NationStates Jolt Archive

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.
Ok, the pursuit of happiness is in the DoI, not the constitution, and its right up there with "life" and "liberty". Now, if you drive over someone, you're infringing their right to life, which would also be illegal in your idea.

And I can't believe I answered that dumbass post seriously.

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.

C'mon man, who do you think you're kidding here???

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.

Meh. It's your country. Do whatever the hell you want

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.


You're free to pursue happiness, but attainment of happiness is not guaranteed.

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.
The "pursuit of happiness" is a Constitutional right?

The "pursuit of happiness" is a Constitutional right?
In the US constitution it is.

The "pursuit of happiness" is a Constitutional right?

No, but it is listed in the USA's Declaration of liberty as an 'unalienable right'. I fail to understand how the desire for something can be a 'right', but maybe that is just me...

In the US constitution it is.

Really? Care to quote the appropriate section?

The point at which protesters actively and intentionally attempt to impede the activities of other people is the exact point at which they lose any modicum of respect I may have initially had for them.* I've seen plenty of pure bullshit go down in the name of "free speech." You would be extremely hard-pressed to find a stronger proponent for absolute, undeterred, non-regulated free speech than myself. The simple fact is that blocking supermarket entrances, making people late for work, and other such things is not free speech, it's rude and infantile tantrum-throwing.

*It's not actually likely that I WOULD have had any such modicum, as protests rarely accomplihs anything at all.

Blocking the streets, even if you are protesting is already illegal everywhere in the US. You can be arrested for it.
You have a right to peaceful protest. But you do not have the right to protest anywhere anytime. In fact, in America you do have to have a permit to protest and if you don't have one, local communities can legally have your protests broken up for being a public nuisance or for scaring away customers.
In California, a protest group was successfully sued in court by a group businesses who lost money cause the protestors were intimidating customers.
While you do have a right to protest in America, that right is very restricted by local laws and regulations.

You would be extremely hard-pressed to find a stronger proponent for absolute, undeterred, non-regulated free speech than myself.

Hey - look over here! I appear to be one. That wasn't that hard.

The point at which protesters actively and intentionally attempt to impede the activities of other people is the exact point at which they lose any modicum of respect I may have initially had for them.* I've seen plenty of pure bullshit go down in the name of "free speech." You would be extremely hard-pressed to find a stronger proponent for absolute, undeterred, non-regulated free speech than myself. The simple fact is that blocking supermarket entrances, making people late for work, and other such things is not free speech, it's rude and infantile tantrum-throwing.

*It's not actually likely that I WOULD have had any such modicum, as protests rarely accomplihs anything at all.
In such cases, those protests then become illegal protests. You can't restrict other people's freedom of movement, freedom of association, free speech, or right to make a living. Nor can you take away their right to freedom of access.

... still waiting to have the right to 'pursuit of happiness' pointed out in the USA's Constitution...

Really? Care to quote the appropriate section?
Isn't it worded like this:

The right to life, liberty, and property?

If the "pursuit of happiness" was a guaranteed right, then the US would have to add millions more lawyers to the system?

Isn't it worded like this:

The right to life, liberty, and property?


Not in the USA's Constitution it ain't.

Isn't it worded like this:

The right to life, liberty, and property?

If the "pursuit of happiness" was a guaranteed right, then the US would have to add millions more lawyers to the system?

Its not in the constitution in those words. You have to read the whole document.

In such cases, those protests then become illegal protests. You can't restrict other people's freedom of movement, freedom of association, free speech, or right to make a living. Nor can you take away their right to freedom of access.
Well if people have the freedom of movement, and freedom of association and that association moves to the center of town and clogs the streets to promote their freedom of speech, that should be ok then.

Is freedom of access a right?

Its not in the constitution in those words. You have to read the whole document.
Oh you were quoting it I thought, so I further thought that you could point me to the specific passage?

Its not in the constitution in those words. You have to read the whole document.

Ok then, can you point out to me the relevant sections which describe the right to the pursuit of happiness?

... still waiting to have the right to 'pursuit of happiness' pointed out in the USA's Constitution...
its part of the right to life and to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures and it makes up a good part of a lot of the other rights. Not to mention the tenth amendment which states, that if a right is not specifically stated in this constitution, it does not mean that such right is not constitutionally protected. Other wise there would be no basis for the constitutional rights to privacy or choice both of which are dependent (along with certain other rights) on the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness.

Lots of people would consider a ban on murder a violation of pursuit of happiness....but we don't give into them.

Well if people have the freedom of movement, and freedom of association and that association moves to the center of town and clogs the streets to promote their freedom of speech, that should be ok then.

Is freedom of access a right?
Freedom of access was a right recognized by the federal courts during the great antiabortion protests in the 80's in which many protests were declared unconstitutional cause they violated people's right to access the clinics by blocking driveways and entrances, sidewalks and streets.
Our rights are very limited when they conflict with the rights of others.
Your right to protest ends when it conflicts my right to make a living or otherwise go about my business.

Oh you were quoting it I thought, so I further thought that you could point me to the specific passage?
THe tenth amendment.

its part of the right to life and to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures and it makes up a good part of a lot of the other rights. Not to mention the tenth amendment which states, that if a right is not specifically stated in this constitution, it does not mean that such right is not constitutionally protected. Other wise there would be no basis for the constitutional rights to privacy or choice both of which are dependent (along with certain other rights) on the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness.
What I came up with, is from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Hey - look over here! I appear to be one. That wasn't that hard.

Impossible. You may be AS strong a proponent as I, but you are not strongER.

Lots of people would consider a ban on murder a violation of pursuit of happiness....but we don't give into them.
even the right to pursuit of happiness ends when it conflicts with another person's right to life.
None of these rights or freedoms are mutually exclusive and they are limited by each other and they are dependent on each other.

its part of the right to life

Is it possible to be alive without being in pursuit of happiness? Yes, therefore that doesn't cover it.

and to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures

Is it possible to still be in pursuit of happiness while undergoing unreasonable searches and seizures? Yes, therefore that doesn't cover it.


and it makes up a good part of a lot of the other rights.

Insufficient data.

Not to mention the tenth amendment which states, that if a right is not specifically stated in this constitution, it does not mean that such right is not constitutionally protected.[/qutoe]

But nowhere is the right to the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Constitution: therefore it has the same constitutional status as, for example, the right to use a fork with your right hand instead of your left.


[quote=EastWhittier]Other wise there would be no basis for the constitutional rights to privacy or choice both of which are dependent (along with certain other rights) on the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness.

Is it possible to have privacy or choice without having a right to the pursuit of happiness? Yes, therefore that doesn't cover it.

What I came up with, is from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence was a statement of principals. It was a guideline. But it is not an actual governing document. But it is the basis of America's tradition of freedom and individual rights.

It's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And the DoI, unlike the Constitution, is not law. It's more like a news release that basically said, "England's messing with us, it sucks, so we're striking out on our own." So, technically, there is no Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness--although you could say that it's implied because it seemed to be so important to the founding fathers. So let's move on now...

Impossible. You may be AS strong a proponent as I, but you are not strongER.

Well, I certainly seem to operate with a wider definition of what constitutes free-speech than you are displaying in this thread, and I would define that as a quality of a stronger proponent: for example what you define as "rude and infantile tantrum-throwing" I define as free speech.


But hey, a pissing contest will get us nowhwere.

THe tenth amendment.Pardon me, but you're full of sh!t.

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

NOTHING about rights. It's about powers.

Admit it, you screwed up. You quoted the Declaration of Independence as if it had real legal authority, which it has not. The government may not deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process of law, that's in the XIVth Amendment - which is the source of the vast majority of criminal appeals, by the way. But the pursuit of happiness is nowhere in the Constitution and never has been.

Is it possible to still be in pursuit of happiness while undergoing unreasonable searches and seizures? Yes, therefore that doesn't cover it.

Ok. If you are being happy while your person is being violated, then you need mental help. Most normal people agree that if your person is violated or your right to privacy is violated, your right to pursue happiness in violated.

THe tenth amendment.

This one? - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Point out to me where it makes reference to a right to the pursuit of happiness, would you?

This one? - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
"No, no - the other tenth amendment. You know, the one with Happiness in it!"

* looks under birdcage for official manuscript *

Is it possible to still be in pursuit of happiness while undergoing unreasonable searches and seizures? Yes, therefore that doesn't cover it.

Ok. If you are being happy while your person is being violated, then you need mental help. Most normal people agree that if your person is violated or your right to privacy is violated, your right to pursue happiness in violated.

No, you may not be happy, but your right to pursue happiness, if you possess such a one is unaffected.

While undergoing unreasonable searches and seizures I am able to think of things that may make me happier: instead of focusing on the search or seizure I can think about fluffy bunnies or young ladies in states of undress. In this way you can attempt to attain happiness, thus your right to pursue happiness is unaffected.

The Declaration of Independence was a statement of principals. It was a guideline. But it is not an actual governing document. But it is the basis of America's tradition of freedom and individual rights.
Yeah and I guess there could be a problem with peoples rights, if others want the ability to run them over?

If people are protesting in large numbers, that usually makes one stop and think that there is something severely wrong with the system?

Pardon me, but you're full of sh!t.

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

NOTHING about rights. It's about powers.

Admit it, you screwed up. You quoted the Declaration of Independence as if it had real legal authority, which it has not. The government may not deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process of law, that's in the XIVth Amendment - which is the source of the vast majority of criminal appeals, by the way. But the pursuit of happiness is nowhere in the Constitution and never has been.

You are confused, I was not the one who qouted the DoI.
But you were right, I meant say the 9th amendment which states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Nevermind: an error was acknowledged.

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.

That's dumb, stupid, moronic, idiotic, and any other synonym for those words you can think of.

No, you may not be happy, but your right to pursue happiness, if you possess such a one is unaffected.

While undergoing unreasonable searches and seizures I am able to think of things that may make me happier: instead of focusing on the search or seizure I can think about fluffy bunnies or young ladies in states of undress. In this way you can attempt to attain happiness, thus your right to pursue happiness is unaffected.
Eh no. You talking about freedom of conscience or thought. That's not the same of as pursuit of happiness (which is the physical attempt and not just a mental effort).

But you were right, I meant say the 9th amendment which states:

Fair enough.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

All that seems to do is state that there may exist other rights which are not mentioned here. I see no indication that the right to the pursuit of happiness is one such, nor that the right to sitting down in the middle of the road is not one such either.

Yeah and I guess there could be a problem with peoples rights, if others want the ability to run them over?

If people are protesting in large numbers, that usually makes one stop and think that there is something severely wrong with the system?
No you can't run them over cause that would violate their right to life. The only way you could do that legally is:
1. They violated someone elses right to life.
2. You are acting in self defense.
3. You are acting to prevent them from killing innocent people. And the only way to do it is to kill the perpetrator.

Eh no. You talking about freedom of conscience or thought. That's not the same of as pursuit of happiness (which is the physical attempt and not just a mental effort).


Show me where the distinction is made between physical pursuit and mental pursuit and I will believe you.

Fair enough.



All that seems to do is state that there may exist other rights which are not mentioned here. I see no indication that the right to the pursuit of happiness is one such, nor that the right to sitting down in the middle of the road is not one such either.
LOL. Ok. Its covered in case law in which the supreme court and the federal judiciary have recognized it as a constitutional right.
If you want qoutes from those it would take me a month to get all of them.

Show me where the distinction is made between physical pursuit and mental pursuit and I will believe you.
Common Sense.

Well, I certainly seem to operate with a wider definition of what constitutes free-speech than you are displaying in this thread, and I would define that as a quality of a stronger proponent: for example what you define as "rude and infantile tantrum-throwing" I define as free speech.

Sorry, but taking physical action is not speech.

Sorry, but taking physical action is not speech.
nope, its expression which doesn't have the same protection as speech.

Common Sense.

It has been said many times that the problem with common sense is that it in most cases it is neither common nor sense. If you can show me that it must be the case that physical pursuit was what was intended, then I will believe you, but an appeal to common sense will not fulfill that task.

Blocking the streets, even if you are protesting is already illegal everywhere in the US. You can be arrested for it.
You have a right to peaceful protest. But you do not have the right to protest anywhere anytime. In fact, in America you do have to have a permit to protest and if you don't have one, local communities can legally have your protests broken up for being a public nuisance or for scaring away customers.
In California, a protest group was successfully sued in court by a group businesses who lost money cause the protestors were intimidating customers.
While you do have a right to protest in America, that right is very restricted by local laws and regulations.
If people are passionate enough about a cause, they will protest whether they have a permit or not. If the protest is broken up through overwhelming police forces, then the protestors could return in even larger numbers, and things start getting hostile. Look what happened in Watts, in Detroit, and even Kent State.

If people are taking to the streets, you have to understand why? Just calling them left leaning hippies or Communists, doesn't cut it?

Sorry, but taking physical action is not speech.
nope, its expression which doesn't have the same protection as speech.

Yes, I may very well have been in error here: how exactly is free speech defined in the USA? It also covers the printed word, does it not, which isn't strictly speech either. To what extent is 'free expression' guaranteed under the rubric of 'free speech'?

You have a right to peaceful protest. But you do not have the right to protest anywhere anytime.

While you do have a right to protest in America, that right is very restricted by local laws and regulations.

It seems that what youa re talking about here are legal rights, rather than ethical ones: do you believe that people may have an ethical right to protest, even if they do not have a legal one?

Even with printed word, no matter how hostile or offensive the text, it is not preventing others from carrying out their daily duties. A group of protesters blocking traffic, is.

I personally would never run over protesters sitting in the middle of the road. If they're sitting in the left-hand lane, however, that's a different story.

All rights that specifically listed in the US Constitution:

Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (See Note 11)
Note 11: This Clause has been affected by amendment XIII.

These sections imply the right to pursuit of happiness. As do the following amendments:

Amendments 1-9.
Amendment 13-15
Amendment 19,21, 24, and 26

All these enumerated rights imply the right to pursuit of happiness. Simple common sense.

These sections imply the right to pursuit of happiness. As do the following amendments:

Amendments 1-9.
Amendment 13-15
Amendment 19,21, 24, and 26

All these enumerated rights imply the right to pursuit of happiness. Simple common sense.


Where you see implication in the Constitution I see inference on your part.

If people are passionate enough about a cause, they will protest whether they have a permit or not. If the protest is broken up through overwhelming police forces, then the protestors could return in even larger numbers, and things start getting hostile. Look what happened in Watts, in Detroit, and even Kent State.

If people are taking to the streets, you have to understand why? Just calling them left leaning hippies or Communists, doesn't cut it?
This isn't the 1960's anymore. The American people won't automatically support the protestors. In fact, some polls show at least half of americans opposing the protestors.

This isn't the 1960's anymore. The American people won't automatically support the protestors. In fact, some polls show at least half of americans opposing the protestors.
That means the other half supports them? Also, just because someone is in the minority, doesn't mean they don't have the freedom to express their displeasure with the powers that be?

Sometimes it takes protests to effect change?

Yes, I may very well have been in error here: how exactly is free speech defined in the USA? It also covers the printed word, does it not, which isn't strictly speech either. To what extent is 'free expression' guaranteed under the rubric of 'free speech'?
The printed word is protected under "free press".
Free speech protects mostly political and religious speech.
It does not protect fighting words, nor does it commercial (or for profit) speech.
On NS, flaming would be covered under the fighting words rule.
Nor does free speech protect speech that induces violence against innocent people. Also, libel and slander are not protected speech either.

Example: If you were to stand on a stump in central park saying something like:
"I hate America. America deserved being wacked on 911" and you were to distribute it on the street. As long as you don't charge for it, you are protected by free press.
But if you were to say the same stuff and encourage more attacks on innocents, or charge people to listen to you, then you are not covered by free speech protections.

That means the other half supports them? Also, just because someone is in the minority, doesn't mean they don't have the freedom to express their displeasure with the powers that be?

Sometimes it takes protests to effect change?
all depends on what form the protests take. The right to protest does not give you the right to kill or destroy someone else's property (that includes both private and public property.)

LOL. Ok. Its covered in case law in which the supreme court and the federal judiciary have recognized it as a constitutional right.
If you want qoutes from those it would take me a month to get all of them.Then you'd better get started, chum. Because I call bullshit. I've been finished with law school for ten years, so let's be sporting and say you only have to search the past ten years for precedent - because I KNOW you won't find it earlier.

It does not protect fighting words, nor does it commercial (or for profit) speech.

That is HIGHLY disputable.

Where you see implication in the Constitution I see inference on your part.
I don't see how you can't see that the right to pursue happiness is implied here. Its commonly accepted.

The printed word is protected under "free press".
Free speech protects mostly political and religious speech.

Are there any other categories relevant here? Does the 'free press' only cover the printed word. or does it extend to printed works of art?

Are there any other categories relevant here? Does the 'free press' only cover the printed word. or does it extend to printed works of art?
It covers art as well as the printed word.

I don't see how you can't see that the right to pursue happiness is implied here. Its commonly accepted.Commonly accepted by you. Not commonly accepted by the courts. I'd love to see you try to make that argument before any judge in the country. I'd make popcorn. I'd sell tickets.

I don't see how you can't see that the right to pursue happiness is implied here. Its commonly accepted.


I see it clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, but notable for its absence in the constitution.


I am not impressed by legal documents that rely on implication (at best) of the unstated, particularly in cases like this. Implication is always uncertain at best. If the US courts, for example, or other judicial or governmental body was to declare that the right to pursue happiness be given a legal guarantee, then fair enough it would have a legal guarantee, but to declare that it is a constitutional right remains reliant on a very shaky implication.

It covers art as well as the printed word.

So it would be possible to hold a piece of performance art that represented a protest and it would be covered by the principle of free speech/free press?

Because technically, they're interfering with my Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. I can't pursue my happiness when I can't get to work because of these filthy hippies blocking the road.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.
You started this thread and didn't even bother to stick around to defend your beliefs, faulty as they may be.

BTW, we debunked your "Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness".

The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
-- Author: Ben Franklin

I see it clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, but notable for its absence in the constitution.


I am not impressed by legal documents that rely on implication (at best) of the unstated, particularly in cases like this. Implication is always uncertain at best. If the US courts, for example, or other judicial or governmental body was to declare that the right to pursue happiness be given a legal guarantee, then fair enough it would have a legal guarantee, but to declare that it is a constitutional right remains reliant on a very shaky implication.
nevertheless, it is implied. And accepted in accordance with american tradition and culture.
Though you are right, anyone who resides in the White HOuse or in the Congress or any of the state houses can take it away, using the arguments you have just used. Course when that happens, that will be the end of free america.

So it would be possible to hold a piece of performance art that represented a protest and it would be covered by the principle of free speech/free press?
that would be correct.

nevertheless, it is implied. And accepted in accordance with american tradition and culture.
Though you are right, anyone who resides in the White HOuse or in the Congress or any of the state houses can take it away, using the arguments you have just used. Course when that happens, that will be the end of free america.


Once again you seem to be talking about a legal right here, one wqhich may or may not match congruently to an ethical right, yes?

Are there any examples of the right to the prusuit of happiness actually being enforced in the courts. As a right to pursue happiness I fail to see how such a thing could logically occur.

that would be correct.

So instead of staging a protest against issue X which involved sitting in the middle of the street which wouldn't be covered by the right to free speech, people could hold a piece of performance art which represented a protest against issue X which involved sitting in the middle of the street which would be covered by the right to free speech?

Then you'd better get started, chum. Because I call bullshit. I've been finished with law school for ten years, so let's be sporting and say you only have to search the past ten years for precedent - because I KNOW you won't find it earlier.
From this site:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=right+to+pursue+happiness&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dc67f48bbb2063016%26clickedItemRank%3D16%26userQuery %3Dright%2Bto%2Bpursue%2Bhappiness%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fa-ir.org%252Fai%252Fhappiness.htm%26invocationType%3Dnext%26fromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev%26amp%3BampTest%3D 1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fa-ir.org%2Fai%2Fhappiness.htm

"The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)

the right to the pursuit of happiness is often raised in arguments against government regulations, because its mention in the Declaration of Independence gives it a degree of forcefulness.

Although the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is set forth in several state Constitutions. The state Constitutions, in their Declaration of Rights, provide that "all men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

For most people, marriage would be considered "in the pursuit of happiness."The United States Supreme Court, in recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right, stated that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967). See also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978)

That's just a start.

So instead of staging a protest against issue X which involved sitting in the middle of the street which wouldn't be covered by the right to free speech, people could hold a piece of performance art which represented a protest against issue X which involved sitting in the middle of the street which would be covered by the right to free speech?
You can hold the sign but you can't stand in the street and block traffic while holding it.

You can hold the sign but you can't stand in the street and block traffic while holding it.

Are you able to block the pavement?

The "pursuit of happiness" is a Constitutional right?

In the US constitution it is.

Although the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is set forth in several state Constitutions.

And at this point I believe CanuckHeaven can rest his case.

But seriously this time...

Are you able to block the pavement?

I believe so, yes. Blocking the pavement is not a traffic violation.

I believe so, yes. Blocking the pavement is not a traffic violation.

Could someone explain the logic behind this to me: it is legal to block the passage of people on foot, in wheelchairs or infants in prams, but not to block the passage of people in cars, on motorbikes or in trucks, yes?

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment.

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness...

The Declaration of Independence != the US Constitution.

Could someone explain the logic behind this to me: it is legal to block the passage of people on foot, in wheelchairs or infants in prams, but not to block the passage of people in cars, on motorbikes or in trucks, yes?

I didn't say it made sense. But I suppose the logic is that, at least in heavily urban areas where walking is more common, it's easier to make a detour on foot than in a car.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure that they could stop a determined person from moving past them without committing some kind of crime.

I didn't say it made sense.

No, I didn't mean to imply that you did, it was a rhetorical flourish to signify the thought 'Dear God, this is clearly insane!'.

No, I didn't mean to imply that you did, it was a rhetorical flourish to signify the thought 'Dear God, this is clearly insane!'.

Yes, I know. In real life, the "I didn't say it made sense" would have been accompanied by a helpless shrug, a half-grin, and a shake of the head to signify the same type of disbelief.

In real life...


...I know little of this 'real life' of which you speak...

U.S. Supreme Court
WAUGH v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, 237 U.S. 589 (1915)

237 U.S. 589

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment.

Defendants declined to plead further, and it was decreed, with recitation of details, that the statute was in violation of the Constitution of Mississippi, 'and in violation of that paragraph of 1 of article 14 of [237 U.S. 589, 594] the Constitution of the United States which provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' The statute was declared to be 'unconstitutional, null, and void,' and the orders of the trustees of the University 'ultra vires, unreasonable, and void.' It was ordered that the injunction theretofore granted be made perpetual.

The decree was reversed by the supreme court of the state, the demurrer sustained, and the bill dismissed.

The rulings cannot be questioned here; indeed, are not questioned, for counsel say that the assignments of error are all based on the contention that the statute is unconstitutional and void for the reason that it violates the 14th Amendment in denying to complainant 'the equal protection of law and the harmless pursuit of happiness, and that the various rules and regulations adopted by the board of trustees are ultra vires and void, because they are unreasonable, unnecessary, and deny plaintiff in error the equal protection of the law and the harmless pursuit of happiness;' and deprive him of property and property rights without due process of law and of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

However, we need not dispute about the distinction, but pass to the grounds of attack on the statute and orders [237 U.S. 589, 595] and ask, Wherein does either offend against the 14th Amendment? to be specific, Wherein do they deprive plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws or obstruct his pursuit of happiness?

This being our view of the power of the legislature, we do not enter upon a consideration of the elements of complainant's contention. It is very trite to say that the right to pursue happiness and exercise rights and liberty are subject in some degree to the limitations of the law.


Whereby this is just one case where the US Supreme Court has recognized the right to pursue happiness as a constitutional right.

I rest my case. Having cited 5 cases in which the courts stated that the right to pursue happiness was a constitional right.

So therefore, I propose a novel solution: Making it legal to run over protestors that impede traffic.

Does that mean if you run a red light, get in an accident, and then protest to cops that you're innocent, while still blocking traffic, does that mean I can run over you in my car because you're ignorance is blocking my personal happiness to do whatever the hell it is I'm doing on the roads?

Does that mean if you're protesting abortions with a Bible in the middle of the road, that I can run over you because you're blocking my way into the parking lot of that abortion clinic?

Does that mean if you're protesting against the right for gay couples - such as myself and my fiancee - to get married, I can run you over for being in the road on my way to the chapel?

I rest my case. Having cited 5 cases in which the courts stated that the right to pursue happiness was a constitional right.

But you admit that the right to the pursuit of happiness is not set forth in the US Constitution?

yes a thread that made laugh

But you admit that the right to the pursuit of happiness is not set forth in the US Constitution?
It is not explicitly stated but it is implied.