EmmaLee wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 3:54 pm
Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 3:34 pm
Niyr wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 3:14 pm
Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 1:49 pm
Do you know what the Constitution did? It gave a lot more power to the Federal government. One of the reasons was to ensure domestic tranquility.
Rights have constantly been restricted to protect the majority of Americans. The right to produce and sell certain drugs has been restricted. The speed at which you can drive has been restricted. And many other things like this. This is not unconstitutional.
No. The Constitution created a federal government so the states could get on the same page, but it was very limited and has zero delegated authority to take any rights without any due process. Speed is a state and local issue, not federal.
You're simply wrong. The government, both national and state, has the power to enact laws that limit American's rights. They have always had this power. It isn't unconstitutional. The Federal government take away your right to can spoiled meat without disclosing it. They can take away your right to produce and sell certain drugs. They can take away your right to do many things in order to ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of Americans at large.
You don't understand what rights are. None of the things you list above are "rights". ALL of our rights come from GOD. NONE of our rights come from the government, federal or otherwise - therefore, the government may NOT limit or take away our rights, as they have no right to - and when they try to (as they always do), that is entirely and completely unconstitutional. GOD gave us our rights, and only GOD can take them away. Our government exists to
secure and protect our God-given rights - not to tamper with them, limit them, or take them away, as all of that is indeed, unconstitutional (and illegal).
These articles help explain what "rights" are -
https://thenewamerican.com/rights-versu ... rint=print
https://newswithviews.com/declaration-o ... -from-god/
I am mind-blown by some of the comments (more so with Dallin H Oaks) in this thread. WOW! You are absolutely correct EmmaLee!!!! The U.S. Constitution is based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, beginning with its first premise- that morality is defined by God's will, not (collective or individual) human will. If you reject that premise, you reject what follows from it, which is the whole idea of government limited in its exercise of power by respect for right, as endowed (which is to say provisioned) by God not human (individual or collective) will. The provisions made for human laws and government must therefore respect the provisions of God's law and sovereignty.
The founders are contradicted by the public documents on which they agreed. They refer to God. They say rights and the authority of law are endowments by the Creator. They rely on Divine Providence and appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the World [ a phrase drawn directly from Locke] for the rectitude" of their intentions. (Rectitude means "rightness"), so they regard the Supreme Judge as the final arbiter of what is right, and therefore of the meaning of rights.
Without the understanding of rights and justice articulated in the Constitution is just a body of words without substantive reason to back them up. The Founders invoked God in the very sentence in which they declared the act that brought on the Revolutionary war. War is the most serious moral decision human beings have collectively to make, and they invoked the highest, most central, and most serious moral authority as they did so.
In the political context, phrases like the "Laws of nature" are just meaningless syllables without reference to the sovereign ruler whose will constitutes the authority for the provisions they contain. The Founders explicitly acknowledged God as that authority.
http://citizensoftheamericanconstitutio ... qLIpVv2SqA
#SuperNecessary ^^^
Dallin H Oaks...
I earnestly invite all religious leaders and associations to coalesce more effectively — and that often means out of court — to seek peaceful resolution of painful conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination. This does not require an examination of doctrinal differences or even our many common elements of belief. All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition to promote our common need for religious freedom is our shared conviction that God has commanded us to love one another, including our neighbors with different beliefs and cultures.[24] This invites all believers, as President Russell M. Nelson has challenged our members, to “expand our circle of love to embrace the whole human family.”[25]
In doing so, we must not allow fears about losing our own freedoms make us insensitive to others’ claims for theirs. Let us unite with those who advocate nondiscrimination to seek a culture and laws that respect the rights of all to the equal protection of the law and the right to the free exercise of religion. From the experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I believe we can proceed toward this goal by mutual respect and willing accommodation. The right relationship between religious freedom and nondiscrimination is best achieved by respecting each other enough to negotiate in good faith and by caring for each other enough that the freedom and protection we seek is not for ourselves alone
Oaks sure is cunning. Unbelievable. We have many scriptures that warn us of these types of men... Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Nature is not a human preference or choice. It is a consequence of the Creator's choice. Natural rights are not about respecting human whims. They are a consequence of respect for the limits and boundaries whereby God defines the distinct possibility of human existence, and in so doing sets human nature free. Therefore, the basis for constitutional government in the United States is not respect for equality regardless of right. It is respect for the equality of all who act rightly, which is to say in a way that preserves human nature by observing the limits and boundaries that make its existence possible.
Oaks need to STOP pretending he supports America's Constitution and way of life. Oaks is quickly turning into a moral relativists who believes that right is whatever someone chooses to do, without regard for the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
"... we must not allow fears about losing our own freedoms make us insensitive to others’ claims for theirs. Let us unite with those who advocate nondiscrimination to seek a culture and laws that respect the rights of all to the equal protection of the law "-Oaks
Unbelievable. This leads to "laws" that are nothing but the forceful dictates of whichever whims of human passion prove the most powerful. It leads to a world where "justice" is determined by forceful free will, by might makes right or, as the socialists say, by history. Oaks agrees with the far left socialists on this point. It's no wonder why Oaks ended up on their (wrong) side with respect to all the issues that involve moral judgment. They worship "history" (i.e., the concrete results of human willing), the far left worship human free will. In either case, the "laws of nature and of nature's God" has nothing to do with it.
But they had everything to do with the founding principles of the United States and the framing of the U.S. Constitution, which a so-called prophet, seer, and revelator has tragically decided to abandon. I will be praying for Oaks.
How anyone believes Oaks is a conservative is beyond me. God help us!