Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
I think you missed his point (and the other Framers' point) entirely. They were arguing not that "all men born in the geographic confines of the current colonial boundaries" are entitled to certain freedoms. They were arguing that "all men" are entitled to certain natural rights (and then they enumerated some such rights).
They then argued that, given our natural right to certain freedoms, we should expect our government to secure those rights. When it did not secure those rights, men have a right to overthrow their government and start over (which is what the Declaration of Independence then did).
The irony, as applied to this situation, is that we believe in natural rights and we believe that government is instituted to protect those rights. Therefore, when it comes to the protection of those rights (i.e., securing those rights) we should have no problem extending those rights to others. Iraq has not secured the rights of its people. It doesn't mean we fail to recognize that they have rights which SHOULD HAVE BEEN secured but were not by their government. For us to then ignore certain rights based on the lack of a government compact is appalling.
|
ANd the right you leaned on as being primary in nature was Due Proicess and that brings us back to where I entered.