drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

ugly_thot: The Ontology Of Special Rights.

Hum....

Amongst the gigglers of the seasons have been the ruling from Komrade Party Leader Scalia. And of course the usual sort of knee jerk reaction by evil liberals who once thot that there was some value that could be gleened from what the founding father's actual wrote and actually did as a part of the process of seeking to live a life that was in accord with the way of the founding fathers.

So of course someone raises the idea,
We hold these truths to be self evident....
as IF this piece of epistemology were useful in our modern post-911 times. They also step from that idea to the notion
Endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...
without fullly addressing not merely the
of course when the founding fathers say our creator they are establishing their unquestioned faith in the divinity of dubya as the argument form intelligent design demands
nor with wondering if this assertion means that Rights are an ONTOLOGICAL issue.

Which is where we are off for a day at the races.

Let us start with the usual gamboling:
The application of originalism in Heller is best summarized as the irascible using the inscrutable to seize the ineffable: Looking at the same history, two factions of the Court are able to spin accounts that justify diametrically opposed conclusions. Unlike real historians, neither side could admit that the history might be complex, that there might be ambiguity in the historical record, or that -- shocker! -- people might have disagreed about what a political enactment meant. And if history is inconclusive, this means "originalist" judges in fact do make substantive choices but then pretend to have their hands tied.
[ cf Justice Scalia's Dueling Opinions ]
WOW, I just love that Aziz Huq - and uh, the Thingus OF Pooh!!!

So we really need to be careful here, about what we do, since, well, we would hate to do the bad things that liberals do. Especially 'in these times' - he said being code-word safe.

Thus let us start by establishing that the Founding Father's meant that the existence of rights reside in the individual, in an ontological sense, and not that they are merely something granted to the person by some collection of radical extremists judicial activists bench warmers of the left wing!!!

We add to this the clearly concerning concern that the recent rulings of the Supreme's were giving rights to non-americans that clearly do not exist in the ontology of these non-americans.

For those who may have noticed that there is a Reductio in progress, please learn to work and play well with your friends and fellow ontologically enabled!!!

Well of course since rights reside in the "being" part of Being American, we can shut down all of that evil liberal one world blue helmetted horror, because, well only those persons who ARE american, not merely the ones who DO american, can be truly american. Not to mention be protected by the Majikal Special Powers that put those very ontologically pure rights into the person!!!

Thus the concern is to make sure that a person IS american enough to be able to have the basic american rights! since clearly the old failed liberal notion of homo-sapien-sapien needs to end as one of the whole HORRORS of the evil evolutionary world. We can now replace this with the new Species Americanus Americani which is clearly superiour in all ways to the mere homo sapiens, who have not been majikally endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

We move along then to notice that GOD in GOD's DIVINE WILL has given some Americanus Americani greater needs and Urges, which of course means that Throbbing Tumultuous Americanus Americani have clearly been granted even greater ontology, and thus even greater rights!!! Above them are the Gloriously Greatly Throbbing Tumultuous Americanus Americani who clearly, as really BIG MEN, are such dicks as have really important special special rights.

Hum.....

Where ever have we seen this process before...

Oh well, the alternative would be that the founding fathers were in fact speaking in terms of the general a priori state of knowledge about how rights exist before the state, and thus can not be construed as deriving from the good graces of the state, and it's beneficant ways. Which leads us on to that part of the constitution about how them thar rights not afforded to the state are, well, left with the folks what gots them from their creator....

Granted that way would lead to a process model in which rights are a part of an ethical discourse, and not a part of an ontological special space where some are more by their being....

Granted, I am so willing to do the whole Patriotically Correct Thing if that is cool enough.

So until americans opt to work out where rights really come from, and if they are even really relevant in a post-911 world, I will go on supporting the status quo ante:

Thank GOD we have RoboBushCheney!!!
They Shiney!!!

For Lo the ontological was big and turgid and manly and male and required no reasoning at all!!!

Remember boys and persons of lesser ontological states, this is what we are fighting for!!!
Tags: law, ugly_thot, war, war_crimes
Subscribe

  • Who's Getting Who's Crazy On?

    Fox & MSNBC Reporters at Values Voters: Rude, Disruptive, Lazy - the folks at faith to action have another take on the values conference, where the…

  • The asymetric problem

    A friend of my recently raised the fear point - what happens when some stateless actor up and does a nuke strike on some american friendly space. { I…

  • Which family values?

    A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment