural forces that put forward such 'laws' and 'rights' that humans have to abide by. There is no natural right to freedom of speech and there is no natural body of nature that enforces it. The right to free speech was given to us by someone that decided he liked the idea of it, but it can just as easily be taken away or 'trampled' as MDK put it nicely. There is nothing preventing it. You can say 'it's my right' and I'll turn around and say 'yes, yes it is, but I'm taking it anyway' and unless you have weaponry, economical power or diplomatical sway (hint, you have nothing, because you are my citizen and I can take all
that away too) you stand powerless to change that. That's not nihilism - that's common sense. So either you are using the word nihilism wrong, or you are entirely confused about what I was saying. Perhaps both.
Furthermore I am not sure why you think that religion = I have a natural right to things. This is not true at all. I am religious in a broad sense and our religion teaches us we need to work for everything because not even the gods will give us what we want without something in return. Ergo there are no natural rights except the right of the strongest, which is a dynamic variable that changes all the time. If I want something, I take it - whether that is physical goods, ideology, or a right. It's not a natural power
giving me those things, it is me
taking those things. That's not nihilistic.
I just wanna circle back real quick to note two things -- first, I'm stupid, and it's the fourteenth amendment that protected voting rights for all (male) citizens regardless of race, not the thirteenth, my bad (but some of yours too, we must be equally stupid).
The other thing I wanted to point out is that this concept I've been talking about -- where your rights exist already, and the law simply protects (or fails to protect) them -- that's not something I just made up. That's the way the Constitution is written. It's not so much "my take" on things, that's the actual extant law of the United States. The law doesn't say "You're allowed to have guns," the law says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
....except when it's not written that way, which is something I didn't realize (because clearly I don't study the constitution enough) until I looked it up to prove my point. Take the "Miranda" rights, for example -- there's a significant technical difference between the fourth amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated") and the sixth (it's long, google it). The fourth considers security a basic human right, where the sixth extends a legal privilege to citizens. Wildly different concepts. We refer to both as "rights" in regular humanspeak, but those are different things.
Which brings me to this -- I'm definitely right about certain constitutional rights, but I'm also definitely wrong and you folks are right about other constitutional rights. According to what the actual law actually is, anyway, we can argue philosophically about that, but the constitution itself (and its amendments), pretty black-and-white.
I see what you're saying about the right already existing but again, that implies that there is some sort of higher power (God) giving you that right. This raises all kinds of questions. How can we measure it? What are the limits? Are these limits in line with what God wants them to be? If not then aren't we, the people, trampling on those rights now? If God wants us to have these rights why does he allow people to trample them? Why doesn't the Pope, literal incarnate God on Earth, also allow these things? Do we consult the Pope for policy making advise?
That's what I mean. Yeah it's sacred - so is water if a priest waves his hand over it. It only has the meaning and weight you attach to it. I don't really attach meaning and weight to rights because they can be taken or plunged into a non-right at any given moment.
