He’s a good man with good values and the right ideas
-
Ten tweet jest niedostępny.
-
-
W odpowiedzi do to @Wishful_wink@LonghornMorty i jeszcze
He doesn't believe in the morally absolute Natural Rights of individuals, even though it was Stephen F. Austin's belief, as well as the beliefs of the forefathers of our Nation. He called Natural Rights philosophy "gobbledygook." In philosophical terms he's a moral relativist.pic.twitter.com/i3MVArip1m
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @PhilosophySeel@LonghornMorty i jeszcze
The term “natural rights” in our present society has been taken way out of context And I’d like to know where he said that and in what context
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @Wishful_wink@LonghornMorty i jeszcze
Natural Rights are defined by John Locke's Natural Rights philosophy, which his Social Contract theory is the architecture of our Nation. In context, he stated that States have the Right to ban guns, despite the existence of the 2nd amendment.pic.twitter.com/BTlHUc0G73
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @PhilosophySeel @Wishful_wink i jeszcze
What he failed to acknowledge is that Govts do not possess Rights because they're an unnatural entity. Only people can possess Rights. Gov'ts possess power granted by consent of the Governed for the single purpose of securing our Natural Rights.pic.twitter.com/2i89JxFi2C
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @PhilosophySeel@Wishful_wink i jeszcze
1) the U.S. is a Union of States, not a monolithic “N”ation. 2) the States requested a BoR, which includes the 2A, to restrict only the federal; a fact known to anyone who’s read the ratifying debates. 3) nothing here suggests I don’t believe in Natural Rights. You lack logic.
2 odpowiedzi 1 podany dalej 6 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @DwayneStovall@Wishful_wink i jeszcze
It also appears you fail to distinguish the difference between a Federation & Confederation. The Constitution limits the powers of Gov't at all levels, because it is the Supreme law (See Article VI) by protecting the Natural Rights of individuals.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @PhilosophySeel@Wishful_wink i jeszcze
No. Article VI is a limiting measure, not an expanding one. The States only agreed to let the Constitution (list of limits) & laws made "in pursuance thereof" be supreme, so if it's not associated w/ the limited powers they loaned the federal, it's none of the federal's business.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @DwayneStovall@Wishful_wink i jeszcze
That is your opinion, and a false one at that. The Supremacy clause gives Supreme authority to the Constitution. The words can't be changed to mean something else.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony
Read it again. It's clear. It's crystal clear, And the Constitution of the U.S. is a list of limited authorities - limited. It has clear limits.
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.