The PROBLEM here is that "rights" in the constitutional context are both positive AND negative, that is to say, there are things you are empowered to do - by right- and there are things government cannot do TO YOU because you do them.
What you CAN DO by right is called a privilege. What government cannot do to you is a immunity. See how that works?
This cat uses the word "permission" as a synonym for "privilege" when the TRUTH is that the FRAMERS understood that "right" and "privilege" we're actually the synonyms.
Don't believe it? Read the 14th amendment - the AT LEAST THIRD ATTEMPT to exterminate the idea that rights are really just government allowances, permissions.
If government holds power of permission over privileges because privileges are not rights, then the plain plain text of the 14th is 100 percent NONSENSICAL. TEST IT. It's simple to do ....
Just supplant the word privilege with the word right - read the text and apply simple logic. Then, supplant privilege with permission- read the text and apply simple logic. See it? It fits, it makes perfect sense, one way but makes no sense whatsoever the other way. Gee why is that?
Ummm maybe because one way is correct and the other way is incorrect, eh? Uh huh.
Privileges and immunities ARE RIGHTS.
If privileges are not rights, but instead allowances, THEN we ONLY have government allowed permissions and government tolerated immunities.
This fella tried, and he's on the right track - there are things government is empowered to allow and disallow. He correct that there are also things government has no say in. But he fails MISERABLY like so many others - falling victim to the indoctrination imposed upon so many.
For if rights and privileges are NOT the exact same thing, then only this can be true - while the 13th banned one man owning another....the 14th then made us all slaves owned by the government master.
For those still in doubt - progressives. democrats, liberals whatever you call them - bastardized definitions of words trying to destroy limitations on Government power (trying to avoid the constitution). Like this - marriage has FOREVER meant the Union of one man and one woman. To destroy this meaning, they add "gay" to marriage thus destroying the meaning itself. The same has been done to privilege !!
If government ALREADY controls a privilege because it's a permission then what can the 14th POSSIBLY mean??? It cannot abridge that which it controls? And notice that OF. THEY ARE PRIVILEGES OF the people not of government. They are OUR privileges. They BELONG to US not to government. See it yet?
I'm sorry but according to this government and many state governments as well, the citizen has no rights at all. Except for the occasional crumb which is flicked from the desk of a federal judge or supreme court justice.
They now do what they want, to whom ever they want, whenever they want and the constitution and bill of rights are ignored at best or completely gutted by regulation and inferior statutory laws of the government's own making, and their judges and justices say that it all ok, everything is constitutional.
All to an approving media chorus who like to appear concerned, or dumb or shocked when confronted with their support and actions, which are unwaveringly Marxist and detrimental in every way to the country and her people.
3 comments:
The PROBLEM here is that "rights" in the constitutional context are both positive AND negative, that is to say, there are things you are empowered to do - by right- and there are things government cannot do TO YOU because you do them.
What you CAN DO by right is called a privilege. What government cannot do to you is a immunity. See how that works?
This cat uses the word "permission" as a synonym for "privilege" when the TRUTH is that the FRAMERS understood that "right" and "privilege" we're actually the synonyms.
Don't believe it? Read the 14th amendment - the AT LEAST THIRD ATTEMPT to exterminate the idea that rights are really just government allowances, permissions.
If government holds power of permission over privileges because privileges are not rights, then the plain plain text of the 14th is 100 percent NONSENSICAL. TEST IT. It's simple to do ....
Just supplant the word privilege with the word right - read the text and apply simple logic. Then, supplant privilege with permission- read the text and apply simple logic. See it? It fits, it makes perfect sense, one way but makes no sense whatsoever the other way. Gee why is that?
Ummm maybe because one way is correct and the other way is incorrect, eh? Uh huh.
Privileges and immunities ARE RIGHTS.
If privileges are not rights, but instead allowances, THEN we ONLY have government allowed permissions and government tolerated immunities.
This fella tried, and he's on the right track - there are things government is empowered to allow and disallow. He correct that there are also things government has no say in. But he fails MISERABLY like so many others - falling victim to the indoctrination imposed upon so many.
For if rights and privileges are NOT the exact same thing, then only this can be true - while the 13th banned one man owning another....the 14th then made us all slaves owned by the government master.
For those still in doubt - progressives. democrats, liberals whatever you call them - bastardized definitions of words trying to destroy limitations on Government power (trying to avoid the constitution). Like this - marriage has FOREVER meant the Union of one man and one woman. To destroy this meaning, they add "gay" to marriage thus destroying the meaning itself. The same has been done to privilege !!
If government ALREADY controls a privilege because it's a permission then what can the 14th POSSIBLY mean??? It cannot abridge that which it controls? And notice that OF. THEY ARE PRIVILEGES OF the people not of government. They are OUR privileges. They BELONG to US not to government.
See it yet?
I'm sorry but according to this government and many state governments as well, the citizen has no rights at all. Except for the occasional crumb which is flicked from the desk of a federal judge or supreme court justice.
They now do what they want, to whom ever they want, whenever they want and the constitution and bill of rights are ignored at best or completely gutted by regulation and inferior statutory laws of the government's own making, and their judges and justices say that it all ok, everything is constitutional.
All to an approving media chorus who like to appear concerned, or dumb or shocked when confronted with their support and actions, which are unwaveringly Marxist and detrimental in every way to the country and her people.
Somebody please show me the part of the Constitution that authorizes "regulatory " agencies.
Post a Comment