Constitutional Freedoms? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

ArtCatDom -> Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 5:45:25 AM)

I firmly believe that our freedoms are gravely threatened in the United States.

1. Freedom of Speech: Why is the FCC empowered to regulate speech against the prohibition on such actions? Why has this power been upheld by courts?

2. Freedom of Religion: Why are Rastafarians prohibited from the cultivation and use of cannabis when it does not threaten others? Why are practitioners of Vodou (and other such religions) prohibited from animal sacrifice under the vestiges of animal creulty laws? Why are churches like the Unitarian-Universalist prohibited from legally marrying homosexuals?

3. Freedom of Assembly: Why is hanging out on public land a crime called loitering? Why do public lands have hours of operation?

4. Warrants and Searches: Why is it when you are out in public, on foot or in vehicle, the requirement for warrants are mostly ignored? Why is there any debate to the legality of warrantless wiretaps and surveillance?

I think that should be sufficient for a start. Feel free to debate how such restrictions are not a violation of the US Constitution. Feel free to add your violations to the list.

*meow*



Chaingang -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 6:18:24 AM)

The Antifederalists argued that the states would be absorbed into an all-too-powerful national government. They claimed that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators would create an aristocratic class. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, these Antifederalists felt that the new Constitution was most undemocratic.

Their major objection to the new Constitution was its lack of a bill of rights. "Bills of rights" list the specific freedoms that governments cannot threaten or take away. When the Constitution was being written, many state constitutions already had bills of rights. For that reason, the authors of the Constitution did not feel it was necessary to have another one. The antifederalists believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers. They worried that it would destroy the liberties won in the Revolution.

[skipping a bit...]

The last two amendments address the liberties of citizens and the rights of states. The Ninth Amendment states that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not define all of the fundamental rights people have. Such rights exist whether or not they are defined.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/usgovt/constit/exthbilr.htm

...

Oops!

What's interesting is how the SCOTUS keeps hammering away at the Bill of Rights until there is barely anything left. And let's face it, the Ninth Amendment is a fucking joke coming and going - philosophically it should be devastating, and yet it simply isn't.



ArtCatDom -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 6:29:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

The Antifederalists argued that the states would be absorbed into an all-too-powerful national government. They claimed that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators would create an aristocratic class. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, these Antifederalists felt that the new Constitution was most undemocratic.

Their major objection to the new Constitution was its lack of a bill of rights. "Bills of rights" list the specific freedoms that governments cannot threaten or take away. When the Constitution was being written, many state constitutions already had bills of rights. For that reason, the authors of the Constitution did not feel it was necessary to have another one. The antifederalists believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers. They worried that it would destroy the liberties won in the Revolution.

[skipping a bit...]

The last two amendments address the liberties of citizens and the rights of states. The Ninth Amendment states that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not define all of the fundamental rights people have. Such rights exist whether or not they are defined.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/usgovt/constit/exthbilr.htm

...

Oops!


Alright! As a libertarian (extreme proponent of rights, not affiliated with the gut-the-government party), I *love* the 9th and 10th Amendments. Most unfortunate that people seem to think (as a whole) they either don't exist or don't matter.

The history of the Bill of Rights is fascinating. A large number of federalists were concerned than an enumeration of rights would lead to rights becoming restricted to that set. Significant influences within both the federalists and antifederalists required the inclusion of the 9th and 10th Amendments. They were a beautiful compromise protecting individual and States' rights between the two sides that allowed the Bill of Rights to pass.

Now since the spector of the 9th and 10th have been raised:

1. How can drug prohibition be justified without a Consitutional Amendment on the federal level? How can drug prohibition be justified without such limitations delineated in a State constitution on the state level?

2. How can adult seat belt laws be justified?

3. How can laws against suicide be justified?

*meow*



Moloch -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 6:51:50 AM)

Very easy people bend over and take it up the ass from "the man". Sometimes they stand up for their rights like Ruby Ridge and Waco.



ArtCatDom -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 7:05:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

Very easy people bend over and take it up the ass from "the man". Sometimes they stand up for their rights like Ruby Ridge and Waco.


Good reply for "why".

Don't forget all those times when fear has been used to convince otherwise rational people. Like say, oh, the USA PATRIOT Act.

*meow*



TahoeSadist -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 7:32:09 AM)

"justified"? From the POV of the politicians who do this it's simple: "It's what the sheep-le want"..."It's for the public good"....."It's for the children"......"If even one life is saved, it's worth it"
     Just taking the drug question, I've seen some odd history as to just why pot was restricted (the rationales were sickening) but the actual way it's done is insidious. The anti pot folks knew that to ban it, they had to have a Constitutional ammendment and that wasn't likely to happen. So the method was taken from another trampling of rights, the 1936 Gun Control Act, which didn't ban machine guns because it couldn't. It taxed them. The 1937 Marijuana Tax act was similar, except that they had no intention of ever issuing the appropriate licenses for people to produce, dispense or consume it, making it defacto illegal. Once the foot is in the door, then "banning" a substance is simply known as reclassifying it into various categories, neatly sidestepping the question of whether it's something the Feds are allowed to do under the Constitution.
     The overall problem you have is that the function and purpose of the Constitution has been forgotten by the people, and thus safely ignored by the politician class. The Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do, what it's allowed to do, which is where the catch-all 10th ammendment comes into play. I'd wager that if you polled the public at large and asked what the Constitution was for the results would be sickening. However, so long as the politician class is able to overtax and overspend to buy votes for election and reelection, real reform isn't going to happen.

Eric



Alumbrado -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 8:06:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

I firmly believe that our freedoms are gravely threatened in the United States.

1. Freedom of Speech: Why is the FCC empowered to regulate speech against the prohibition on such actions? Why has this power been upheld by courts?

2. Freedom of Religion: Why are Rastafarians prohibited from the cultivation and use of cannabis when it does not threaten others? Why are practitioners of Vodou (and other such religions) prohibited from animal sacrifice under the vestiges of animal creulty laws? Why are churches like the Unitarian-Universalist prohibited from legally marrying homosexuals?

3. Freedom of Assembly: Why is hanging out on public land a crime called loitering? Why do public lands have hours of operation?

4. Warrants and Searches: Why is it when you are out in public, on foot or in vehicle, the requirement for warrants are mostly ignored? Why is there any debate to the legality of warrantless wiretaps and surveillance?

I think that should be sufficient for a start. Feel free to debate how such restrictions are not a violation of the US Constitution. Feel free to add your violations to the list.

*meow*


Your questions seems to derive from the assumption that 'freedom' or 'rights' equals 'zero restrictions', which in my observation rarely holds up in practice.

And most of your questions reflect that the current state of the law is a result of evolving judicial tests balancing the rights of the individual against the perceived/claimed 'needs' of the larger group.

One aside:

As to question number 4 specifically, there shouldn't be any debate...the 4th amendment doesn't purport to apply to public places, or plain view.



ArtCatDom -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 8:27:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Your questions seems to derive from the assumption that 'freedom' or 'rights' equals 'zero restrictions', which in my observation rarely holds up in practice.

And most of your questions reflect that the current state of the law is a result of evolving judicial tests balancing the rights of the individual against the perceived/claimed 'needs' of the larger group.

One aside:

As to question number 4 specifically, there shouldn't be any debate...the 4th amendment doesn't purport to apply to public places, or plain view.


False on both counts.

The questions are based on the assumption that rights end when they conflict with the rights of another. The famous "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" restriction is a perfect example of rights being limited in this fashion. None of my questions require the impingement of another's rights.

I would suggest you read the Fourth Amendment again:
"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."

Please note there is no limitation in the Amendment allowing for a differant standard in public. Your person, papers or effects don't mysteriously vanish when you leave your home.

*meow*



caitlyn -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 8:45:06 AM)

Do you think there was a period in American history, where people could avail themselves of these freedoms, any more than they can today?



Archer -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 9:00:53 AM)

Item #2b religious freedom animal sacrifice so long as the killing of the animal falls within certain health codes the sacrifice can be performed. The deaths do have to be inflicted in a reasonably humane manner. Tyhe unfortunate fact is that faux religious copy cats have taken to sacrificing animals they do not legally own.

Item #2c The churches can marry anyone they wish. they cannot force the state to recognize their marriages, seperation of church and state cutting both ways in this case. (BTW I would propose that the State get out of the marriage business entirely and issue only civil union licenses, and let the various churches decide who they will recognize as married and who they will not.

Item #3 Loitering on public property, Park hours of operation would be far less nessisary if the culture was less litigious. A person expects the government to provide services 24/7 but do not wish to pay the nessisary taxes to provide those services. You want freedom you have to take the personal responsibility for the results of that freedom. Also the problem is people refuse to use the public lands for what they were made public for in the first place. People want to cut trees down for firewood on public property and convert them for private use, vandalize public property, etc. To prevent that they simply close them during certain hours mostly because of budget concerns. Want them open all the time vote for increased taxes to fund increased hours.

Item #4 Warrantless searches? the courts have ruled probable cause as the standard how that gets interpreted may be fouled up but it is the standard. The problem is that people who don't know the law are allowing themselves to be tricked into allowing a search. And the police seem to be operating on the you can beat the wrap but you still spend the night in my jail theory. That is a real problem except when you look at the number of real problem criminals who beat the wrap, while small time guys get hammered, mostly because the price of a lawyer that is any good tends to be more than the average guy can afford.

In leather
a fellow libertairian

Archer



JohnWarren -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 9:04:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Do you think there was a period in American history, where people could avail themselves of these freedoms, any more than they can today?


Interestingly, during the 1800's, the first amendment was almost completely ignored, and Congress passed laws like The Alien and Sedition Law that clearly went against both the text and the spirit of the law.  It wasn't until 1918, that the Supreme Court addressed the first amendment, and that was to put limits on the amendment, not on Congress.



Moloch -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 9:27:33 AM)

Then circa 1863 we had a very ugly disagreement about stave VS federal rights... State rights lost...



Alumbrado -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/4/2006 11:09:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Your questions seems to derive from the assumption that 'freedom' or 'rights' equals 'zero restrictions', which in my observation rarely holds up in practice.

And most of your questions reflect that the current state of the law is a result of evolving judicial tests balancing the rights of the individual against the perceived/claimed 'needs' of the larger group.

One aside:

As to question number 4 specifically, there shouldn't be any debate...the 4th amendment doesn't purport to apply to public places, or plain view.


False on both counts.

The questions are based on the assumption that rights end when they conflict with the rights of another. The famous "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" restriction is a perfect example of rights being limited in this fashion. None of my questions require the impingement of another's rights.

I would suggest you read the Fourth Amendment again:
"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."

Please note there is no limitation in the Amendment allowing for a differant standard in public. Your person, papers or effects don't mysteriously vanish when you leave your home.

*meow*



You've cited the exact reasons that both my points are correct, and added assumptions not supported by facts in evidence.

"In their houses' only means 'NOT in their houses' if the Supreme court says it does...and guess what? They haven't made that extension in every circumstance. Read Olmstead and then Katz for the balancing test I mentioned.

And there is a perfect right to yell fire in a crowded theater, if the theater is in fact, on fire...but there is no absolute right either way, of the sort you are positing for debate purposes.

The rights we have are not carved in stone, so your debate challenge is merely an exerise, and a futile one on an interrnet forum, where people will makee up their own definitions, ignore logical rules, and play the usual games.




MasterBenedict -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/7/2006 12:36:39 PM)

And here you will get a RESOUNDING "BRAVA/O!!"



truesub4u -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/7/2006 1:21:56 PM)

Seriously interresting thread here.... because more and more ..... any and all rights are slowly being taken away.. everyday.. someones rights are being violated... because they do not know them.. understand them... or even know sometimes that they exist. Alot of the times.. if you ask someone to name off as many rights that are on that list.. most can't get past 5. Being in a legal battle now with my kids over their rights as students... speach... religion... and expression... they know now.. they have alot to learn more still and what it means to be taken advantage of by the courts... teachers.. and others.. but I admire their refusal to stand down.. even with being threatened to be expelled from school. They took that as fire power and ran with it... and it's been working to their advantage thus far...

I tell them... their future.. is in their hands..... one day you'll try to stand up for rights... and find you don't have a right to stand up for any rights.... sucks don't it?[:@]



Termyn8or -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/8/2006 7:23:33 AM)

Truth is, the Constitution expired in 1933. We have lived under the Emergency War Powers act ever since.

Since then the People own nothing, even themselves, we are all collateral for the national debt, which some idiots think "oh it's money the government owes to itself" which is patently untrue. It is owed to international banks.

These international banks, along with shareholders in big business have a stranglehold on any country that carries a national debt. Amsel Rothchild said something to the effect "Give me control of a country's money and I care not who writes the laws". The Rothchilds (an assumed name) were the creators of the international banking system. Their family name is actually Meyer, but adopted Rothchild meaning "red shield" in German. Other related families also adopted the name.

When you get busted for something illegal but not unlawful and bitch, the cop will tell you to write your representative. What a joke. You don't have a representative unless you live in Rep. Ron Paul's district. Yup, one out of 535.

You need to write the Bilderberg members, the Council on Foreign Relations, directors of the International Monetary fund, and while you're at it you might as well write to the Chinese government. Taxation without represntation is tyranny, guess what folks !

President Wilson, at his farewell address expressed remorse for signing banking bills. FDR stepped up the process after stacking the supreme court. We have been electing traitors since around the time of the Civil War. Lincoln was killed because he wanted to repatriate the Blacks to Africa. Kennedy was killed because he adamantly opposed Israel having nuclear weapons. Nixon was impeached because it became known that he hated Jews, or at least what they do. I haven't found out what Clinton did wrong yet, but it will come out in time.

Money, need phosphorous ? send the CIA to kill President Diem of Viet Man, need cadmium ? take over the miner's union in Serbia, Milesovic has to go. Need a better deal on oil, take over Venezuela. That was a big bloody nose for the CIA, because after the coup, the People of that country restored their "dictator" in 48 hours. Hugo Chavez Frias is the Lawful President of that country, but the US doesn't like that. Not sure exactly why, but if you look at their national debt it might provide a clue. Not big enough.

Saddam Huessein wants to go with the Euro, damn, that was heavy, bad boy. We'll even help bomb a couple of our own buildings over that ! Remember 1991 when the government was caught red handed ordering the bombing of, guess what, the WTC. The phone conversation is available, "Why did you give me real explosives, this is supposed to be a mockup to get funding", "Do it anyway". Yes. On 9/11 NORAD had to wait for personal orders from Rumsfield to scramble, why ? The protocols for a scramble were apparent. Apparently the order was not given I might add.

The Japanese are about to attack Pearl Harbor, what was the order ? Remove the RADAR equipment. The freedom of information act is a wonderful and horrible thing. It lets us know what these muthafuckers did, way too late to crucify them for it, which would be too easy on them.

One may decide not to believe certain facts, and actually nothing is proven unless you were there, but there is a pattern. If you know a crackhead got high on Friday and Sunday, what do you think he did on Saturday ? The pattern is clear.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. We have a "partnership" between big business, government and the media. The purpose of this partnership is to bleed the People dry of all wealth. It is not a conspiracy because the conspirators have claimed the right to define conspiracy. Seems to me that it worked.

Enough for now.

T



ArtCatDom -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/10/2006 12:13:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Do you think there was a period in American history, where people could avail themselves of these freedoms, any more than they can today?


I suppose that depends on how you measure it, which I admit is quite subjective.

In my own flawed opinion, I think that we've been about even most of the time. Some rights are weakened while others are strengthened at various points in history. I think the weakest periods were during the tenure of President Lincoln and the Great Depression. Lincoln is far from the hero he often presented as, in my eyes. He suspended habias corpus, smashed printing presses, employed indefinite detention, etc. The Great Depression and its New Deal laid waste to a number of seperation of powers. (Are you familiar with the switch in time that saved nine?)

In more recent history, we have gained greater freedoms in our personal lives (voluntary sodomy being permitted, freedom of religion greatly increased, etc) while losing freedoms to police powers (warrantless searches, false distinctions between home and public searches, etc).

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't struggle for the full freedoms accorded to us by the Constitution.

*meow*



Lordandmaster -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/10/2006 12:19:37 PM)

That's a good point, but the fact that the government has been unjustly oppressive in the past is hardly a good reason why it should be unjustly oppressive today.

Besides, I do get the feeling that some Constitutional freedoms are being assaulted in ways that weren't thinkable in the period 1970-2000.  Can you imagine detaining an American citizen indefinitely before trial?  No one could before the Bush Administration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Do you think there was a period in American history, where people could avail themselves of these freedoms, any more than they can today?



ArtCatDom -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/10/2006 12:26:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Item #2b religious freedom animal sacrifice so long as the killing of the animal falls within certain health codes the sacrifice can be performed. The deaths do have to be inflicted in a reasonably humane manner. Tyhe unfortunate fact is that faux religious copy cats have taken to sacrificing animals they do not legally own.

Item #2c The churches can marry anyone they wish. they cannot force the state to recognize their marriages, seperation of church and state cutting both ways in this case. (BTW I would propose that the State get out of the marriage business entirely and issue only civil union licenses, and let the various churches decide who they will recognize as married and who they will not.

Item #3 Loitering on public property, Park hours of operation would be far less nessisary if the culture was less litigious. A person expects the government to provide services 24/7 but do not wish to pay the nessisary taxes to provide those services. You want freedom you have to take the personal responsibility for the results of that freedom. Also the problem is people refuse to use the public lands for what they were made public for in the first place. People want to cut trees down for firewood on public property and convert them for private use, vandalize public property, etc. To prevent that they simply close them during certain hours mostly because of budget concerns. Want them open all the time vote for increased taxes to fund increased hours.

Item #4 Warrantless searches? the courts have ruled probable cause as the standard how that gets interpreted may be fouled up but it is the standard. The problem is that people who don't know the law are allowing themselves to be tricked into allowing a search. And the police seem to be operating on the you can beat the wrap but you still spend the night in my jail theory. That is a real problem except when you look at the number of real problem criminals who beat the wrap, while small time guys get hammered, mostly because the price of a lawyer that is any good tends to be more than the average guy can afford.

In leather
a fellow libertairian

Archer



2b. Only true in theory. In practice, most states have altered their health code laws to make it practically impossible to practice such religions. Statutes have been knocked down only when they explicitly target those religions. Every such state statute invalidated by the courts has been replaced with the same restrictions in secular terms. Haitians for example are prohibited under Florida law from practicing their religion. (In New York, they have very mixed results based on what judge they get saddled with. Jewish judges, and other jurists familiar with kashrut law, tend to be more sympathetic.)

2c. The issue to me is that the vast majority of people who oppose homosexual unions claim that marriage is a religious rite that demands it be between a man and a woman. If they want to frame the issue in religious justifications, then they must permit churches to define marriage as they see fit. I do however like your solution.

3. I agree that tort reform would be in order for 24/7 public land access to be a practical goal. However, at least in New York State, more man-hours are spent policing parks after hours than during open hours.

4. Probable cause means they have a reason to believe you are engaged in illegal behavior. It derives from the common law posse comitatus power to arrest and detain criminals for trial. Basically, it's the idea it's unreasonable that police power cannot be exercised on those engaging in apparently criminal behavior. I agree with your concerns about the uneven and poor implementation of the standard. In most communities, police will search your person and/or car even if you deny them permission and the courts will uphold it. In New York, we thankfully have a strict standard for stops and searches. Unfortunately, it costs thousands of dollars and considerable time to reach the higher courts which consistantly overturn invalid searches.

Just my thoughts.

*meow*



ArtCatDom -> RE: Constitutional Freedoms? (5/10/2006 12:32:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Do you think there was a period in American history, where people could avail themselves of these freedoms, any more than they can today?


Interestingly, during the 1800's, the first amendment was almost completely ignored, and Congress passed laws like The Alien and Sedition Law that clearly went against both the text and the spirit of the law.  It wasn't until 1918, that the Supreme Court addressed the first amendment, and that was to put limits on the amendment, not on Congress.


Quite right! The "clear and present danger" test, which still mainly stands in effect today.

I believe it was really not until the 1960s that speech was given a broader array of protections.

*meow*



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875