SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 132:
Line 132: − + Line 138:
Line 138: − * [[Jury nullification]] Line 149:
Line 148: − + + − + Line 162:
Line 162: +
→Threats & Safeguards: expand
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well.
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well.
== Threats & Safeguards ==
== Threats and safeguards ==
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:
* Grand Juries
* Grand Juries
* Jury trials (Petit Juries)
* Jury trials (Petit Juries)
* [[Habeas corpus]]
* [[Habeas corpus]]
* Popular vote of congressmen and senators
* Popular vote of congressmen and senators
* Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
* Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
* Limitation on [[Enumerated Powers]] to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
* Limitation on [[Enumerated Powers]] to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
* Courts of appeal and the Supreme Court
* The right to appeal executive or agency actions and lower court decisions to a higher court
* The right to place referenda or citizen originated questions on the ballot
* The right to abolish the government and start over
* The right to abolish the government and start over
Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the [[big government|federal government]]. Of late, they include:
Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the exercise of government power. Of late, they include:
* [[Hate crime|Hate Crime]] laws - Infringe on the right to think in a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
* [[Hate crime|Hate Crime]] laws - Infringe on the right to think in a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)
* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)
* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] ''Kelo'' decision - Distortion of the power of [[eminent domain]], allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another. See [[income redistribution]].
* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] ''Kelo'' decision - Distortion of the power of [[eminent domain]], allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another. See [[income redistribution]].
* Suspension of Habeas corpus during the war on terrorism.
== Human Rights==
== Human Rights==