Warbow
Member
Dude, I think you've been living in NYC a bit too long.
Miller fully supports my view. But then again, you never did understand Miller...or Cruikshank for that matter.
Could we all do our best to keep this friendly please? It's an interesting discussion (even though I strongly believe Graystar is wrong ) but I'm only interested in reading if it doesn't descend into a bunch of ad hominem insults.
So lets look at “the People†within the Constitution. First up is the Preamble.
Quote:
We the People of the United States
...
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So lets put it to the test...can a single individual establish a Constitution? Unless you’re living alone on an island, I’d say the answer is “no.†This use of “the People†must be collective in nature
What an absolutely worthless thread.
No it’s not. Semantics has nothing to do with it. I’ve clearly explained the difference between the individual and collective. It much more than just wordplay. There's a fundamental difference in how the two forms are exercised.That admission right there shows that this thread has been nothing more than one big semantic game.
What I’ve said is that there exist right and privileges that cannot be realized by a single individual.Do you seriously advocate the concept of the "collective of one"?
That’s correct. You have a right to be represented in Congress. However, you cannot exercise that right fully to its end by yourself.The People" have rights only insofar as any individual has the rights of the group.
Oh really?
You're prepared to back up both allegations I assume?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Then exercise your right not to be part of it.What an absolutely worthless thread.
We were having a pleasant discussion until posts like yours started showing up.We're you just looking for some way to start a fight
You’ve just explained what I’ve been saying. You said, “The government of the US was established by the consent of the governed...†Please give me an example of when the exercise of speech or religion requires the consent of the governed.You're logic fails immediately. The government of the US was established by the consent of the governed, through the exercise of the individual right to vote. "We the People..." refers to the expression, by individuals, of their consent to be governed.
I think you should read the very first post in its entirely. That's where the discussion of the Fourth is.In the same amendment the words people and person are used. I would say that since the exception "seized a person" is listed, that negates the idea of the "people" making it a collective right.
How can a collective be secure in their/its persons/person? That's where your semantics kicks in. When the framers said "people" they meant everybody. Now admitidly that is a group, but to find a group in there to which the right does not apply is impossible.The Amendment says “The right of the people [the collective] to be secure in their persons [individuals]...â€
You are not understanding what a collective right is. A collective right doesn’t supplant any individual right. By its nature, a collective right simply cannot be exercised to its end by an individual. It takes many individuals, working together, to bring the right to fruition.[/
That’s right. And when they meant individuals they used the word “persons.â€When the framers said "people" they meant everybody.
Well, I’ve already explained it but I’ll do it again.If you would have said that individual rights are exercised collectively I would have agreed, but you are trying to make some weird leap to a collective right because a group of people exercise it. Unless you can explain how a collective right differs from an individual right TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO EXERCISES IT, it makes no sense at all. It might not make sense after you explain it.
And here is where you completely miss my point. Even if a single person voted, the results of that vote must be accepted by the whole before the right is fully realized. The exercise of individual rights needs no such validation.If only one person in a particular Congressional district or state chose to vote in a given election, that one person would elect the Congressman or Senator for that district or state.