AC:First, "granted under natural law" is an incorrect view. Inalienable rights simply exist. Natural law is a description of those rights."Wait... where is Ought Six getting the notion that the US Constitution limits the authority of the government to restrict rights granted under natural law?"
Second, I said the Bill of Rights limits the authority of the government to infringe upon our inalienable rights. The main body of the Constitution is a charter of government; a document describing its structure and enumerated powers. It generally does not refer to rights.
As for "where I got the idea", I got it from reading the document. It is quite plain. "The government shall not infringe...." is the most common sort of declaration in the BoR. What else did you think it means?
----------The Bill of Rights does not do that? I think you are obviously wrong here. If you want to say that government was supposed to fill in the details, then I would agree with you. But the basic rights; the right to live, self-defense, property rights, self-determination; these were certainly set in stone, and the Founders clearly say so in their writings."Yes many of the founders operated under the legal assumption that there is a set of natural laws - but they left the "discovery" of the natural law to the governmental process (legislatures can legislate, executives participate in the legislative process & judges interpret/reinterpret common law). They didn't try to set in stone their particular interpretation of natural law."
----------They did. Read their writings."The US government was created to be a democratic republic - that ultimately encouraged positivism. If the founders truly believed that natural law is set in stone & their interpretation of it is correct - they would have penned it."
----------Documents and agreements do not create inalienable rights. If you believe they do, then with respect, you do not understand what an inalienable right is."Even if we ignore the less interpreted 2nd Amendment - I think one can find rights expressly created by the bill of rights."
----------You are creating a false logical construct here. Just because the Third Amendment address one very particular ill of the time perpetrated by the British does not in any way modify or change the general inalienable right to keep and control your own property."The 3rd Amendment - property owners cannot be forced to quarter soldiers during time of peace. Assuming Ought Six believes that natural law gives rights & the constitution restricts the government from alienating those rights - point to one authority of natural law that gives rise to the notion that property owners have an ultimate right to exclude soldiers during times of peace from their property.
"I think it is rather absurd for the founders to say natural law gives property owners the right to exclude, but then only decided to protect that right against the quartering of soldiers."
----------Basic property rights are a fundamental tenet of natural law. The natural law author that most influenced the Founders, John Locke, expounded upon this constantly. This is also expounded upon extensively by all the prominent Founders and in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founders have been long accepted by the Supreme Court as admissible evidence going to the intent of the Founders in arguments in front of that court. I am quite suprised you seem unaware of this."Just find a legal authority that says property ownership & the right of total exclusion of soldiers is a natural right."
----------We are back to the same false logical construct; that addressing a specific item somehow denigrates the parts of the underlying principle not specifically addressed. The Ninth Amendment is quite clear in putting the lie to this idea. Most of the rest of your post is just more of the same."And explain why if natural law gives those rights of total right to exclude, why didn't the framers write the 3rd Amendment to give a property owner the right exclude government health inspectors from inspecting the conditions of migrant farm labor. Because the Ought Six's argument essentially says that framers intended to protect natural law given rights from the government - but seem to only protect the property owner from the 1) quartering of 2) soldiers."
----------Nope. It enumerated a preexisitng inalienable right derived from the right to live."Maybe I'm missing something. But if we amended the constitution to say - "this constitution gives non-alien natural persons the right to food and water," doesn't that give all citizens the right to food and water? Viola - the constitution just created a right."