Can you pass this "citizen test?"

[Nick1911]

http://content.gannettonline.com/gns/citizenship/citizenship_trivia.html

Take the test, post your score and explain away your failure to score a perfect 12,000 points.

I scored 11,000 due to missing the the "correct" answer about America's "Most Important Right". 

Got 12k.  That question is correct.  The 2nd A is just our insurance policy.  Your vote is what makes the 2nd A worth anything.  It was intended to make us all free men and women, divorsed from tyrannts and oligarchies.

The 2nd A has got nothing to do with duck hunting, shooting paper or collecting evil black rifles.  It has everything to do with protecting our country and our freedoms.  By itself, the 2nd A is nothing.

That's the theory, anyways.  Reality tends to be a bit different, I suppose.

As usual, I concur with RevDisk and Brad

[client32]

I picked Alaska instead of Hawaii. 

I'll admit that I had to guess between the two.  I guess right though.

I was just watching "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" and they asked how many states have borders on the pacific ocean.  I would have blurted out the wrong answer there before I thought about it.

[Vodka7]

Glad I'm not the only one who blew the Alaska one

[wmenorr67]

Got a perfect score.  However the one question about most important right should have d) all of the above.

[MechAg94]

I agree.  I don't know how you really separate some of those most basic rights.

[Brad Johnson]

Or do you think they never had the right to vote until they were, yes, granted that right by Constitutional amendment?

Okay, smart guy - Show me a single instance in the Constitution where it says a person is "granted the right to..." and I'll take every single word back.  You can't because there isn't one.

Current pseudo-politics to the contrary, our founding fathers had a very specific mindset when drafting the Constitution.  That is set forth in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  Just because it's gotten bastardized by two centuries of political posturing and bureaucratic BS doesn't change the original intent.

Does the Constitution contain certain restrictions on rights?  Absolutely.  Does it grant them?  No, and it never has.

Brad

[The Rabbi]

Or do you think they never had the right to vote until they were, yes, granted that right by Constitutional amendment?

Okay, smart guy - Show me a single instance in the Constitution where it says a person is "granted the right to..." and I'll take every single word back.  You can't because there isn't one.

Current pseudo-politics to the contrary, our founding fathers had a very specific mindset when drafting the Constitution.  That is set forth in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  Just because it's gotten bastardized by two centuries of political posturing and bureaucratic BS doesn't change the original intent.

Does the Constitution contain certain restrictions on rights?  Absolutely.  Does it grant them?  No, and it never has.

Brad

Regardless of any language in the Constitution or Declaration, there is no "natural" or "inalienable" right.
But you haven't answered the question.

[Brad Johnson]

There is nothing to answer.  Rights are a product of mere existance.  The government can recognize them, defend them or (unfortunately) restrict them, but it cannot grant them.  This is a fundamental issue at the core of this country's inception, and was specifically mentioned by the very people who founded it. 

They were tired of people/politicians/rulers telling them that their rights were "granted by the government".  They believed in the concept of innate rights so fully and forcefully that they took both to arms to defend it and specifically wrote it into the very document proclaiming their independence.

To believe otherwise is to be a serf, a servant, a minion of the governing class.  In other words a prisoner, a slave to the whims and whimsy of those who would use their power for mere entertainment, should they so choose.  It is an outward and overt capitulation to the idea that you don't count, have no voice, and wield no power other than that granted to you by some ruling entity.  If that's the case, you might as well put a gun to your head and end the misery now instead of living, mired in it, for the useless remainder of a futile, worthless life.

Brad

[Ezekiel]

There are no "rights" except those granted by a sanctioning body.  To some, that's God.  To others, a Constitution.

"It doesn't matter."

Inalienable would demand that ALL humans have a single sanctioning body (humanity?) that precludes everything else in the equation, that we are held as equal before it, and that it applies equally to all.

Try convincing folks of that.  (sigh)

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing to answer.  Rights are a product of mere existance.  The government can recognize them, defend them or (unfortunately) restrict them, but it cannot grant them.  This is a fundamental issue at the core of this country's inception, and was specifically mentioned by the very people who founded it. 

They were tired of people/politicians/rulers telling them that their rights were "granted by the government".  They believed in the concept of innate rights so fully and forcefully that they took both to arms to defend it and specifically wrote it into the very document proclaiming their independence.

To believe otherwise is to be a serf, a servant, a minion of the governing class.  In other words a prisoner, a slave to the whims and whimsy of those who would use their power for mere entertainment, should they so choose.  It is an outward and overt capitulation to the idea that you don't count, have no voice, and wield no power other than that granted to you by some ruling entity.  If that's the case, you might as well put a gun to your head and end the misery now instead of living, mired in it, for the useless remainder of a futile, worthless life.

Brad

Merely repeated standard mantras isn't arguing.  Why should "merely existing" grant rights?  Where is this eternal law of nature to be found?  What rights are specifically included in that?
Can you make a meaningful distinction between rights being denied and rights not existing?

[RocketMan]

Give it up, guys.  The Rabbi and Zeke are stuck on the notion that someone or something must "grant" rights.  For some reason they just can't find their way out of that box.

[Brad Johnson]

The Rabbi and Zeke are stuck on the notion that someone or something must "grant" rights.  For some reason they just can't find their way out of that box.

God, what a miserable state to be stuck in ... absolute certainty that you are piece of property - meat with eyes - who's only reason for existing is to serve as minion to someone, and be a constant slave to the whims of a ruling body.  If I thought like that I'd probably throw myself in front of the nearest train.

Brad

[Monkeyleg]

Since the two of you obviously aren't going to agree, why keep going at each other?

[Brad Johnson]

Since the two of you obviously aren't going to agree, why keep going at each other?

It is my (mostly successful) attempt to find something, anything, to do besides actually having to work this afternoon.

Brad

[The Rabbi]

Give it up, guys.  The Rabbi and Zeke are stuck on the notion that someone or something must "grant" rights.  For some reason they just can't find their way out of that box.

I'm also stuck with the notion that the Earth is round, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, and OJ is guilty.  Until someone can offer some persuasive argument (heck, any argument) to the contrary I will maintain those positions.  A shame that some people can only sling bumper sticker rhetoric instead of actually thinking through the issue.  Sheeple by a different name....

[jnojr]

Perfect score.
The right to vote is the most important right.  Everything else stems from that.

The hell it is.

My rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms are far more valuable than my right to choose who's going to oppress me this term.

[Ezekiel]

Wow.  Rabbi and I are in agreement.  I think that's a sign of the End Times...

That said, "I'm with Rabbi on this one."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Rights aren't granted by government, and government can't take them away.  A government might violate our rights, but that doesn't change the fact that we have those rights inherently.

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts the government.  It grants (delegates) a limited set of authorities to the government.  The Bill of Rights even spells this out right in the preamble.  The first 10 amendments are "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" added to the constitution expressly for the purpose of avoiding the type of misunderstanding Rabbi and Ezekial are making.  The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions, a list of limitations.  Obviously the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the people.  It identifies a partial list of rights, and restricts the government from infringing upon them. 

Note that the list of rights described int he BoR is a partial listing of our rights.  We have oodles more of them that aren't spelled out in the Consitution.  The 9th amendment spells this out quite clearly.  Neither the original Constitution nor the BoR grants rights to the people.  If anything, it's a listing of "rights" (delegated authorities) that the people grant to the government.

Rights belong to the people, not the government.  The people decide what powers the government will have, not the government.  Our rights belong to us, unless and until we decide to give them up to the government.

[Iapetus]

Just a thought:

Free Speech and RKBA are natural rights, not granted by anybody, but arising from the inate rights to freedom of concience and self defence respectively.

Voting rights, on the other hand, are contractual rights.  They require a government to exist in the first place (in order for there to be something to vote for), and the right to vote is limited to those who meet certain requirements.  (Citizenship, etc).

So the question and offical answer is right.  Voting is the most important right granted by the constitution, because it is the only one of the listed rights that is granted.

[CAnnoneer]

Can you make a meaningful distinction between rights being denied and rights not existing?

Hehehe. Rabbi agrees with me. THE END IS NIGH!

That being said, the right to arms is more important than voting, especially in practical terms. A disarmed person is nothing but a peon that functions by gov's grace. A vote between Kodos and Kane is no vote at all.

[RevDisk]

Does the Constitution contain certain restrictions on rights?  Absolutely.  Does it grant them?  No, and it never has.

Brad

You're all wrong, the Flying Spaghetti Monster grants all rights.  Geesh, I thought everyone knew that. 

The hell it is.

My rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms are far more valuable than my right to choose who's going to oppress me this term.

That's the difference between philosophical theory and reality.  I'll take my Tikka over an election that's between two nearly identical loonies, or just simply rigged.  Any day of the week, and twice on Monday's.

[Monkeyleg]

"...the sun rises in the East and sets in the West..."

The sun stays in the same place. The earth rotates. 

[grampster]

Well, I didn't read all the previous posts.  I took the test and scored a perfect score.  The last question was tricky, which the previous questions were not, but after a nanosecond of reasoning, I chuckled and got the correct answer.  Free speech and KaBA are not rights granted by the C.  They are a priori rights confirmed by the C.

[Brad Johnson]

"...the sun rises in the East and sets in the West..."

The sun stays in the same place. The earth rotates. 

Technically, the sun orbits the center of the galaxy, which is moving outward from the center of the universe.   

Brad

[The Rabbi]

Rights aren't granted by government, and government can't take them away.  A government might violate our rights, but that doesn't change the fact that we have those rights inherently.

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts the government.  It grants (delegates) a limited set of authorities to the government.  The Bill of Rights even spells this out right in the preamble.  The first 10 amendments are "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" added to the constitution expressly for the purpose of avoiding the type of misunderstanding Rabbi and Ezekial are making.  The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions, a list of limitations.  Obviously the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the people.  It identifies a partial list of rights, and restricts the government from infringing upon them. 

Note that the list of rights described int he BoR is a partial listing of our rights.  We have oodles more of them that aren't spelled out in the Consitution.  The 9th amendment spells this out quite clearly.  Neither the original Constitution nor the BoR grants rights to the people.  If anything, it's a listing of "rights" (delegated authorities) that the people grant to the government.

Rights belong to the people, not the government.  The people decide what powers the government will have, not the government.  Our rights belong to us, unless and until we decide to give them up to the government.

You have not (and cannot) make a distinction between denial of rights and non-existence of rights.  Rights are only as good as the ability to enjoy them.
The Constitution spells out rights granted.  It alludes to rights not granted either.  You are further making an unnatural distinction between "the people" and "the government".  The gov't is the people and vice-versa.  This is why voting is the most important right: people can and do vote rights for themselves.
For those believing in "natural rights" please identify the source of these rights and list them and how we know they are rights.  You cannot.  No one has succesfully proven such things exist.  The Founders did not believe in them (thus the enumeration of rights in the BoR) but used them to justify their rebellion against Britain.
And finally, I am waiting still for an answer to my original question: were 18 year olds denied their lawful rights from the founding to 1971 or did they never have them but were granted such by amendment?