At 01:02 AM 12/8/1999 -0800, Bruce wrote:
>> At 04:23 AM 12/7/1999 MST, Mike wrote:
>> >As you said in your last paragraph Stephen, "I think people have natural
>> >rights..." This is the basis of the "Bill of Rights" in the U.S.
>> >Constitution, that those rights are "inalienable, God-given" rights. The
>> >Constitution does not grant them to us, it guarantees them. They cannot
>> >taken away (lawfully).
>> I disagree. ...
>That's because you are completely ignorant of Constitutional law.
Flawless logic. How can I respond?
>>Your natural, inalienable, rights, per Locke and Jefferson are
>> life, liberty and property (orthe pursuit of happiness). Rights in the
>> of Rights are guaranteed under the Constitution, and are subject to all
>> kinds of case law.
>As interpretation only. I have a huge list of just such case law. Too bad
>you are too ignorant to understand it.
Bruce, you probably know that 17 proposals were approved by the House of
Rep. in 1789. Twelve were approved by the Senate. Ten were immediately
approved by the states, and became the Bill of Rights. Did the states only
approve the God-given ones? Or are you saying that placing them in the
document put God's inalienable stamp of approval on them?
Oh, don't bother answering. You don't have to use your brain while reading