French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[ulmont]

Not that cryptic.  The case is Medellin v. Texas, from 2008. 
(snip)

I don't see how that supports your contention that states have rights (or at least a right).  Or is this no longer your contention?

That was being used as rebuttal to Minsky.  While it is true that it is desirable that "every right must have a remedy" (which Minsky was using to support his contention that states have no rights, having no remedies for violations of said rights), it is by no means universal.

[grumbler]

That was being used as rebuttal to Minsky.  While it is true that it is desirable that "every right must have a remedy" (which Minsky was using to support his contention that states have no rights, having no remedies for violations of said rights), it is by no means universal.

I don't see hw you are rebutting his point, which is that "the maxim is that every right must have a remedy."  Are you saying that this is not the maxim?

If you disprove the maxim, does that indicate in any way that states have a right?

[The Minsky Moment]

The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.

Like consular notification...

I think that case supports my position:  TThe court's holding was that treaties are intergovernmental compacts that have no force other than what the signatories choose to give them in domestic law.  In Medillin's case, the United States chose to not to give effect to its treaty commitment.  Since the offended party is actually another government, and since governments have no rights, the only recourse is through diplomatic complaint.  Medellin thus has no remedy and has no right, the language of the treaty notwithstanding.

[Slargos]

By that same reasoning, people don't have rights either.

No that doesn't follow.  The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.  If a limited government violates a citizen's right, the citizen has a remedy which the infringer of the right has bound itself to honor.  That does not exist among Westphalian states, which explains why all those hundreds of principalities, bishoprics and states whose "rights" of non-interference were supposedly guaranteed by the treaty ceased to exist within about 200 years.

So you would agree that there are no inherently "inalienable" rights?

[The Minsky Moment]

So you would agree that there are no inherently "inalienable" rights?

I am not sure - it depends what you mean be inalienable.
Many rights - but not all - can be waived.  I am not sure whether this is what you mean though.

The use of "inalienable" rights in the American Declaration of Independence related to a theory of popular sovereignty - that is a theory that the people as sovereigns had certain rights that a legislature could not take abrogate.  That was not an accurate description of the constitutional system of Great Britain at the time, where King-in-Parliament were sovereign.  It did form the basis of the later American constitution.

[ulmont]

Medellin thus has no remedy and has no right, the language of the treaty notwithstanding.

And the Supreme Court explicitly assumed that that Medellin had what it described as an individually enforceable right.

[ulmont]

If you disprove the maxim, does that indicate in any way that states have a right?

It indicates that rights may well exist without remedies, implying that states may have rights that come with no remedies.

[Neil]

See that's all OK. But after she boards the plane, shows her face to a security woman, who checks it against the passport, why can't she put her Burka back on when she sits down on the plane. I think there's few people who would disagree with said woman showing who she is to proper, sensitive authorities, but once she shows who she is, why not allow her to cover up.
If she's gonna blow up the plane, she's gonna do it with or without her Burka on.

There are social benefits in encouraging conformity.

[The Minsky Moment]

Medellin thus has no remedy and has no right, the language of the treaty notwithstanding.

And the Supreme Court explicitly assumed that that Medellin had what it described as an individually enforceable right.

No - the Supreme Court, as it did in Sanchez-Llamas, assumed without actually deciding that the Vienna Convention intended to create individually enforcable rights (as opposed to rights that only governments could enforce on their citizens behalf).  In then held in both cases that even assuming the Vienna Convention was designed to create individually enforcable rights, that nonetheless no such rights existed in the United States, due to the fact that the US chose not to instantiate such rights into domestic law. 

That is why Mr. Medellin did not really have the rights he thought he had and it is also why he- just like the principalities that signed the Treaty of Westphalia - is now dead.

[grumbler]

It indicates that rights may well exist without remedies, implying that states may have rights that come with no remedies.

It would equally imply that fire hydrants have rights with no remedies.

allowing /= implying

[grumbler]

That is why Mr. Medellin did not really have the rights he thought he had and it is also why he- just like the principalities that signed the Treaty of Westphalia - is now dead.

[dps]

It seems that a type of attire is getting special treatment because people don't like the religion it represents.

The religion it represents is an adversarial polar opposite to the basic tenets of what it means to be a French citizen.  So there.

Are you saying that Moslems don't believe in surrendering? 

[dps]

I can see some justification in saying that we have a compelling public interest in making sure women aren't forced to wear burkahs... 

So the state is going to make sure that women aren't force to wear clothing that they don't wan to wear--by imposing a mode of dress on them.

[Slargos]

So you would agree that there are no inherently "inalienable" rights?

I am not sure - it depends what you mean be inalienable.
Many rights - but not all - can be waived.  I am not sure whether this is what you mean though.

The use of "inalienable" rights in the American Declaration of Independence related to a theory of popular sovereignty - that is a theory that the people as sovereigns had certain rights that a legislature could not take abrogate.  That was not an accurate description of the constitutional system of Great Britain at the time, where King-in-Parliament were sovereign.  It did form the basis of the later American constitution.

So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

[Slargos]

It indicates that rights may well exist without remedies, implying that states may have rights that come with no remedies.

It would equally imply that fire hydrants may have rights with no remedies.

allowing /= implying

Did you just grumbler yourself? 

FYP, btw.