dadmonson Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 The question is in the title... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) Number two certainly provides a means for defending the rest of them. Number nine puts into writing the fact that the 10 amendments that were adopted are not to be considered exhaustive. Number three provides the means of avoiding having to resort to using number two as described above, as well as exploring what number nine has to offer. All of them are derived from the more fundamental right, an individual's right to life, the source of all rights. Edited March 3, 2016 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 As Dream_Weaver says, they're all specific examples of the right to life. Some founders didn't like the idea of having a Bill of Rights for this very reason. Hence Amendment #9 and #10. One could say that those two, taken together, ought to be the most important. A reasonable person should be able to find all sorts of concrete rights within those two. However, guys like Justice Scalia, tied to their religion and to a concrete view of the constitution can hardly find any actual rights in #9 and #10. Shame on them; but, that's a lesson why the Bill of Rights were actually useful, and that perhaps instead of 10 there should have been 100, listing all sorts of things, so that such concrete-bound judges would see things staring them in the face. One way to consider this is to look at Western Europe and compare the U.S. to other countries that do not have an explicit Bill of Rights. I think one will find that none of the specific rights has been hugely important in explaining the differences between the U.S. and such Western European countries. Still, I think that explicit enumeration was a good thing and should be expanded. If I had to pick one over the others, I'd take the First Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 12 hours ago, dream_weaver said: Number two certainly provides a means for defending the rest of them. Number nine puts into writing the fact that the 10 amendments that were adopted are not to be considered exhaustive. Number three provides the means of avoiding having to resort to using number two as described above, as well as exploring what number nine has to offer. All of them are derived from the more fundamental right, an individual's right to life, the source of all rights. I meant to say the freedom to speech, rather than providing shelter for soldiers.: The first provides the means of avoiding having to resort to using number two as described above, as well as exploring what number nine has to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 The 2nd Amendment is important as it is what enables us to enforce our rights against thugs who want to eliminate them. The 1st gives us the right to challenge tyranny. The 10th severely restricts the powers of the federal government. I can't pick the one most important one but these three are perhaps the most important out of all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 The 10th because this particular admission of power to the people points most clearly to a source of power, i.e. a right to live, that isn't delimited to a legal authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadmonson Posted March 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Do any of you know of any essays on this topic? Essays from an objectivist perspective (or similar) that talk about the importance of freedom of speech, the right to bear arms or any of the rights in the Bill of Rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Here's an article dated Jan 1, 2013 by Harry Binswanger. With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.