So rights do not exist without the Constitution? Rights do not exist without government?
Sent at a speed of 3*10^8 meters per second via Tapatalk.
So rights do not exist without the Constitution? Rights do not exist without government?
Sent at a speed of 3*10^8 meters per second via Tapatalk.
Rights always exist, with or without government. Governments are instituted to insure people have those rights. My point being the President and Congress cannot give us rights, they only pass laws. I guess if you or other people want to believe Congress can pass a right, then have at it.
I'm not Lurker66. I believe Obamacare infringes upon the right of free association and the right to choose where and when one enters into commerce. I figured my position would be fairly understood by now.
By the way, what you said contradicts your previous post.
Sent from my SGP312 using Tapatalk
I do not think it contradicts my previous post, which I know that was the point of your question, HaHa.
My response was to Lurker66's post about Obamacare being a Right. Obamacare is a statute passed by Congress. I made a rebuttal to lurker, which is limited to his claim, nothing more.
Your question was not confined to the Constitution, but a broader question about Rights, in general. Again, you were being a smartass, and a little churlish. If you want me to respond to your posts, then don't try to twist my argument, when we both know that is what you are doing. I know you understand how a debate is supposed to work.
If you have an honest question about my views then ask on real questions and I will give you real answers. If you ask a question about a new topic (which is what you did,) I will answer your question. But, you cannot then try to say I contradicted myself, when you know I did not.
Otherwise, we can feel free to ignore each other.
What you just did was, the exact same thing you tried to do with God performing abortions, when a woman miscarries. I refused to respond to that post. You claimed that was not your purpose. I took your word for it as a man. Then you did the exact same thing again, when I had trusted you as a man. Then you came back like a smartass little kid saying "I got you." I had considered not responding to your question at all, but I trusted your honesty. I guess I was wrong about you being trustworthy.
My response was to Lurker66's post about Obamacare being a Right. Obamacare is a statute passed by Congress. I made a rebuttal to lurker, which is limited to his claim, nothing more.
Your question was not confined to the Constitution, but a broader question about Rights, in general. Again, you were being a smartass, and a little churlish. If you want me to respond to your posts, then don't try to twist my argument, when we both know that is what you are doing. I know you understand how a debate is supposed to work.
If you have an honest question about my views then ask on real questions and I will give you real answers. If you ask a question about a new topic (which is what you did,) I will answer your question. But, you cannot then try to say I contradicted myself, when you know I did not.
Otherwise, we can feel free to ignore each other.
What you just did was, the exact same thing you tried to do with God performing abortions, when a woman miscarries. I refused to respond to that post. You claimed that was not your purpose. I took your word for it as a man. Then you did the exact same thing again, when I had trusted you as a man. Then you came back like a smartass little kid saying "I got you." I had considered not responding to your question at all, but I trusted your honesty. I guess I was wrong about you being trustworthy.
Why did he tell the people to take their tithing to the temple if he had no use for money?
Wrong, according to our founders as written in the declaration of independence our rights are unalienable and are endowed by our creator. They do not depend on the acts of men in the passage of laws. They are God given.
Similar threads
