What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 6:40:23 PM)

With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way?




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 6:49:21 PM)

FR
First Amendment
The Federal government cannot restrict any state run news source. (freedom of the press)
The Federal governmnet cannot restrict the statements of any state official. (freedom of speach)
The Federal government cannot interfere with the official religion of any state. (freedom of religion)
The Federal government cannot keep states from having conferences. (freedom of assembly)
The Federal government cannot prevent the states from proposing changes or critisizing them (Right of petition and redress of grievences)

For the right of the people means the states.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 6:57:17 PM)

FR

The Federal government cannot force states to host troops in time of peace.

Unfortunatly this means the Civil War truely was the War of Northern Aggression as South Carolina had every right to take Fort Sumter.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 6:59:25 PM)

FR
4th Amendment

The Federal government is not allowed to, without proper warrents, take over and search a state.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:01:19 PM)

FR

The 5th amendment

States cannot be forced to testify against themselvs

Doesn't make sense but if that isn't what it means the house of cards starts to fall.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:07:56 PM)

FR

6th States can only be tried in state, can we really try a state?

7th

Trial by jury, I guess the jury must be made up by 12 other states, a bit ackward when there were 13 states but it could be done.

8th limits the penalties that can be levied against a state.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:11:01 PM)

FR

The rights of the states are not limited to those listed here.
Wonder why it is redundent and mentioned the rights of thepeople since the people is simply a codeword for the states.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:13:44 PM)

FR

The Federal Government has no power not specifically defind here, the it goes on redundently saying those powers are reserved to the states and the people.

If the people means the states why would they do this.




Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:16:07 PM)

Actually the second is the only amendments being enforced. The first is gone. Try to get redress of your grievances.

I read somewhere about three years ago that law enforcement wanted to use someone's house to do surveillance on a house across the street where they suspected drug activity. The family refused, and they all went to jail, and IIRC this was ironically in Colorado which just legalised weed due to a public initiative.

The fourth is totally gone wiht them recording every electronic communication on the planet. They eve Xray regular mail of the address or the return address is on a list. Go to a post office and ask them, but then they might not admit it.

The fifth is gone, they put people in prison for years without even involving a grand jury, the prosecutor can just do it. And testifying against yourself ? Well in at least one state if you refuse the alcohol test they will strap you down and take a sample forcibly.

The PATRIOT ACT pretty much took care of the sixth amendment.

The seventh is void. If not, that stupid bitch at McDonald's would have her million bucks.

The eighth amendment is taken care of by sending people to Gitmo. Funny how US jurisdiction follows but not rights.

The ninth pretty much means nothing now. Rights not enumerated. A court in Wisconsin (IIRC) ruled that people do not have the right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.

The tenth amendment is actually under quite a bit of contention these days, mainly over water rights. Many lawsuits are being argued of the environment and a few other issues.

At least all 48 contiguous states have sufficient signatures to petition for secession, but of course nothing is going to happen.

Castle Law Doctrine put the second amendment on the front burner. That is how to enforce all other amendments when the courts refuse to do so.

And fuck the rest of them, they mean nothing. When a company can pay you a salary and force you to work more than forty hours, that is slavery. Women's sufferage ? Remember Blacks got the vote before Women. In fact the US was not the first country to allow Women to vote.

And remember the Alien And Sedition Act. The ink was barely dry when they passed that.

The bottom line is that rights are not bestowed. If they are you owe the bestower and that is not really having the rights. A government big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take it away. And since government produces nothing, whatever they give you was taken from someone else by force. That is theft.

Rights are taken, achieved, or whatever, and that is what the Constitution says. The government is supposed to enforce these rights, not take them away. That is the original reason for government. We have drifted away from that quite a bit and it really did start happening quite early.

We need to take a stand and make demands. Make it clear that they will have to kill every fucking last one of us. Let them think about that for a minute and imagine having nobody to govern, or tax, or oppress. If they have any brains they will capitulate. If not, sorry about their luck. Fukum.

T^T




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:17:03 PM)

The alternative is that the 2nd is an individual right.
However since only illiterates who have never read the constitution believe that the rest must be true.




Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:33:20 PM)

Yeah, and if these individuals don't start to come together, that will be the last right we lose.

T^T




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 7:43:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Actually the second is the only amendments being enforced. The first is gone. Try to get redress of your grievances.

I read somewhere about three years ago that law enforcement wanted to use someone's house to do surveillance on a house across the street where they suspected drug activity. The family refused, and they all went to jail, and IIRC this was ironically in Colorado which just legalised weed due to a public initiative.

The fourth is totally gone wiht them recording every electronic communication on the planet. They eve Xray regular mail of the address or the return address is on a list. Go to a post office and ask them, but then they might not admit it.

The fifth is gone, they put people in prison for years without even involving a grand jury, the prosecutor can just do it. And testifying against yourself ? Well in at least one state if you refuse the alcohol test they will strap you down and take a sample forcibly.

The PATRIOT ACT pretty much took care of the sixth amendment.

The seventh is void. If not, that stupid bitch at McDonald's would have her million bucks.

The eighth amendment is taken care of by sending people to Gitmo. Funny how US jurisdiction follows but not rights.

The ninth pretty much means nothing now. Rights not enumerated. A court in Wisconsin (IIRC) ruled that people do not have the right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.

The tenth amendment is actually under quite a bit of contention these days, mainly over water rights. Many lawsuits are being argued of the environment and a few other issues.

At least all 48 contiguous states have sufficient signatures to petition for secession, but of course nothing is going to happen.

Castle Law Doctrine put the second amendment on the front burner. That is how to enforce all other amendments when the courts refuse to do so.

And fuck the rest of them, they mean nothing. When a company can pay you a salary and force you to work more than forty hours, that is slavery. Women's sufferage ? Remember Blacks got the vote before Women. In fact the US was not the first country to allow Women to vote.

And remember the Alien And Sedition Act. The ink was barely dry when they passed that.

The bottom line is that rights are not bestowed. If they are you owe the bestower and that is not really having the rights. A government big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take it away. And since government produces nothing, whatever they give you was taken from someone else by force. That is theft.

Rights are taken, achieved, or whatever, and that is what the Constitution says. The government is supposed to enforce these rights, not take them away. That is the original reason for government. We have drifted away from that quite a bit and it really did start happening quite early.

We need to take a stand and make demands. Make it clear that they will have to kill every fucking last one of us. Let them think about that for a minute and imagine having nobody to govern, or tax, or oppress. If they have any brains they will capitulate. If not, sorry about their luck. Fukum.

T^T

So you agree with me that are rights are being eroded and taken away?




vincentML -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 10:03:24 PM)

Just a sad, demented attempt to rewrite history. As far as I can see every one of the first nine Amendments refer to the rights of persons, people, individuals, or some derivative thereof. Only, the tenth refers to the states. Additionally, the 14th Amendment holds the states in check from obstructing the same rights as are in the first nine Amendments.

Please, let's not make comic books out of our national history.




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 10:32:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Just a sad, demented attempt to rewrite history. As far as I can see every one of the first nine Amendments refer to the rights of persons, people, individuals, or some derivative thereof. Only, the tenth refers to the states. Additionally, the 14th Amendment holds the states in check from obstructing the same rights as are in the first nine Amendments.

Please, let's not make comic books out of our national history.

Apparently you haven't seen the 2nd amendment debates.
We have been assured time after time that ''the people" means the states.
You are correct that the bill of rights was written to protect the people from the government but those individuals have turned this on its head.
And you are correct that the 14th holds the states to the same standards.
The purpose of this thread is to highlight the absurdity of that position.
You have made an interestin point, if the people are the states then the 14th makes no sense.




Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 10:53:12 PM)

No, people means people.

T^T




BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 11:00:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No, people means people.

T^T

That is what I am demonstraiting .




MrRodgers -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/2/2016 11:41:03 PM)

Well as far as the 2nd, I see where you are going. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms...shall not be infringed.' That could be read both ways and I think rightfully so.

As for the rest, yes as far as the debate for the original BOR, the founders drew them up for ratification in the interest of the people except where specified and found it necessary in the 2nd and 10th...to include both.

I do however refer you to a quote during his senate hearings, "I think the 10th amend. is about the most dead-letter amend, of them all."
Judge Bork. Also, "A person has no inherent right to privacy."

At which time my father a life long repub who had quickly become very disenchanted with Reagan, actually for the first time, called his senator to tell him to vote Bork down...saying "This man thinks he has a right to know how I make love to my wife." (contraception)

Plus the BOR (14th) has been extended by the courts (1884) to create the corporation as being a person and awarded the same rights as one, which was the beginning of the onslaught of corporate corruption, venality, malfeasance and outright criminality. The corp. before that, having been highly regulated.




Edwird -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/3/2016 12:53:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way?


Good to hear an explanation of the 'explinations' of the '2nd amendments.' Who knew there was more than one 2nd amendment?

Good info, there.






OsideGirl -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/3/2016 1:00:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way?

Actually, there is a group that maintains that the Declaration of Independence is a "racist document" because it was written when slavery existed.

Wouldn't that make the Bible a racist publication too?





Edwird -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/3/2016 1:26:13 AM)


Actually, it's not "a group that maintains that ... "

The Three-Fifths Compromise is taught by every responsible history department in the US, HS or college.

And yes, any properly comprehended reading (as in, blatantly explicated for all to see) of the Bible, or the Talmud, or the Quran, or of ancient Greek or Roman or Mesopotamian history, tells us all about the care and feeding of slaves.

I won't argue to the effect, though, that any of that was actually considered 'racist' at the time.








Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625