Login/Sign Up




A person should have the right to relinquish all of his current and future rights.
Toys

thales
Jul 09, 2010
4 votes
6 debaters
2


+ Add Argument

2
Yes


shypanda
Jul 10, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

Perhaps it is merely phrasing that causes me contention. I would say that an individual has the right against self incrimination but that they never give this right up they merely choose not to exercise it at that point in time. Similarly someone does not give up their right protecting them from unlawful search and seizure; however, they allow themselves to be searched while still maintaining the right and the ability to stop the search at any time.

I realize that this is semantics; however, semantics are very important to some people on this site *cough Blackkodiak cough*. More or less the same position, only differentiating on how we articulate that position.

Still curious as to how you would define probable cause though.

 
ericcartman
Jul 09, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think that a person should have the rights to voluntarily diminish his rights. This is called the right to make a contract. Please note that this does not meant that the majority in a country should have the right to diminish the rights of any individual who does not wish to give them up.

 
blackkodiak
Jul 09, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Agree.

 
shypanda
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

I am confused... what is it exactly that you are arguing? Are you arguing that people should not have the right to relinquish their rights because "...they have the right to impose that right, at any time and without question..."? You also state that "...giving up rights is part of having a right..." which to me sounds like you are taking the position that people should be able to relinquish their rights. I just need a little clarification, your statements don't seem to mesh with the position you are taking.

On a side note I am curious as to what you would consider probable cause because your Carroll Doctrine statement sounds like it could very easily be considered a Terry Stop.

 
thales
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shypanda Show

...and I'll go ahead and confirm that the phrasing of the debate was deliberate.....

Carry on. :-)

 
+ Add Argument

2
No


shypanda
Jul 10, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

"This is called the right to make a contract."

Unfortunately the question at hand allows for contracts in the way I believe you intended. I assume that you are referring to the individuals in the armed forces signing a contract with the government relinquishing certain rights; however, the question at had in ALL rights and PERMANENTLY. Contracts expire and can be broken enabling the recovery of rights, the phrasing of the initial question does not allow for just such a recovery.

 
shypanda
Jul 09, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If government were to only fulfill its three true objectives this would not be possible unless an individual violated the rights of another. Only through revocation by the government (society) of those rights for infringement of anothers rights could an individual voluntarily diminish their own rights.

Role of government:
1. Protect citizens from unwanted foreign force.
2. Protect the fundamental rights of its citizenry
3. Provide fair arbitration in cases where there is a dispute between citizens.

 

Jul 09, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

and how would that work?

 
larryt700
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

A contract is not diminishing someone's rights. It is someone exercising their rights. Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was originally Life, Liberty and Property but certain founding fathers changed it probably because in some cases, eminent domain would have to be enacted.

 
larryt700
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Also giving up rights is a part of having a right.... When I interview or interogate someone, I am asking them to relinquish their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination... Even though they give up the right to remain silent, their rights are still in tact. Plus, they have the right to impose that right, at any time and without question, even if I have a signed form with them acknowleging that they gave up that right. Contractual rights and individual rights are quite different in the eyes of the law and the Supreme Court.

For instance, I can search your car (Carroll Doctrine) based on probable cause, without a warrant. However, the closer I get to you and your personal space, the rules are more stringent and strict. Your yard has a reasonable expectation of privacy to some extent. Your house has a greater expectation of privacy and so on.

 
larryt700
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shypanda Show

Ahhh, I totally understand what you are saying... The true perspective on rights are that rights are choices that you make. Take for instance... The 2nd Amendment - Right to bear arms... Obviously, you have the choice to not bear arms.. Correct? 4th Amendment - Right against unlawful search and seizure... The government cannot infringe upon that right without due cause and justification. However, you can voluntarily sell or give up your property and even 'voluntarily' have it searched. 5th Amendment - Right against self incrimination or Miranda which means that you cannot be compelled to speak and implicate yourself... However, you can voluntarily invoke that right or give up the right to remain silent but YOU NEVER LOSE THAT RIGHT because you can impose it at anytime during any questioning, EVEN if you signed and affidavit specifying that you give up that right.

6th Amendment - Right to speedy trial, which is the one I see given up the most because attorneys need time to build up an adequate defense...

7th Amendment - Right to a jury trial of your peers, which you can give up as well

8th - Right against unreasonable bail and against unreasonable punishments... These rights are almost never given up except when someone wishes , which just happened recently, wishes death by firing squad or hanging in lieu of lethal injection or the electric chair...

Anyway, I guess I could go on but giving up rights, in essence is not construed in the legal world as losing those rights... Does that make sense?

Additionally, by no means can you give up permanent rights for the rest of your life unless you are a convicted felon and your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and the right to vote kind of goes out the window.

 
shypanda
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Figured that this debate was your doing Thales. When this popped up after our discussion over on the legalization of drugs debate. :P

 
larryt700
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shypanda Show

Oh wow, probable cause is a totally different debate/class! LOL When I got my criminal justice degree, I think probable cause covered about a month's worth of classes within and of itself. However, I am impressed with your wordage in the first paragraph!

You are absolutely right that they DO NOT specifically give up a right even though they CHOOSE to not exercise it at certain specific times. It does depend on the wording which is imperative when presenting cases and dealing with legal issues. But your paragraph indicates to me that you totally understand the concept. Choosing not to exercise a right is NOT giving up a right...

As far as probable cause, that is one term that has been on a sliding scale since the inception of law. I would look up Terry v Ohio to start out with if you are interested and go from there... I mentioned Carroll which was a moonshiner who challenged a search of his vehicle without a search warrant but the Supreme Court agreed that for officers to get a search warrant, the time to get the search warrant would allow the defendant to get rid of the evidence.

There are over 30 exceptions to the 4th Amendment, which I would love to discuss but that would take a lot of time and I am not sure if you could stay awake through it.. lol

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

LEGO toys