Inalienable Rights Means Citizenship Not Required

[ymetca]

I think this is the crux of the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. The former tend to believe rights come before citizenship, while the latter tend to believe citizenship comes before rights.

I think most of us here are in the former group, which, I feel certain, our Constitution clearly expresses.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

This would be the first question I would ask of any Supreme Court nominee. Which do you believe?

[PoliticAverse]

1. That's actually not from the US Constitution....

It's from the Declaration of Independence.

[shraby]

2. I notice it mentions inalienable rights before it mentions governments. In the constitution, things

are presented in order of importance. I would guess this is too.

[ymetca]

3. But which do you believe is correct?

That seems the issue... Not the order in which things are written anyway.

[MichMan]

4. That means non citizens also get to vote ?

If indeed, as the OP stated, the people have the right to alter or abolish the existing government and to institute a new government regardless of citizenship, that would obviously mean that non citizens therefore have the right to vote

[ymetca]

6. Yeah, I think so

We should just declare the whole world "America" and invite everyone to vote at this point. It'd be cheaper and probably work better than all this star-bellied sneeches horsesh*t we're doing now...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. No. Voting is a way of participating in government.

Our current government has qualifications which must be met in order to participate. Certain offices require certain minimum ages. The president must be native born. Each state sets voting rules for those who reside there.

Voting isn't a human right. Participating in government depends on the government with which one wishes to participate. Without qualifications a half million folks from Virginia could bus up to NYC and vote in the election for the Mayor. For that matter, without qualifications half a billion Russians could fly over and elect a president.

Governments have a way of hanging around and lots of folks prefer to have things remain comfortable and static. Often it takes a revolution to establish a new government.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. rights are accorded to humans

The rights named in the Bill of Rights are human rights.

[judesedit]

7. Why are we not instituting a new goverment? This is what we should be doing!

y

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. See my post #8

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11681945#post8

Voting is a means of changing government. It's less unsettling than revolution.