You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Not providing housing for the homeless is a human rights violation...
Yes, have you ever noticed that's not an amendment to the constitution? In other words, kind of strange don't you think that there is no right to eat, right to sleep, right to shelter, etc? Matter of fact, there's a lot of rights missing from the constitution...
Yeah, Im not an expert in international law, I like the constitution, but I think this "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was ment to secure a common standard to prevent horrible conditions internationally. The US and most western countries voted for it, but some countries did not like these human rights so much, like some communist regimes they did not like the part about people having the right to leave their own countries, or something like that.
I also read on wikipedia that US federal/local law can override the "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", something I find a bit odd? But then again not everything on wikipedia is true.
I guess we just have to try and help one and other...
Cheers and thanks for the comment, it made me happy to see you around @artopium!
/FF
@friendly-fenix, what country do you live in? The constitution is a very important piece of Common Law, which is the Law that governs many countries besides the U.S. For example, India is a Common Law country, mostly because of the colonization by England. Indian courts have been able to use the U.S. Constitution as evidence because of this. This is possible when a Common Law country has no precedence for a particular case, it can then use court cases from other Common Law countries. Common Law is greater than International Law because it is the Law of the Land, whereas International Law is the law of the Water. Law of the Land is the laws of the customs and peoples that live on that land. Law of the water is monetary law and is the laws of imports, exports and war.
Posted using Partiko Android
Hmm. Yeah thats crazy India using the U.S constitution had no clue about that, I knew India is Common Law so is Belize and many other former colonies, or at least so I heard.
So whats your opinion on "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?
Do you think it's some obscurity that is no longer relevant?
I'm sorry, I forgot to make my point clear. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unnecessary if you live in a Common Law country. The Common Law is very simple to understand in that it basically states that One has the right to do absolutely anything so long as they do no wrong to another human being. The rest of the law is sorting out what is right, what is wrong. This is accomplished under Common Law by court trials and affidavits of Truth. This is contrary to International Law, Admiralty Law, and Napoleonic Law, in which everything is forbidden except for that which is expressly allowed. So, in Common Law, a statute or ordinance is something that is written into "code" that is not allowed. Under Admiralty Law, the only things written into code are those that are allowed, otherwise it's against the law. Think of a sea port with a list of items allowed into the country. The idea of "International Law" declaring rights for Humans is absurd. They don't have jurisdiction (water vs land) to declare something that actually already exists. I hope this makes sense. The only way such rights could be granted to those who don't live in Common Law countries would be through force. So is this a declaration of war?
Thats an interesting opinion @artopium, I read that some muslim countries also claim sharia-law over rides "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", Im not sure why it was put in place if the U.N countries don't respect it as the ultimate law...
Are you proposing that they are to be seen as "guidelines" more then an actual law? If that is the case what was the point of the whole thing to begin with, sorry Im a bit confused.
Anyway everybody has opinions and we are allowed to share them (I think, wait let me check, hmm, oops maybe not lol)... 😇
Yeah, so that part of it comes down to Sovereignty. You feel you should be able to act freely so long as you don't hurt others and you don't like being told that there are things you can and can't do that would limit these rights. This is called sovereignty and the U.S. is the only country that grants sovereignty to individual humans. In other countries, including other Common Law countries, although the individual has rights, they do not have sovereignty, only the State does. Before the U.S. Declaration of Independence, only the State has ever held sovereignty. For an International body of Law such as the U.N. to declare that it's authority usurps the sovereignty of a particular State, regardless of how it treats it's citizens, is a precedent in how Law and Authority have worked on the planet for thousands of years. It puts the interests of money (water) above that of humans (land). It means that an International Court has more authority than a more local court. And in International law the judges are appointed, never voted. And as I mentioned before, there is no Common Law in International law. They contradict each other. The U.N. should not have authority over the Peoples of another Land. Regardless of it's plea for "Human Rights", the ultimate outcome is waiving of many rights not written in it's list. It's a horrible idea given a great sounding name for a great sounding cause.
But in the end Law is determined by those who have the biggest guns.
Hmm... Maybe you are right, I just read up more about the International Court of Justice, and it looks like the United States are no longer over ruled by this court...
I do agree on the point that it seems that the entities with the most guns make the rules, but Im not a 100% sure, I feel like it might be second to the entity with the most intelligence & money combined...
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/domestic-judgment/india.php
So, back to why the U.S. Constitution does not list the right to shelter, sleep or food. The Bill of Rights is not a document for Humans to follow. It was created by Humans for the Government to follow. People forget this all the time. At the time it was created there was no need to make a list at all because everyone understood what the Common Law was and already knew they had all their rights. It was greatly argued at the time of it's writing that no Bill of Rights should be included at all because to write the rights down is to create a list of things allowed (smacks of International Law), and it's limiting as a Human has rights that are infinite in their capacity to be creative without doing harm. So, when they finally did agree on a list, it was those rights they felt were so important that the Government itself needed to be constructed around them, so as to grant them to the employees of the government, because after all, they are human too. However, the government's capacity to act needed to be limited, and so the Bill of Rights is a limited list of rights allowed to Gov employees. It does not apply to ordinary people. And so, although a government employee still has the right to speak and carry arms, they do not have the right to privacy, or to own private business while in office.
Cool I did not know this about the "Bill of Rights". There are a lot of ways to interpret law I guess, and quite a few contradictions, what I notice is that I tend to try and align the laws with my own political opinions, and thats what most people seem to be doing, right or wrong. It's all very interesting actually.