DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Bill of Rights

How can you believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and yet you also believe in government restrictions of the Bill of Rights?

If you believe in the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech and the Press, yet you believe in Hate Speech restrictions, you cannot honestly be for the 1st Amendment can you?

If you believe in the 2nd Amendment Freedom to arm yourself, yet you believe in reasonable gun laws, you cannot honestly believe in the 2nd Amendment can you?

If you believe in the 4th Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet you believe in the FBI lying and misleading a FISA judge in order to gain a search warrant and to spy on American citizens, you cannot honestly believe in the 4th Amendment can you?

I have seen so many politicians give lip service to the Constitution yet they have no compulsion to adhere to it. I see news media pundits talk about the law says this... the law saw that... we need laws to protect the children... blah blah blah... and then state how reasonable it is to restrict one right yet do not dare mess with my rights.

I know that I cannot be the only person who feels this way.

Voleur

i thought this was gonna be a good thread, but there it was:

If you believe in the 4th Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet you believe in the FBI lying and misleading a FISA judge in order to gain a search warrant and to spy on American citizens, you cannot honestly believe in the 4th Amendment can you?
__________

we already have active threads on the fbi investigation.

This thread is a good one.

But is he talking about the Cohen raid? Not like it doesn't happen to average joe now.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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 upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

I, (state your name), do solemnly swear
That I will uphold and support the constitution
And bylaws of the _______ Volunteer Fire Department,
The Constitutions of The State of _______
and of the United States of America,
And that I will fulfill the duties of my office
To the best of my ability,
So help me God.

Sadly, this is about where the value of the oath ends, with the military. I agree with the OP, elected officials pay lip service.

I love when 40 pretends he cares about the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

It was 2-3 months ago when he gave his famed "I'm a States Rights believer, but I'm also against States Rights" sermon.

I was not referring to the Cohen raid in particular. The entirety of the government apparatus allows itself the authority to violate individual rights outlined in the Constitution and specifically in the Bill of Rights. The last time I checked the Courts and the Executive Branch (read FBI) are branches of the government. If you believe the government's role is to protect the rights of it's citizenry, how can they then conspire against the rights of it's citizenry in order to protect the rights of it's citizenry? Do you see what I am trying to get at?

The Cohen raid is just one of many violations of the rights of American citizens by it's government under the guise of protecting American citizens. I can discuss the Cohen case but it was not my intention with this thread.

Voleur

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Amendment I
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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

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.

So you believe that if something is a "right" then it is a totally unencumbered right and absolutely no restrictions can be placed on it whatsoever? Is that the basic premise of this conversation?

I prefer my amendments to not endorse slavery tyvm. Might me an odd sentiment on this forum.

I don't happen to see any endorsements of slavery in that list.

Yes in short. If a right is a freedom inherent to humans and not granted by governments, governments should not have any say in them. If you believe your rights are not inherent to being human and are granted by governments, then they can be changed by the ever changing political winds.

Lose the first and the rest will fall like a house of cards.

The first Amendment really embodies our declaration of independence, and our unalienable rights, for if you lose the first, then you will have forfeited those rights, and forfeit your freedom of conscious, that is your free will, without which is total subjugation on the behalf of the people.

That would be fascism.

Not to mention forming an image unto the beast, which is the control of both chruch and state craft.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

-Ronald Reagan

So are you saying it should be legal for people to tell FIRE in a crowded theater, or that felons should be allowed to own guns?

The Constitution was written a long long time ago. It was written very well back in the day, and was a great foundation for our government. But times have changed, and the document has not been updated to account for those changes. Some parts of the document still apply, some do not.

When that document was written, it was perfectly legal to OWN people!
When that document was written, some people were only counted as 3/5th's of a person.
Women could not vote.
Black people could not vote.

How in the world can people read everything the Constitution has to say and think that, "Oh yeah, they totally got all that right."

It's ridiculous to ignore that things have changed and we have to account for those changes now.

That's the same rhetoric our government has been telling us for years. Let me ask you, what did going to Vietnam have anything to do with our freedom? How about Korea? How about Iraq?

Seems to me the last time we went to war to protect our freedom was WWII.

Korea and Vietnam was all about stopping the spread of Communism... which was stupid and didn't work.

Iraq was about oil.

Thanks for making my point. If it was perfectly acceptable to update the Bill of Rights in those instances, it should be perfectly acceptable to update it today. Specifically the 2nd amendment. But I don't want to get into another debate on that one now.

But we agree that updates are needed as times change.

It can be updated as you please as long as you follow the Process to do it.

I'm good with that. My argument was for people who believe that the Constitution is infallible.

It's simple. Freedom does not mean you can do anything you want without rules. What freedom means is that within the confines of those rules, you can do whatever you want. To distill down freedom in the way you describe is a gross oversimplification, and also would be countermand to the common law doctrine our country runs on.

How is The VI even doable today...in the world of instant news feeds that are more opinion pieces it is imposssible to field an impartial jury unless you find someone living under a rock....which are typically idiots.

The multitude of laws that qualify you as a felon has grown so much that the original concept of felon was bad violent people....which yes they should not be able to be in possession of a firearm....however you can now face felony vehicular manslaughter penalties for unintentional acts...should you be prohibited for that.....way too many laws to trap you

I am saying that if there is a fire in a crowded theater, the answer is yes. If there is no fire and someone is injured, your actions though protected under the Constitution have violated the rights of others to be safe in their person and property. Throw the book at them.

As for felons owning firearms, I would ask you a question. Does a person convicted of a felon who serves his sentence lose his right to defend themselves? If the answer is yes, you sentence them to be second class citizens and to be victims of those who prey on the weak. You become a tyrant. So yes I believe a person convicted of a crime who has served their sentence from a jury of their peers should be allowed to reenter the mainstream of society.

Agreed. Not to mention that laws are the realm of the legislative branch. No branch of government should be in position to take from the citizenry their inalienable rights from them. I do not trust Paul Ryan or Nancy Pelosi to protect my rights nor to validate my rights for me. It is incumbent upon the government to protect your rights, whether you chose to practice them or not.

Then you would agree that in order for the 2nd Amendment to in any way be changed, you need to have a Constitutional Amendment. If you believe that, you cannot in good conscience accept any "reasonable" gun legislation proposed through Congress. There is no chance in HELL to amend the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. Any politician, pundit, average joe blow, who proposes any thing short of amending the Constitution in respects to infringe on the rights of the citizenry to bear arms does not believe in the Constitution and their opinion on Constitutional matters should be dismissed with prejudice.

Why precisely does the 2nd amendment need to be changed though? The current legal precedent is that while Americans have the right to bear arms, the legislative branch of govt is free to confer reasonable restrictions on those rights. After all, if you attempt to buy a gun, today, and fail the NICS check, you will be prohibited from not just buying the gun, but may also face perjury charges. That would be a violation of freedom in a rights absolution view.

What you are discussing would not be entertained in any legislative chamber or court room. There is nothing in our common law system that suggests rights absolution.

That is correct. The fact that legal precedent was even a consideration is telling. Rights are either pure or they are not rights. They are privileges the state allows as long as it seems them of no burden upon the state. I guess I am a purist. I prefer the idea of liberty and freedom to restrictions. I trust myself to control myself. I do not desire nor need the government to intervene in my inherent rights.

The document has been updated, to address some of the very things you mentioned... and everything else still applies.. I know that because they haven't been changed yet.


Because they did get it right... and they were wise enough to put in provisions to change it if future generations felt it to be warranted... but they made it very difficult to change, as they should.


So account for them.. all it takes is a large percentage of like minded people and "POOF" it can be changed.

Quite literally, it is as close to a perfect document today as it was the day it was written...

There is absolutely nothing, nowhere, not in US law, nor in reasonably prudent law texts, that argue that rights are pure. None. The 5th US Congress and their passage of the 1798 Sedition Acts laugh at the idea that they had no ability to restrict free speech for instance, and that was over 200 years ago. It was legislated and signed by many of our founding fathers.

The final version of the Declaration of Independence declares: “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.”

It's funny that you bring that up.. I was thinking about this the other day when I was driving and it occurred to me that those in power for the right could NEVER have written our founding documents. They use them all the time, they roll them up and whack people over the head with them.. but if they had been in charge in 1776... the constitution and this country would look VASTLY different.. and not for the better.

And before anybody jumps on me, I don't think those running the other party would have fared much better...

For whatever flaws they may have had, we should all be thankful that we had the right people, in the right place, at the right time... or who knows where we would be.

Personally, I think if the Right and the Left of today were in charge in 1776, America would not be here as the Brits would have bought them off.

if i was in charge, the world would be better than it is today.

Truest post of the day!

Difficult to get things changed when you've got the Guns, God, and Government people ruining it for the rest of us intelligent folk.

I think you are not realizing that the people you are speaking about in disdain and with a snarky tone are a lot more numerous than you are led to believe.