Stop Stepping On My Rights Obama!!!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Ah but he hates this country...

Is one supposed to love one's country? Do you love this country?

If someone says you're supposed to love something or someone, but you don't, is that some sort of crime? Hove can anyone 'love' on orders from someone else?

[4-2-7]

By the way DJ you got the ramafacation to this law all wrong and the lefties got you all twisted.

We have Inalienable Rights
We have Civil Rights

These are two diferent asspects the law has to follow. The left tries to mold these together saying civil rights are part of inalienable rights. It's not anywhere close to the same.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

By the way DJ you got the ramafacation to this law all wrong and the lefties got you all twisted.

We have Inalienable Rights
We have Civil Rights

These are two diferent asspects the law has to follow. The left tries to mold these together saying civil rights are part of inalienable rights. It's not anywhere close to the same.

I'm just not sure how narrow or broad this decision is.
The way I see it, under the law, someone has to pay for the birth control the law demands. It may not be listed on the insurance policy, but it will get paid for.
The A.C.A. is still the law of the land.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I'm just not sure how narrow or broad this decision is.
The way I see it, under the law, someone has to pay for the birth control the law demands. It may not be listed on the insurance policy, but it will get paid for.
The A.C.A. is still the law of the land.

Every American is guaranteed "Inalienable Rights" It's not a law at all but your rights. If it was a law Government can take it away (Like they just failed to do)

Quote
Regarding current usage being interchangeable:[3]

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away. However, the Founders used the word "unalienable" as defined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93, when he defined unalienable rights as: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."...in other words a person may do something to forfeit their unalienable rights...for instance the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which they may be punished by their loss of freedom. However, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right is restored.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I wonder who will be the first USA ayatollah will be? Maybe Pat Robertson? Swaggart? They both have the totally corrupt and morally bankrupt part down.

Carl

Good grief, have you folks lost your mind. This was a very minor decision that attempts to solve a constitutional problem. If you read the decision, you'll find what was being weighed. It's a measured decision and IMNSHO a correct decision. The democrats will be out in force trying to turn this into a cog in their mythical "war on women." Ayatollah? We have someone with similar autocratic tendencies currently in office. Thankfully, people seem to finally be waking up to his utter incompetence.

I have a difficult time believing that staunch democrats actually believe that this president has been an effective leader. Domestically, internationally, and even in general character attributes, Obama has been an abject failure. Though Carter was bad, he at least was veracious and not a narcissist that believes in his own infallible correctness.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Every American is guaranteed "Inalienable Rights" It's not a law at all but your rights. If it was a law Government can take it away (Like they just failed to do)

Quote
Regarding current usage being interchangeable:[3]

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away. However, the Founders used the word "unalienable" as defined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93, when he defined unalienable rights as: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."...in other words a person may do something to forfeit their unalienable rights...for instance the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which they may be punished by their loss of freedom. However, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right is restored.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

So why do we have the A.C.A. than? I talk about reality, not what was supposed to be.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

By the way DJ you got the ramafacation to this law all wrong and the lefties got you all twisted.

We have Inalienable Rights
We have Civil Rights

These are two diferent asspects the law has to follow. The left tries to mold these together saying civil rights are part of inalienable rights. It's not anywhere close to the same.

Well.

"Unalienable rights' is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution. As it happens I think the DOI should carry some weight, for example in respecting the human rights of non-citizens. But the Supreme Court hasn't caught up with me yet on that one, I don't think.

Civil rights aren't the same, you are correct. Civil rights are the rights one has under law. In usage, it's come to mean rights guaranteed under the Federal constitution and laws, but often denied to some individuals due to discrimination at the state and local level. But in any case, they include unalienable rights, that is the natural rights all humans everywhere have, but only to the extent that those rights are recognized in the laws. The two sets of rights therefore should overlap, at least. Ideally, enlightened civil rights should include all unalienable rights.

Anyway, can you now explain what all this has to do with whats right or wrong regarding the Hobby Lobby case?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I'm just not sure how narrow or broad this decision is.
The way I see it, under the law, someone has to pay for the birth control the law demands. It may not be listed on the insurance policy, but it will get paid for.
The A.C.A. is still the law of the land.

Ya like the one that needs it and choses to use it. They can earn money and buy it for themselves.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I have a difficult time believing that staunch democrats actually believe that this president has been an effective leader. Domestically, internationally, and even in general character attributes, Obama has been an abject failure. Though Carter was bad, he at least was veracious and not a narcissist that believes in his own infallible correctness.

+1. Jimmy looks good now.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Ya like the one that needs it and choses to use it. They can earn money and buy it for themselves.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying the reality is we will pay for it anyway.