Andrew Wilkow explains the concept of natural rights

Andrew Wilkow explains the concept of natural rights to a Liberal caller.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Wilkow
• rights
• conservative
• liberal
• radio
• Wilkow Majority

[ConservativePunkTV]

@oberltMBowden. Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment because he believed the constitution implied what was made explicit by the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln's own words were that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This was not a departure from Lincoln's beliefs on the matter of slavery, as he never thought that the constitution gave the executive branch the power to abolish slavery.

[joedoufu]

Slavery wasn't abolished by the Constitution. The abolition of slavery was made formal by *changing* the Constitution. If those amendments hadn't been made, would Andrew today defend the institution of slavery?

[ConservativePunkTV]

Andrew acknowledges that it was the changing of the constitution that abolished slavery by refering to the 13th 14th and 15th *amendments* (to amend=to change). Of course he wouldn't defend slavery. He would have fought for a Constitutional amendment abolishing it so that the Constitution more perfectly reflected natural rights.

[joedoufu]

I think you're right about what Andrew would do, but I'm right about the hole in Andrew's logic. He should recognize that the Constitution derives its validity from the philosophy of natural rights, and not the other way around.

[ConservativePunkTV]

But he does, and very clearly so. "There are certain inherent natural rights that are not granted by men to other men. You Victor do not have your rights because of me Andrew Wilkow, you have your rights because you're Victor a human being."

[ConservativePunkTV]

You're also incorrect about where the Constitution derives its validity from; the Constitution is a legal document, and derives its validity from the consent of the governed. To say that it derives its validity from natural rights is to say that a constitutional amendment which violates natural rights would invalidate it, which legally it wouldn't. The case can be made that there are already amendments that violate natural rights.

[kevcwb]

Like Andrew said..we are right they are wrong..stupid liberal never can answer a question and always putting words in someone elses mouth

[Halo4Lyf]

@oberltMBowden23 Sorry, but what illegal wars do you refer to? Last time I checked, Congress authorized all military action undertaken by the Bush Administration.

[oberltMBowden23]

Wilkow is a moron.. he is stuck inside the fake right vs left paradigm .. he never called out bush for his wrongs (patriot act, illegal wars, lying about wmds, torture-secret arrests,spying on us citizens,GROWING the SIZE&SCOPE OF GOVT!,ETC) but he calls obama out. I like consistency. I CALL BOTH OF THEM OUT BECUZ IM AWARE BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME. Wilkow says republicans are badass and the non racist party cuz of lincoln (republicans back then were big govt & Demos back then were limited govt)

[oberltMBowden23]

@bricitybrac B4 THE WAR LINCOLN OFFERED THE CSA A DEAL: HE SAID HE WOULD PASS THE CORWIN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE KEPT SLAVERY LEGAL FOREVER IN THE SECEDED STATES & OUTLAW IT ELSEWHERE.. AND THE STATES REFUSED.. SO IF THE STATES ONLY SECEDED SO THEY MADE SURE THEY COULD EEP SLAVERY KEGAL.. THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE DEAL AND LIVED HAPPILY WITH SLAVES. BUT THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES (SLAVERY WAS 1) BUT TAXATION/LACK OF REPRESENTATION IN THE US HOUSE/TARRIF REVENUE DISTRIBUTION/ETC WERE OTHER CAUSES

[Robbob9933]

@Brettwbeyer14 The Constitition even though it recognised slavery as legal was however an anti-slavery document. By counting slaves as 3/5 when dolling out representatives, states were punished for permitting slavery. Schools don't really teach this anymore. Sad thing is that if you went to high school after 1980 you were steadily taught history wrong. Today, history education bears little fedility to reality due to political correctness.

[redleg15]

@redleg15

6 Months later and silence is golden. I can only hope that you have grown up and realized that the preservation on your life is up to you and not the Government.

[Warpath2198]

@philharmonic86 This sounds like some random poorly thought out high school babble. You are trying to compare everyday life to a life or death situation? You do realize that every creature on earth has a hard coded need to survive? Why do you think organizations like the military stress so much discipline and training? Animals even humans fall back to instincts of fight or flight in life threatening cases and silly scenarios of rights are not going to matter until the danger is clear.

[redleg15]

@philharmonic86

you really went to the lifeboat situation? Why not try catching fish with the single persons rations to make both people live longer in hopes of rescue? It's not always about YOU. Would you consider killing a family member as self defense?

[082076]

I love Wilcow. Screw all that dont!