Oh and I almost missed your impeccable research here. Australia is a republic? Did somebody forget to tell me? Gee, I thought that vote went the other way!
You are equivocating between equal meaning same and equal meaning possessed of equal rights. Such word play is unbecoming.
That's rather dumb. All you are doing is remaining vague in the attempts to avoid being pinned down. Of course at some level axiomatic law is arbitrary that's it's nature. But it doesn't mean we can't logically detemine which set of axioms are to your best self interest. With all parties participating with the same set of self-interest, you can use the axoims to achieve the most universially beneficial system. It's an extention of "I'll cut the cake, and you can select the first peice" set of rules. Due to the people's self-interest, we achieve equal halves.
Continuing with your wrong premise, just makes you continually wrong.joobz said:
IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Then why did they not include it in the Constitution? Natural law was mentioned in a work of political rhetoric intended to appeal to people emotionally. Yet when it came to the actual nuts and bolts of establishing the legal foundation of a new nation mention of natural law is conspicuously absent. In the entire history of the United States has anyone ever made a legal appeal to natural law?
His point is that, "Um, that's moral relativism and that's bad, mmm'kay."
Which, in everyday life, few people are in the strictest sense.
Than, I apologize, because you did not clarify matters for me. I do not understand what your disagreement is with my statement.
When I first read this (with your post to Mark), , I thought you were giving the sound effect of your balls being added to the table.
