If a right can be preempted it doesn't exist. anyone want to take the side that it does.
propossal: that if prempting a right is valid than that right doesn't exist
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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!
just me
Registered Senior Member
yes.
actually it does because even in the instance of prevention of the acting of the right the feeling of entitlement may remain.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This thread is 11 years old. But you go, girl.
So was the original poster, probably. He knows better by now.
What feelings to do with the exercise of rights?
Do you really want to explore the dark alleys of what-all some people feel entitled to?
just me
Registered Senior Member
just me
Registered Senior Member
thank you.
Again, what has a feeling to do with rights?
If they were defending a right to strike, it was enshrined in law. Before that, they had to fight the bosses, the goons and the government to get collective bargaining legislation passed, in order to have that right.
Rights is a term used in law - whether secular or canon.
Before the civil war, slave-owners had the right to beat, starve, rape and otherwise abuse his property, and a slave had no right to anything at all: if he ran away, he could be captured and returned, quite legally, to his master. Even if he felt entitled to freedom, he didn't have the right to get it.
It's a social convention that has meaning only by consent of authority. Any other use is delusion or wishful thinking.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
this is not about law
this is about philosophy
the law comes after the right has been accepted by a group and then acted upon to validate
the concept of the existence of a right to the self perceiving it is a perception of the inner mind
conceiving the outer world
it is a little bit troll-esque toward the merchant of Venice
err-go ...
do humans have a right to oxygen even if they have a right to life ?
(you have no right to MY oxygen and you didnt bring your own, but i accept your right to life which you may freely have)
the right is not a right to physical things
the right is the minds ability to perceive the aspect of the self having a need dependent on the outside physical world and more importantly that process of existence connecting implicitly to other peoples will
the battle of wills in a premise of the self having a right to refuse all outside things
water food oxygen people thoughts culture etc ...
- Status