NOTAM

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be
denied the right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and
not a privilege.


A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.


Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.



Recall the line "inalienable rights"...?


Very well.



Do you know what "inalienable" means?


I sure do.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:21:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Correct, and as long as you meet the requirements you cannot be
denied the right to fly. Or drive. That's what makes it a right and
not a privilege.


A right never has a requirement. That makes is a privilidge, not a right.


Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.



Recall the line "inalienable rights"...?


Very well.



Do you know what "inalienable" means?


I sure do.


Apparently many of our politicians do not.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:21:02 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Do you know what "inalienable" means?

I sure do.

Apparently many of our politicians do not.

There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know (as some
posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase "inalienable rights" does
not occur in any U.S. legal document that guarantees those rights to us. It occurs in
the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law. To sum it up,
it's a pretty word, but not pertinent to this discussion.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know
(as some posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase
"inalienable rights" does not occur in any U.S. legal document that
guarantees
those rights to us. It occurs in the Declaration of Independence, which
does
not have the force of law.


It does not occur in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of
Independence uses the phrase "unalienable Rights". Jefferson used
"inalienable rights" in an earlier draft.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Do you know what "inalienable" means?

I sure do.

Apparently many of our politicians do not.

There's no indication that that's the case; however, they probably know
(as some
posters in this thread apparently do not) that the phrase "inalienable
rights" does
not occur in any U.S. legal document that guarantees those rights to us.

I believe they are talking about basis of rights, not legal standings.
Hense, yours is a non-sequitur.


It occurs in
the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law. To
sum it up,
it's a pretty word, but not pertinent to this discussion.

Neither does the Preamble to the Constitution, but pols love to refer to the
"General Welfare" (and many call it a clause).

Context, sir.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Roger wrote:

Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example, your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

You've got the freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean you will be heard.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Roger wrote:

Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.


The government is the "others" referred to.

The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

The government is the "others" referred to.


It requires the government not to prohibit you. It does not require property
owners not to prohibit you from excercising your right of free speech contrary
to their property rights.


A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.


I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is a bit more than this to the
difference between a right and a privilege (which I am now spelling correctly
And nowadays a pilot certificate =can= be revoked with no recourse, for no
reason the government can be held accountable for.

Any lawyers want to chime in on what the difference in law is between a right
and a privilege?

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
your right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

The government is the "others" referred to.


It requires the government not to prohibit you. It does not require
property
owners not to prohibit you from excercising your right of free speech
contrary
to their property rights.


A license cannot be arbitrarily denied to qualified
applicants as a privilege can.


I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is a bit more than this to the
difference between a right and a privilege (which I am now spelling
correctly
And nowadays a pilot certificate =can= be revoked with no recourse,
for no
reason the government can be held accountable for.

Not a lawyer but the revocation might be determined to be illegal should
someone care to run it up the court system. Many laws are illegal but they
remain in place if they are not challenged in the courts.

Any lawyers want to chime in on what the difference in law is between a
right
and a privilege?

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Roger wrote:

Wrong. The rights of one impose requirements on others. For example,
your
right to free speech requires others to allow you to speak.

Nope, it just requires the government not to prohibit you.

Yes, these are "negative" rights.

You've got the freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean you will be heard.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO