On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:13:55 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:47:55 -0500, "Scout"
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker
to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally
exercise. The Constitution permits the government
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker
to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
belief system of his faith. Get your stories
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else
bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right.
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
under the law.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
What else is there?
Your inability to comprehend alternatives is not the problem of
You seem to have a problem in finding any other mechanism.
Found, and presented.
Not anywhere I have seen.
Odd, in most of the US one such mechanism is celebrated every 4th of July.
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
Yep, it announced the Colonies desire to obtain their independence by any
means necessary, and established that the reason for doing so was because of
violations of their rights as people.
It gave the reasons for breaking with England. It did not establish a
new country or a new government.
Not what the Supreme Court says.
The first official action of this nation *declared the foundation of*
government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,
[165 U.S. 150, 160] 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.' While such
declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or
be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and
duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic
law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body
and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit,
and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more
imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those
constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights
which is the foundation of free government.
Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis - Jan 1897, and repeated /verbatim/
in Cotting v Godard, Nov 1901
The Declaration of Independence did, in fact, establish a new country