Right to laws.

[Patchouli]

I ran across this today in my internet wanderings.

http://laundrylist.org/programs/advo...-dry-campaign/

It's a campaign to make drying your clothes on a line outside a right at the state level. It never ceases to amaze me what we have to pass laws these days to be able to do. Right to farm, right to hunt, I wonder what is next?

[arabian knight]

I am sure that came about because of SOME people that hang clothes out in a neighborhood that nobody else does and it DOES then look like a eyesore, and then laws have to be passed so you have the right to hang things out.

[GunMonkeyIntl]

Check out Federalist Paper #84.
Alexander Hamilton argued that including the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution was a dangerous precedent.

If he had his way, there would be no written "right" to free speech or "right" to bear arms. While arguing against recording explicit rights in our constitution may seem counterproductive to liberty at first glance, there are many that believe that the original amendments actually corrupted our constitution at birth.

The constitution is pretty clear throughout that the federal government is not allowed to exercise any power not explicitly granted it in the text. Meaning that the only powers that the government has over us are the ones detailed in the document, and EVERYTHING ELSE is a liberty assumed by the people, not to be infringed.

The argument, which is very pertinent to this discussion, is that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights watered down the effectiveness of the stated limitations on the government. The fear was, as it is being realized today, in my opinion, is that the understanding would be that the government granted us the right to free speech, the right to bear arms etc. Since the government grants us those rights, then it is their prerogative to grant us other rights - or choose to not grant them or take them away.

The constitution is a list of privileges that we grant the government, and every privilege we did not grant to the government was a right that we reserved for ourselves.

Try and explain that to a Supreme Court Justice today. While you're doing that, I'll be out teaching quantum physics to one of my chickens.

[Pearl B]

Im sure the chickens will learn faster!

[poppy]

I'll wager the campaign is being pushed by liberals. They see no end to intrusion into your life at every level. These particular liberals are probably part of the elite because it fits their MO. They build themselves grand homes in exclusive neighborhoods or exclusive mountain areas and then insist everyone else live to their specifications or don't build near them.

[Patchouli]

The campaign is to restore the right to hang out your laundry at the state level that way it will trump things like HOAs or city restrictions. Since liberals are also commonly greenies I kind of doubt they are trying to take away the right to hang out your laundry.

[Patchouli]

Originally Posted by GunMonkeyIntl

Check out Federalist Paper #84.
Alexander Hamilton argued that including the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution was a dangerous precedent.

If he had his way, there would be no written "right" to free speech or "right" to bear arms. While arguing against recording explicit rights in our constitution may seem counterproductive to liberty at first glance, there are many that believe that the original amendments actually corrupted our constitution at birth.

The constitution is pretty clear throughout that the federal government is not allowed to exercise any power not explicitly granted it in the text. Meaning that the only powers that the government has over us are the ones detailed in the document, and EVERYTHING ELSE is a liberty assumed by the people, not to be infringed.

The argument, which is very pertinent to this discussion, is that the inclusion of the Bill of Rights watered down the effectiveness of the stated limitations on the government. The fear was, as it is being realized today, in my opinion, is that the understanding would be that the government granted us the right to free speech, the right to bear arms etc. Since the government grants us those rights, then it is their prerogative to grant us other rights - or choose to not grant them or take them away.

The constitution is a list of privileges that we grant the government, and every privilege we did not grant to the government was a right that we reserved for ourselves.

Try and explain that to a Supreme Court Justice today. While you're doing that, I'll be out teaching quantum physics to one of my chickens.

You have to wonder though if they hadn't been spelled out would we still have those rights today though? I agree with his thinking in principle I am just not sure it would have held up in practice.

[GunMonkeyIntl]

Originally Posted by Patchouli

You have to wonder though if they hadn't been spelled out would we still have those rights today though? I agree with his thinking in principle I am just not sure it would have held up in practice.

That was precisely the debate being held at the time. No one can be sure, just as none of them could be sure at the time.

One thing is certain, though. The men engaging in that debate were brilliant thinkers who took on some of the most complex and nuanced philosophies of right and governance, and both sides passionately argued with the same goal in mind; ensuring that you and I would enjoy true and long-lasting liberty more than 200 years later.

It literally brings tears to my eyes, bumps under my skin and rage in my belly that someone so long ago would love my children so much as to argue so passionately and stage a rebellion that they were so likely to lose, potentially relegating their own lives to a footnote of history, to stake out rights for me to pass down to them.

They weren't just powdered wigs and ruffled blouses in engraved treasury plates. They were real men who did these things for all of us.

Somehow everything they did was lost and now my children will only be able to choose between leaders who wish to argue what the meaning of the word "is" is, dodge combat service but still manage to become president on their daddy's name-recognition, and arbitrarily decide how much money someone should be able to earn and make up contrived systems to redistribute the deemed excess to buy votes for their party.

It reduces me to tears and vomit and goosebumps and rage.

[gweny]

There is only one inalienable right and no discussion, law, or declaration is needed to procure it or defend it. That is the right of attitude. Even imprisoned , beaten, starving people in every country, under any government have the right to chose thier own perspective. Is the glass half full or half empty? Be careful what you choose, because that choice is the only true freedom in existance.

[Classof66]

Lots of HOA's, subdivisions and trailer parks have covenants about clotheslines. I don't have any problem with them, I like to hang clothes out.

A mobile home park near me was sold awhile back and they have all kinds of rules now. No bent or damaged mini blinds, and bikes and toys must be out of sight by a certain time at night, no cars on blocks to name a few.

I doubt they have much luck with some of their rules.

[Patchouli]

Originally Posted by Classof66

Lots of HOA's, subdivisions and trailer parks have covenants about clotheslines. I don't have any problem with them, I like to hang clothes out.

A mobile home park near me was sold awhile back and they have all kinds of rules now. No bent or damaged mini blinds, and bikes and toys must be out of sight by a certain time at night, no cars on blocks to name a few.

I doubt they have much luck with some of their rules.

That's pretty strict for a trailer park!

[Yvonne's hubby]

Originally Posted by Classof66

Lots of HOA's, subdivisions and trailer parks have covenants about clotheslines. I don't have any problem with them, I like to hang clothes out.

A mobile home park near me was sold awhile back and they have all kinds of rules now. No bent or damaged mini blinds, and bikes and toys must be out of sight by a certain time at night, no cars on blocks to name a few.

I doubt they have much luck with some of their rules.

Originally Posted by Patchouli

That's pretty strict for a trailer park!

You might be surprised... it depends upon the residents attitudes. A good example would be "The Villages" in Florida... very strict rules and the folks living there seem to love it. While most of their latest development is stick built it began life as a trailer park.

[farmrbrown]

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

You might be surprised... it depends upon the residents attitudes. A good example would be "The Villages" in Florida... very strict rules and the folks living there seem to love it. While most of their latest development is stick built it began life as a trailer park.

True, I remember it when there were a few dozen trailers in the middle of nowhere.
The vast majority are out-of-staters now, and like to bring their rules and regulations with them of course.