JMUDunk
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
Posts: 29,641
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1731
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation |
RE: Andddddddd Bernie is done for.
(08-21-2015 10:54 AM)Max Power Wrote: (08-21-2015 10:02 AM)blunderbuss Wrote: (08-21-2015 09:35 AM)Max Power Wrote: (08-20-2015 07:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The left only believes certain things are "rights" because the government has decided to provide them. The Bill of Rights is abundantly clear what our rights are in America. Each time they add more "rights" they normally come at a large cost of some sort.
There's only a couple of instances in which they actually fixed things in this arena. Ending slavery and allowing women and blacks to vote were clearly the right thing to do. That just ensured all humans were indeed equal but it also didn't cost taxpayers anything.
Have you ever taken a Constitutional law class? The Bill of Rights was written 230 years ago as a buttress against federal powers, so Congress couldn't impinge on your speech, religion or keep you locked up indefinitely etc. In fact, the prohibitions against the states weren't even applied to the states and local municipalities until over a century later. (Google the incorporation clause). The Bill was not meant to be a positive list of entitlements to be provided by the states. So the lack of education in the Bill of Rights means nothing.
If any state or school district ever decided to strip kids of universal K-12 education, you can bet it would get written into the Constitution though. But it's not an issue because the consensus among the states is that kids have a right to it.
How would YOU define a human right? States and local jurisdictions have a right to govern themselves and they've certainly decided to incorporate public education but I disagree that it's intrinsically a human right. That's a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Rights and what the states decide to provide for the public are 2 totally different issues, IMO.
You might want to refer to this Supreme Court case.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-co...gFHGF.dpuf
Quote:The District Court's opinion does not reflect the novelty and complexity of the constitutional questions posed by appellees' challenge to Texas' system of school financing. In concluding that strict judicial scrutiny was required, [411 U.S. 1, 18] that court relied on decisions dealing with the rights of indigents to equal treatment in the criminal trial and appellate processes, 45 and on cases disapproving wealth restrictions on the right to vote. 46 Those cases, the District Court concluded, established wealth as a suspect classification. Finding that the local property tax system discriminated on the basis of wealth, it regarded those precedents as controlling. It then reasoned, based on decisions of this Court affirming the undeniable importance of education, 47 that there is a fundamental right to education and that, absent some compelling state justification, the Texas system could not stand.
US Supreme Court
Quote:We are unable to agree that this case, which in significant aspects is sui generis, may be so neatly fitted into the conventional mosaic of constitutional analysis under the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, for the several reasons that follow, we find neither the suspect-classification nor the fundamental-interest analysis persuasive.
Quote:We thus conclude that the Texas system does not operate to the peculiar disadvantage of any suspect class. [411 U.S. 1, 29] But in recognition of the fact that this Court has never heretofore held that wealth discrimination alone provides an adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny, appellees have not relied solely on this contention. 67 They also assert that the State's system impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a "fundamental" right and that accordingly the prior decisions of this Court require the application of the strict standard of judicial review. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375 -376 (1971); Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). It is this question - whether education is a fundamental right, in the sense that it is among the rights and liberties protected by the Constitution - which has so consumed the attention of courts and commentators in recent years.
Quote:Nothing this Court holds today in any way detracts from our historic dedication to public education. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion of the three-judge panel below that "the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society" cannot be doubted. 69 But the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental for purposes of examination under the Equal Protection Clause.
Quote:"The Court today does not `pick out particular human activities, characterize them as "fundamental," and give them added protection . . . .' To the contrary, the Court simply recognizes, as it must, an established constitutional right, and gives to that right no less protection than the Constitution itself demands." Id., at 642. (Emphasis in original.)
Quote:"The Court today does not `pick out particular human activities, characterize them as "fundamental," and give them added protection . . . .' To the contrary, the Court simply recognizes, as it must, an established constitutional right, and gives to that right no less protection than the Constitution itself demands."
Quote:Education, of course, is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected. As we have said, the undisputed importance of education will not alone cause this Court to depart from the usual standard for reviewing a State's social and economic legislation.
Quote:The Court has long afforded zealous protection against unjustifiable governmental interference with the individual's rights to speak and to vote. Yet we have never presumed to possess either the ability or the authority to guarantee to the citizenry the most effective speech or the most informed electoral choice. That these may be desirable goals of a system of freedom of expression and of a representative form of government is not to be doubted. 79 These are indeed goals to be pursued by a people whose thoughts and beliefs are freed from governmental interference. But they are not values to be pursued by a implemented by judicial intrusion into otherwise legitimate state activities.
Quote:We have carefully considered each of the arguments supportive of the District Court's finding that education is a fundamental right or liberty and have found those arguments unpersuasive. In one further respect we find this a particularly inappropriate case in which to subject state action to strict judicial scrutiny.
Buddy I'm not arguing that education is a fundamental right under the Constitution's Due Process or Equal Protection clauses and in fact I acknowledged that an amendment would be necessary if a state or locality abandoned this responsibility.
I'd say it's a right if there's a consensus that there's a right.
Aaaaaand there we have it sportsfans.
It's a right if there's a consensus it's a right. So long as we continue down this path of more people in the cart and fewer and fewer pulling the cart, the rights to other people's everythings will know no bounds.
After all, there was a "consensus" that everyone have a job that pays 50,000 a year, a 3 bdroom home and two priuses in the drive. That makes it a right...
May God help us. We used to fight communists and communism, socialists and socialism. Now we actually have people that want to put them in power.
|
|
