DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Bill of Rights

I have read many posts in the forum on many different topics. I was wondering exactly what people think of the Bill of Rights. I was wondering what people in this forum think each Amendment of the Bill of Rights means in their opinion. Perhaps even giving examples of when the Bill of Rights should be limited and where it should not. I do not wish to give my opinion to start the process because I do not wish to influence anyone's opinion. Let us start with the 1st Amendment.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please do not feel there is a right or wrong answer. I am truly interested in how people in this forum perceive the Bill of Rights.

Voleur

Congress can not establish a National Religion, we are on our own in that regard. Congress can not therefor interfere with how we worship or what religion we choose.

We have the freedom of speech to protest our Government as does the Press, without fear of prosecution. We have the right to gather in protest and to petition the government for issues we disagree with them on.

"Respecting an establishment".

I take that to mean they can't interfere with people's personal belief. However, they also aren't required to honor their wishes if someone's goal is to force religion down other people's throat.

Your religion ends where my body/property begins.

The major issue with the first amendment is when doctrines of the church violate laws. A major historical precedent for this was set with the Mormons and anti-bigamy/polygamy laws.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1]

This is a major issue. Basically people can believe whatever they want, but can't practice whatever they want. Which basically means people are allowed to be legal religious hypocrites. At that point we might as well not call it a religious belief at all if you aren't allowed to act on it.

Weirdly some churches have been able to get around this on weed. Having it be a religious sacrament made its use legal in some areas. But I believe they might have limited it to being used in church. Still to me... that is basically like saying the church becomes its own separate state above the law...which if taken logically ends up with a lot of problems.

This logical consequence is showing up in Europe a bit with a lot of pro-sharia Muslims having their own little areas where the laws of the nation are ignored/violated without consequence.

To second Swish...The first amendment has significant issues when it comes to religious beliefs affecting other people's rights.

I have not seen much discussion on this topic and I wonder if people realize they are oppressors when they feel like they are doing good for the community as a whole.

If one believe in the Bill of Rights, one cannot reasonably then support the decision to punish a bakery for refusing to bake a cake for someone else. One cannot in good conscience support hate speech laws. One cannot in good conscience support any restrictions on political activities that do not directly violate the Constitution. One must oppose groups such as BLM, Occupy Wall Street, and any other organization that practices violent assembly, intimidation and create social disorder.

If one support the Bill of Rights, one cannot reasonably support gun restrictions and gun free cities. One cannot support mandated registration of firearms to individuals. One cannot support the Patriot Act or other judicial acts that restrict the Rights of the people. One cannot support undercover police operations that encourage illegal activities in order to prosecute them. One cannot support the death penalty unless in a capital crime.

One cannot support the Right to Privacy as a Constitutional right. It is not a right enumerated in the Constitution. It may be a right that the people choose to exercise but it cannot be a Constitutional Right. It by its very nature extra-Constitutional, a Right to Privacy. How can one claim a right to Privacy when they bring their affairs into the public arena?

All these things I believe are why we have conflicts in America today. Both parties desire to usurp the Rights of the People and give the authority over citizens to the Federal Government. The Constitution is a limiting document. It is not an ever changing document that expands the role of government in the lives of the people. The Constitution is there to limit such intrusions into the lives of the people and to protect the people from the government. The Constitution is not there to protect me from my neighbor. It limits the government, not the people. I believe that the people no longer believe in the Rights of others and only recognize their own selfish interests.

I agree....I find it amazing how so many people want to give up their rights and allow the Government to rule for them.

Government starts at the Local level, then the State level, then the Federal level. The closest to the furthest.....but....we have that mixed up big time and only think the Idiots in Washington mean anything.

The Feds don't mean crap if enough local and state elected officials tell them to go pound salt.

The Bill of Rights, along with the Constitution itself, isn't an infallible document. Both documents protected slavery.

And yet, the Constitution was able to be modified to correct the pact the northern colonies made with the southern colonies to form a country.

I never claimed it to be right. I claimed that it was the document under which the government of this nation was constructed. If it means nothing, then your rights are nothing. You are one election away from a concentration camp. We the people decide our destiny. The governments are the ones that are limited and restricted not the people. When it is the government that restricts the people, you have nothing but what the government grants you. You have no liberty. You have no freedom. You have no self determination. You have no free will. And as you mention slavery, that is what you in essence will have, slavery to the state with no way to escape. Slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Do you wish to grant the Supreme Court even more authority over your life? It took Constitutional Amendments to undo slavery in the USA. The states banded together to right the wrong of slavery. We fought a war to end slavery. The fact that slavery existed in the USA does not in any way diminish my rights under the Constitution. I cannot give them away. It is the duty of the government to ensure and protect them.

In my opinion, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while well meaning, has been one of the most destructive pieces of legislation in American History. It created classes within society. Rather than bind all rights of the citizen to the Constitution, it attempted to grant rights based on legislation. The problem is that if the Constitution protects all citizen rights, then any legislation passed to create classifications of citizens is in fact an infringement of citizen rights.

Why divide the citizenry into classifications if not to restrict one group or create conflict between groups through legislative, executive, and judicial action? You can see the contradictions in society everywhere now. You have the right to have an African-American only organization but you cannot have a white only organization. You can even create psuedo-government organization under the guise of equality when in reality the government is favoring one political faction over another. A baker cannot decide whom they will sell a cake. It is a sad state that my rights are seen by many of my fellow citizens to be awarded based upon the ruling class currently in power. This creates the environment we have now where Democrats call Republicans vile names. Where Republicans call Democrats vile names. Politicians are not restricted by the Constitution because no one holds them accountable. As long as I get my benefits from the state, I do not care what happens to my neighbor. That is what the nation has become. Divide and Conquer is what has happened to the people of the USA.

i disagree with all that.

on top of that, you're implying that there weren't any class division prior to the 1964 act, which is beyond false.

there has always been classes within society. literally any country has that division since recorded history.


i was following along right up until here, but now i'm wondering if anything you're saying should be taken seriously.

the 1964 act was one of the most beneficial legislations for equality in our history.

But it was also the mechanisms within the Constitution that ended up allowing slavery to be ended.

It also allowed for the repeal of Prohibition.

There is a very specific reason why the gov't is set up and organized the way it is. The intent is to put the majority of power within the hands of the People. It is also set up with the knowledge that at times the People are going to institute things that the next generation will want to over turn. That is why the Constitution can be amended. It's so that we don't have a generation that says Slavery is legal, that you can't drink alcohol, and the Country for the rest of it's existence is held to those laws for perpetuity.

Is it difficult to Amend it? Absolutely, and it should be. Don't think people should be allowed to own guns? Build a consensus and repeal the 2nd Amendment. Think the gov't should be given wide latitude to combat terrorism, build a consensus and amend the 4th Amendment. (these are just examples, I'm not supposing these are your personal views) Nothing says it can't be done.

If they had not allowed for Slavery in the Constitution, the Southern States would not have signed it and we would not have formed a Nation.

All 13 States were needed to fight for our independence from England, Slavery was a compromise to get it done.

Swish,

I've read up a little on the concept that he's talking about and I understand that on the face of it, the initial reaction to it is "just one more person who thinks minorities shouldn't have Rights", but that's not what it's about. Admittedly it's a very difficult subject to discuss because most people can't get past that initial reaction.

First, in regards to class divisions... yes, they existed prior to 1964, but the argument is that after 1964, those divisions had essentially become State sanctioned.

Second, there was a debate amongst the Founding Fathers as to whether or not to include a Bill of Rights. Most people don't realize that. And it was hotly contested too. Those against having a Bill of Rights weren't saying there shouldn't be one because no one had Rights. Now keep in mind that the premise of the Constitution is that we the People have inalienable rights, rights given to us by God/Creator/Natural Rights/the fact that we exist... whatever your beliefs are. They do NOT come from gov't.

They felt that the Bill of Rights could not possibly include and cover all of our Rights, and if those limited 10 Amendments were written, they were afraid that the gov't would then say anything not covered within those Amendments would be under the control and decision of the gov't. The compromise in the end was the 9th Amendment which basically asserts that our Rights are not limited to those within the Bill of Rights.

The parallel to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that by defining different classes of people, you've given the gov't the power and authority to treat them differently, and to support laws that benefit one class over another. An example of this IMO would be Hate Crimes. It is supposed to be an addition to a charge when someone commits a crime against another person for reasons such as race and sexual orientation. But in practice we typically only see hate crimes being charged when the victim is a member of a defined "protected class". A hispanic dude could kick my ass calling me all sorts of racial names, and he won't be charged with a hate crime, yet if the reverse happened, I'd be charged with a hate crime in a heartbeat. That is not Equal Protection under the law. When we apply our laws like these, we get further away from the concept of "all men are created equal" (which I will be the first to admit hasn't always happened as it should have)

Like I said, it's a very difficult debate to have because there are a lot nuances and history to it, and really is a subject that has to be tackled objectively.

this goes way past initial reaction though bro.

i'm trying my absolute hardest to be objective right now, which is why i kept my mouth shut until now, but come on bro.

state sanctioned?

did you forget that the Jim Crow laws were essentially state sanctioned?

those laws were "suppose" to be illegal, yet that didn't stop everybody from the individual citizen, to the local freaking governments from enforcing them.

so not only do i not agree with that argument, history says i have no reason to.

i want to also clarify that i'm not talking about race. i'm talking about classes in general, as well.

but since we're talking about the 1964 act....come on man.

if we want to be objective, then we must also objectively admit that the South specifically had to be literally forced to adhere to any sort of laws that gave women or minority equal rights.

the 19th amendment in the 20's gave women the right to vote. and women received all type of hell for that.

so prior to the 20's, thats a form of state sanctioned class division, as only men we're allowed to vote.

this isn't opinion, that's fact.

as far as the hate crime laws go, i agree with those laws. what NEEDS to happen is that everybody needs to fall under the law, not just protected classes.

so if blacks beat up some white dude because of his skin tone, those blacks need to be charged with a hate crime.

so instead of making issue with the double standard of the law, why don't we just start making the justice system ENFORCE the law both ways?

that way, nobody has a leg to stand on when they asses get busted for it.

so when we're talking about protected classes, we need to also remember- as you mentioned already- the history as to why they needed to be protected in the first place.

specifically with minorities. bro...the 15th amendment gave african americans the right to vote, right?

but guess what the south did? started with literacy test and poll tax, and THEN had grandfather clauses that way poor whites could bypass those policies.

did you know that because of that prior to 1964, the voting registration of AA went from about 44% to a whooping 3% in the south?

so when we're talking about these amendments and policies that you guys are trying to say gave extra "rights" to minorities, that's not actually the case.

the case is that the laws were already on the books, but the PEOPLE and local governments, specifically in the south, refuse to acknowledge and enforce said laws.

the PEOPLE, as in individual citizens, forced the fed's hand. they had to create extra amendments because the people in the south refused to act right.

so when it comes to this topic , let's keep that in context.

we can't talk about the bill of rights and the constitution as it's own entity. we HAVE to take historical context into these discussions.

I do not state that at all. I do not even imply it. I state that the CRA of 1964 codified rights granted by the government unto the people based not on the Constitution but on the power of the legislature.




I do not mind if you disagree with me. Can you say that if all citizenry is treated equally under the law, then why have a law to grant protections to one group and not to all groups. The law was passed not to unite the nation under the Constitution. It was passed to make sure that past discrimination did not continue by creating divisions among the people.

I'm just glad there weren't that many Libs back then or we would have ended up with a "Bill of Wrongs."

Why does this matter? There are instances of individual rights being granted outside the constitution. The constitution doesn't mention right to privacy, but federal and state laws, in addition to supreme court interpretations, state that citizens should expect a right to privacy under the law.

4th Amendment gives the right for a citizen to be secure in their person and possessions.

Unless you factor in civil asset forfeiture.

And eminent domain.

Yes, although some people are at odds as to whether the 4th amendment regards right to privacy or not. But that's not really why I brought up right to privacy. I brought it up because the Constitution is not the only place that human/civil rights are inferred in US law. State constitutions sometimes provide additional rights. North Carolina declares public education a right. Congressional laws can provide additional rights, such as the aforementioned CRA of 1964.

All I'm really getting at is the constitution allows congress and the states to expand human/civil rights as they see fit as long as it doesn't violate superceding law.

Right to Privacy is a creation of the Supreme Court. You have a right to be left alone BY THE GOVERNMENT and secure in your person and property. The so-called right to privacy was used to grant a right to reproductive protections for women. They already have a right to be secure in their person. Why do you need a special right to protect your access to reproductive services? You do not need one. The Right to Privacy has become a catch all for anything a political group wants supported or sanctioned by the authority of the government. The Right to Privacy would never be stated as a defense of a Christian bakery for example. If one believes the Constitution is meant to be a restriction on government, one must disavow any special right to privacy for reproductive rights.

As for States creating laws granting rights, this is not possible. Anything not stated in the Constitution does not mean that it can then be stated by the State. No state law can void your Constitutional Rights. The States by ratifying the Constitution, agreed to the terms of the Constitution. You have a right to be secure in your person and property not only from the Feds... you have that right to protect you from the State and even other citizens. Your rights are not able to be taken or given by the state. If that were to be true, rights fluctuate with the political whims of the populous.

All this matters because legislation cannot grant powers to the government they do not have Constitutionally. It matters because my fellow citizens cannot use the government to violate, restrict, or infringe on my rights. That is the glory of the document. It matters because no court can create a right. It can only protect your rights that are already granted.

All this division and convolution of citizen rights has one general foundation, money. The government uses the tax money it collects from the citizenry to attack the rights of the citizenry. The entire War on Poverty agenda is an attempt to place the government as the basis for rights and the use of tax monies as the means to assure the submission of the citizenry. It is all twisted. The government needs your compliance in order to have any authority. My compliance is tied to the Constitution. If the government no longer is restricted by the government, what is to keep them to enslaving the citizen or confiscating the property, liberties, freedoms, or even my life of the citizen?

Whether we agree with a decision or not, the courts role is to interpret all laws of the land whether carried down from the Constitution or carried via a local municipality. The constitution as interpreted today states that the 4th amendment to the constitution implies a right to privacy for American citizens.

Your christian bakery defense doesn't apply here, because the right to privacy ends once I share something with you. If I tried to hire you to kill someone, you could tell the cops I'm planning to commit murder, and therefore I would be in trouble with the law. I can't claim right to privacy because I revealed this information to you. The christian bakery ran into the same problem the moment they told the customer they were discriminating against them for being gay, which is in violation of Oregon business law.



What law did I mention that violates the Constitution? North Carolina has in their state constitution the right to education. Look it up. It does not infringe or violate any constitutional right or law because it is *EXPANSION* of rights, not restriction. You need to educate yourself more on US law if you think the only document that can confer rights is the Constitution. Rights do fluctuate based on where you live both in municipality and state. For example not all states have a statewide CRA that includes LGBT interests. There are states in this country where you can discriminate against someone for being gay or trans and not be found in violation of law.



A right is just a legal entitlement. They are most definitely conferred by court interpretations as well as state and local law. Wisconsin grants the right to be free from sexual orientation discrimination. Several states grant right to life and ban the use of the death penalty. I'm not sure what you think legislation is all about, but just because the Constitution is at the top doesn't mean it's perfect or complete. We've had to tweak it over two dozen times already via amendment. And just because a right is conferred from a source other than the constitution does not mean it's invalid. Otherwise you are arguing that no laws are valid unless they are within the constitution. Rights are at their core nothing but subsets of laws granted to people.



Did we take a left turn at Albuquerque? The reason we have laws is because people are imperfect. The reason we have legislation is because our world is ever changing. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But there are reasons we had to add laws like the Disabilities Act of 1990 or the 1964 CRA and why States are now starting to ratify LGBT Civil Rights protections: The world is changing and people are imperfect.

I could not disagree more. Your argument puts the role of the court as the one who determines rights. The actual role of government in the USA is to ensure and protect the rights of its citizenry. That includes the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Example... the oath of office for the SCOTUS

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."





Again your premise is flawed. You equate planning to murder someone (protection in my person) to purchasing a cake (a voluntary action) that does not in any way infringe the purchasers right to a cake. It only restricts the right of the purchaser to buy a cake from me. I think to be equal using your planning a murder metaphor, I would have to plan the murder of someone by asking them to murder themselves. The issue is not the rights of the gay couple purchasing a cake that is infringed. It is the rights of a baker to not make a cake for someone. The only way you can make the argument that someone denied a cake had their rights violated is to state that to have the cake was their right. That cannot be true. A right is not something it takes another to grant unto me. I have it inherently without any permission of either another person or the state.






I did look up your example of North Carolina right to education. It is true that North Carolina states that an education is a right... these are the two locations it states so:

Article I, Section 15
says “The people have a right to
the privilege of education, and it is
the duty of the State to guard
and maintain that right.”

AND

A general and uniform system of free
public schools shall be provided
throughout the State, wherein equal
opportunities shall be provided for
all students, in accordance with the
provisions of Article IX of the
Constitution of North Carolina. Tuition shall be free of charge to all
children of the State, and to every
person of the State less than 21 years
old, who has not completed a standard high school course of study.

The use of the term RIGHT in these two examples refers to opportunity and privilege. In both cases it refers to the role of the state in this manner. It does not require the citizen to do anything. Even so, I believe it is poorly written because it states an equal opportunity shall be provided. The state can not possibly provide equality in either quality or access throughout the state. If you believe it can, the state then can not allow any education institutions to exist within its borders that are not state operated, less they be unconstitutional because private schools may provide different opportunities and quality of education.



I read a bit of condescension in that first sentence. I am certain you did not mean to imply that I was ignorant of the law or where my rights come from. Your statement that rights fluctuate is enlightening. It is also very scary to contemplate. Under your assertion that rights fluctuate, my right to free speech is determined not by the Constitution but by an Executive, Legislator, or Judge. Who can from time to time decide some speech is permissible and some is not. This thought should frighten every freedom loving, liberty loving American. It concerns me that many of my fellow citizens feel that for the sake of the LGBT community, the rights of the individual must be submissive to the rights of the group.







I could not disagree more. Your assessment of a right being a legal entitlement is frightening. A right is inherent to the individual. An entity such as a group cannot have a right. A right is a just claim that an individual has based on their existence not on the acceptance of others. Yes, the Constitution has been tweaked many time, 27 times to be exact. Can the Congress amend the Constitution? Can the President amend the Constitution? Can the SCOTUS amend the Constitution? The answer to all is no. Validity of a right is not even in question. If you have a need to be validated by a court, a legislature, an executive, you can be assured it is not a right. As for no laws being valid that are not within the Constitution, that is not exactly what I said. However, I like your way of thinking there. Actually, I would state it this way. If a law is passed and it in any way restricts the citizen's Constitutional Rights defined by the Constitution, then yes it is an unlawful law and should be opposed.





No. We have laws in order to define the civil society. We do not have laws because people are imperfect. Laws can also be imperfect. The ever changing society we live in is why the Constitution is critical. Changes in societal norms are inevitable. However, without the structure of the Constitution the society becomes a collection of special interests and factions. Rights become the right of the government to grant or not grant unto the people. Would you give up your right to own a home, a business, practice your religious faith, speak your mind, your ability of critical thought to the whims of an ever changing society? I do not think you really would enjoy that world. Chaos would be the norm. Conflict would be the norm. Hatred would be the norm. Bloodshed would be the final outcome. I for one do not wish to live in a world like that. I prefer the world where I am an individual not a faceless minion of the masses.

i'm glad the founding fathers made sure to call them 'amendments' and not "commandments'.

we'd be so screwed if any of these laws and policies were concrete since day one.

Have we got to the 2nd Amendment, yet?

That should make for interesting, enlightening and possibly frightening reading in here...

[quote=Swish]i'm glad the founding fathers made sure to call them 'amendments' and not "commandments'.

we'd be so screwed if any of these laws and policies were concrete since day one. [/quote
Well when congress enacts something for us it's a law, for them it's a suggestion..

The court interprets laws. If rights are altered as a side effect, then that's how the cookie crumbles. I don't see any way you can have the court not potentially alter rights when presiding over cases that involve rights. If the court doesn't exist to interpret laws then it has no reason to exist, and we have no check and balances by which to prevent tyrannical laws from being challenged. There are so many case laws that adjust or alter our granted rights that you would be quite surprised. And these aren't recent cases either, they stretch back to almost as far as the founding of our nation.



You are taking my right to privacy argument as an entire defense to the case. My mistake here was thinking you wanted to discuss the nuance of US law, but your content appears to be rhetoric from quick and fast talking points.



It doesn't matter that you think the text is wrong. The fact that this text exists demonstrates the basis that states can and have expanded freedoms and rights to their citizens outside of the federal government. We were founded as a collection of states and this hierarchy is part of that history. This text could be challenged in court on that basis but you don't approve of the courts determining rights, so in your legal view there is no mechanism to challenge this statement.



I didn't imply it, I straight up said it. You show a lack of understanding in how US law works at a basic level.

Our rights and freedoms fluctuate in this nation across state lines. I have to be careful where I carry my conceal piece, because some states don't reciprocate. Same with carrying weapons in the car. Some people have to cross state lines to get an abortion legally. Some people can't be put to death even if they commit murder and are convicted in some states. Whether you agree or disagree with these, this is the country we live in and I'm not sure why this is now a surprise to you. Again, states offering different rights stretch back to the founding of our nation.



Except that is how our country already operates. If a local law violates state law, then you can challenge it in court on that basis. If state law violates the Constitution, you can challenge it in court on that basis. And it's harder to find a STRONGER basis to overturn a law than when it's found to be in violation of statute of a higher body. When I said Otherwise you are arguing that no laws are valid unless they are within the constitution, I meant that your argument is that no laws are valid unless contained within the Constitution itself.



And why do we need civil society? This is why I think you're using talking points. At its core, laws exist because people need protected. We can wrap that in a civil society blanket, but you're too busy seeing the forest from the trees to notice that we're talking about roughly the same thing.



This is all well and good, and there isn't anything here I disagree with. I just don't think you're considering what I'm saying critically. It's fun to say things like "no rights regulated from the bench!" and I'm not even saying you're wrong in your feeling on it, but I don't see a mechanism by which we can prevent these things without ruining the elegance of our three branch system. We can discuss how we wish that people would be able to regulate themselves, but that thinking is best reserved for the naive.

I don't think there is a way for courts to preside over cases involving freedom and rights and not sometimes end up changing the scope of freedom and rights based on those cases. The only way I can see to solve this would be to prevent cases from being brought to courts on the basis of freedom/rights violations, and that is tyranny.

When reading your reply here, I was confused. You start with the argument that a court interprets laws and then go right into altering rights as a consequence of a law. If a law in any way alters a right of the citizen, it is an unlawful law. I was really shocked that in your second sentence you stated that if rights are altered due to a court ruling that is just how the cookie crumbles. That is quite frightening indeed. You no longer have inalienable rights. You have rights permitted by a court as long as it deems them valid or useful. Your statement about having a check on laws by using the court to interpret laws and change rights is not only dangerous, it is illogical. The purpose of the courts is not to interpret laws based on anything other than the rights of the citizen versus the laws of the land. Any court that rules to change the rights of the citizen because a law was passed by a legislature is complicit in governmental tyranny. It is not a check on the legislature, it then becomes a participant in the process.





I took the argument you gave and found it lacking. Now you act condescendingly towards me by stating I use rhetoric and talking points to discuss the nuance of US law. The courts cannot and shall not infringe on the rights of the citizen either. A ruling from a court bench is no more valid than a law written by a legislature that also violates the freedoms of the citizen. It would be a dangerous and terrifying world indeed where the people have only the freedoms passed into law by legislatures, condoned through judicial rulings, and administered by an executive. The bakery case in Oregon is only one of thousands of cases where judges (members of the government) have acted inappropriately.





My thoughts on the wording of the law are really not an issue. I was not involved in writing it. It was only my opinion being expressed. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states

"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."

An important part to this is that you have rights as a citizen in the Constitution. The states can not override your Constitutional rights. As for the extending rights or expanding rights to citizens in their own states, as long as the right is not defined in the Constitution, or is a direct opposition to a right stated in the Constitution, or opposed by the people of the state in which the right is being extended, then sure. Do keep in mind though that all state laws must not violate the US Constitution less they be unlawful.





WOW, thank you for you honesty. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now, I should not allot you that benefit. I do understand the law. I believe it is impossible for everyone to know everything concerning all laws. That is the wonderment of the Constitution. A law must be Constitutional to be viable. Your argument for state restrictions on firearms, abortions, or the death penalty are straw men. I agree with you that my right to own a firearm should not be restricted by the states. Unless of course you find that it is perfectly okay for states to infringe on the rights of the citizen to bear arms? The abortion issue is a social matter, no defined in the Constitution directly outside of the right of a citizen to be safe in their life and property. If one believes the unborn child is a citizen, I can see a state extending rights to the child. If you do not recognize the unborn child as a citizen, then I can see not extending the rights of citizenship to the child. The death penalty is addressed in the Constitution within the 5th Amendment.




Earlier I could not understand the nuance. Now I insert nuance into the discussion? I did read what you said. I felt your simplification as you describe it to be unrefined. Your logic seems to be that I simplified it for your simpleton mind. Is that about it?





I stated that any law that violates the US Constitution cannot be lawful. Forget about the "nuances" of state and local laws or ordinances. Your argument seems to be that if a law is passed that violates your Constitutional rights, the courts will protect your rights. I understand your point of view completely. You feel that the courts are the ones who protect your rights, define your rights, uphold your rights as a citizen through the judiciary process. You as a citizen have no claims to a right unless granted by the government. You as a citizen have no right to challenge law outside of the judiciary?





WOW, again the talking points? At its core, laws are repressive. Your view that people need to be protected by laws is enlightening. The cliches of wrapping up in a civil society blanket or forest for the trees is a nice touch. We see things from differing points of view. I accept your point of view without any prejudice or malice. I just believe you to be wrong. I believe it is an intellectually lazy point of view to leave the defining of rights to legislatures (laws) or judges.





I believe there is a way for courts to preside over laws that involve restrictions on a citizen's rights, to strike down the law. In American society right now, we have an ever growing fracture of isolated groups vying for recognition of their "rights" and politicians more than willing to "recognize" the group's rights for political gain. Hate speech laws being only one example of this. I have the 1st Amendment right to free speech, however, a legislature, a court, an executive, for political reasons, has decided my rights (granted by the 1st Amendment) must be restricted in order to confer onto a favored group or constituency a right to not be offended by my speech. This is but one example. Laws do not grant rights, they make actions legal or illegal.

You're posturing that the courts have the capability to fashion new laws. They don't. They can only interpret laws when lawsuits challenging said laws are presented in front of them. Without a case to preside over, there is no mechanism to enforce change. I understand and respect your concern about the potential for rights to change, but what you are suggesting is that rights can never be interpreted or challenged or expanded upon.

If you cannot challenge rights in courts, then you limit the recourse of the people. In your preferred worldview, we'd have no mechanism to challenge whether shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre constituted free speech (Schenck v. United States, 1919). We'd have no mechanism to rule that free speech doesn't cover child pornography (New York v Ferber 1982). We'd have no mechanism to prevent states from forcing organizations to disclose member rolls (NAACP v Alabama 1958).

I'm not saying that our mechanism is perfect. If the court presides over a first amendment case then yes there is a risk that they could interpret the first amendment in such a way that restricts our rights unduly. But I don't see a better alternative, and not allowing the courts to do their sworn duty is not a better alternative. I have dozens of cases that demonstrate the clear and present need for the courts to be able to preside over Freedom of Speech laws alone.



I claim that you are using rhetoric because I don't see substance. Even at the end of your paragraph here you bring up the bakery case in oregon as being wrong, without substance as to why. I can offer plenty of substance as to why it was the right call. Thomas Jefferson argued that incidental opposition to religious views is fine as long as the law in question does not specifically call out the religion. Reynolds v United States 1878 held that religious duty is not a valid defense to criminal indictment. In the case of Reynolds, just because Reynold's religion allowed polygamy does not mean the government can't prosecute anti-polygamy laws. This is interesting because it's much easier to paint a brush that anti-bigamy laws specifically targeted Mormons.

In your worldview, Reynolds v US should have never happened because rights can't be challenged in court. Therefore all I'd have to do is found a religion with a deeply held conviction that pastors can murder whoever they want, and the US court system would have no way to interpret a lawsuit. After all, who is the US government to interpret the extent of religious freedom?



Not a problem! I do not intend to be brash, but we all have more important things to do than tip toe around issues. I couldn't read the boards in over a week because I worked 14 hour days from Tuesday until yesterday. I also see you took a while to post a response, so I can only assume you have responsibilities also.

I don't think my examples are straw men because they illustrate the system in action. My intention is not to turn this into a gun rights or abortion argument. Quite the opposite really But even in the case of gun rights, how could we have the result of McDonald v City of Chicago if the courts cant preside over cases involving the right to bear arms?



You are injecting personal bias into the process. You are viewing certain issues from the standpoint of how *YOU* would have liked them to turn out (such as the oregon bakery) and then attempting to re-define what the US government is in a weak attempt to demonstrate how your viewpoint is correct. You are even mischaracterizing what I am saying in an effort to undermine my argument



And rights are a special type of law, that protects the citizens from a tyrannical government. You are going in circles. I've illustrated at a basic level why the court systems exist in this country. You continue to offer no alternatives and simply stand in your ivory tower spouting impossible ideals. I know who is being intellectually lazy here




You are going to step down from the ivory tower to let us "norms" in on the solution? I'll shut up now and read this solution:



Dang, you went off the rails again. I thought you were going to provide your solution to this dastardly problem of checks and balances. Maybe next time?

What is your evidence that you can't spew hate speech in the US? I know in Europe it is more limited but generally hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment. Otherwise, how could the KKK hold rallies in public without criminal prosecution? I would like the name of a supreme court case if you have one.