Printable View
Not exclusively, but again, that isn't the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I'm asking (listen closely, now) what does it mean to say, "the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities".
I'd ask the same question if anyone sought to expand rights for whitey.
Get it?
I think it is relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In trying to find out what is a new right one must decide if it is indeed a new right or just "expanding" the rights of those that have their rights denied.
So I used slavery as an example. The "liberty for all" should have meant just that if one reads it at face value text. The fact is that slaves where excluded because they where considered property and not men. This is obviously incorrect so the 13th. Amendment had to be made. (very simplified)
So for the sake of the point lets say the 13th. amendment doesn't exist and the case came before the supreme court today. One would assume that slavery would be ruled unconstitutional (or at least one would hope), and slaves would be set free...... Would the freedom be a "new right" for the slaves or a right they already have but were denied?
I do get it but you made a specific point about "who speaks for white guys" I asked the question to find out if they needed speaking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities" may just mean that a level playing field hasn't yet been achieved so there is more work to be done.
I do realise you suspect that they want to go beyond that point, and if they do I will stand next to you when crying foul.
Then if you buy this scenario by which you posit women and minorities are due some corrective action by the court (which must be regarded as compensatory in nature, and akin to equal opportunity), how would you propose it be written as to be constitutional?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You would be specifically weighting the document in a way that it is not, currently...any "advantage" held by the majority (whitey) is not enumerated thus in the constitution, and there is certainly no shortage of compensatory law on the books already-what is left to do on that score, do you think?
Do they want to remove the words: men, endowed, and any other form of he, him, or man mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and replace them with words of their choosing?
As long as we can still have cheerleaders, I'm cool with this.
A tricky one this.
Is their really such a thing as "new rights". The freedom to go about ones business without fear or favour is (I assume we all agree) the one basic "right". This can be thought of as a plural in that there are subsets such as freedom to work, travel, not have ones health impinged upon etc.,
Of course some rights "conflict" where they impinge on the rights of others. For example, the use of blue asbestos might be a cheaper building material but a builder does not have the right to cut his overheads and use it. This might be seen as a limitation of business acumen but health rights have simply taken precedence. From a fairly simple start it therefore quickly descends into a legal minefield as to which (or whose) rights take precedence (Wade vs Roe perhaps :) ).
With regards positive discrimination etc., I am not sure how things stand as I don't think that is legal over here.
There is obviously a danger that every viewpoint and fad can become a right and whilst, say those against spanking kids or the use of gerbils for powering combustion engines have valid points to make, I am not sure that they come under the banner of rights. Commonsense, good parenting and general consideration for the creatures we share a planet with perhaps, but "rights" is perhaps taking things too far.
Bizarrely, although we have a much larger non-Christian population in Europe (Athiest, Agnostic, Muslim Pagan and others) we have not tied ourselves in knots over Christmas trees. I am not sure how widespread this issue is in the US though (may be just a few towns?). However, the concept that it is a right not to be offended by a tree in December is an odd one. If the tree commerated a battle or the execution of some foreign horde then perhaps yes. The only anti-tree people I ever met were ultra Wee-Free Christians who viewed the tree as a Pagan intrusion into Christianity.
So with regards slavery, was there a need for an emanicipation? "All men are born equal" all it required was to acknowledge that Africans are men.
I am probably going to sound like a grumpy curmudgeon here but we should be using the word respect more and rights less. (this is not an endorsement of the Blairite concept of respect though :dry: )
It seems that certain groups somehow would prefer a more specific enumeration which accords a right specifically to them; a bit impractical, but there you have it.
You've said a mouthful about the Christmas/Christianity issue, Les, but you really would have to be here to appreciate it, I think.
The "continued expansion of rights" is quite literally non-specific.
They want more, period, and they'll let us know as it occurs.
Perhaps NAMBLA will sue for legal recognition (with the ACLU's help, of course).
JunkBarMan-
I'm with you on the cheerleader thingie. :)
I saw some cheerleaders this summer at our annual festival
Who says everything from the US is bad. :naughty: :ph34r:
in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)
would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)
in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited
one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking
last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.
evolution of rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
Interesting
Scotland is prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places next March. At the moment pubs are busy submitting beer garden plans to local councils. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding noise over here given the less than intoverted nature of Scottish socialising.
I would agree though, that much of what passes as "new rights" is simply current thinking on everyday issues such as smoking vs health.