Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by pjdude1219, Jul 23, 2009.
If a right can be preempted it doesn't exist. anyone want to take the side that it does.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by a right "existing." I think everyone would agree that rights are abstract concepts. Their "existence" seems to be dependent on whether or not anyone recognizes them.
It's to difficult to argue. Often 'rights' that come up in the discussion are those of state rights and jurisdiction. The problem is often rights are infringed upon by upholding a law of equal stature...so the idea that a 'right' can be preempted is heavily dependent on the circumstance.
To have a proper discussion on the topic, an agreement of underlying constitutional principals has to be reached. In other words; a prioritization of civil rights to be upheld has to be agreed upon. This discussion tends to be the subject of debate in Supreme Court Rulings, which recent rulings tend to support that state rights preempt federal rights more often than not. Though in seemingly contrary case rulings, federal jurisdiction has been seen to preempt state law.
A series of rights that doesn't have conditional supersedence of individual rights to its self is the ideal. The Supreme Court has yet to accomplish this lofty goal.
In short; I'm not sure it's a debatable topic. But if you still believe it's debatable. I take the stance that in the American court system rights that can be preempted are in fact rights.
i have a right to life
anyone wanna tell me why i dont?
will we be arguing the merits and demerits of capital punishment?
are rights are conditional rather that fundamental?
The preempt business is only used by the strong ones who think life is a jungle whereas the big fish eat the small fish .
Rephrase this entire statement with punctuation and proper grammar to be taken seriously.
That's not true at all...when government agencies come into conflict...or when laws come into conflict one has to have eminence over the other. When there's no clear precident a court has to decide, because, if no law can preempt the other...then you have no course of action!
Separate names with a comma.