Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Ultimate Bill Of Rights Thread  
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Folks, I've been taken to task by some folks over on the second amendment thread because of my efforts to do some consciousness raising-which has met with only modest success I must say.

So here's your challenge. Take an amendment. Let's skip the second, because that's got its own dedicated weekly thread.

Unless you care to argue that the Bill of Rights is only relevant as a unitary piece of legislation-which is sort of my opinion anyway.

Take an amendment. What is it that is important to you? The Third is largely a historical artifact but what is the significance of it?



Are these universal principles? Did som or all of it end up in the UNUDHR? How about in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What puts it in danger? Can the Bill of Rights be torn up by a future totalitarian regime? Did it mean anything to have a Bill of Rights until we got the 14th Amendment anyway??

Let the games begin.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKieron747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

Not an amendment, but I find this one interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

Kieron


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

First of all, you almost sound like a law school professor!

Quoting Dougloid (Thread starter):
Can the Bill of Rights be torn up by a future totalitarian regime?

Why not, we seen this administration failed to recognize that our government consist of three branches of government.

I consider the 4th Amendment (to be protected from unlawful search and seizure) to be the most important. I feel it gives the citizens who might disagree with the government some protection from undo harassment, and it does give the citizens protection against a overzealous police, and also protects against a police state. Now for the life of me, I cannot figure out why people on these shows like Cops, actually give the police permission to search their cars without a warrant, and when they know that contraband is in the car.


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth are crucial to our legal system.

Fourth:
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.

Fifth:
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.

Sixth:
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.

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


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

Are we limiting the discussion to the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) or can we comment on other amendments?

I've got a real beef with the whole notion of selective incorporation of the 14th amendment.

I bet you that the liberal are going to be trolling this thread just looking for a reason to suggest deletion of posts so I'd like clarification from the thread starter that we're not limited to the literal Bill of Rights.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1583 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Thread starter):
Folks, I've been taken to task by some folks over on the second amendment thread because of my efforts to do some consciousness raising-which has met with only modest success I must say.

The only thing that was modestly successful was your derailing of an established thread.  Yeah sure

Quoting Dougloid (Thread starter):
Take an amendment. What is it that is important to you?

The First Amendment is sometimes too broad. I don't think it should protect stupidity and counter-productive outbursts and demonstrations and should only protect carefully crafted and correct English. How's that?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My impression....other than the one about not coveting thy neighbors wife being written by a dude who never saw the women in my neighborhood......is that the Constitution, which I am sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, is all about preserving the rights of the people and specifying how the government should operate, including it's limits. The Bill of Rights is often misunderstood to be something that stands alone and grants rights.

Which is completely wrong. It simply enumerates certain rights so there are no misunderstandings (which, of course, get misunderstood by people who wish they said something different) and no attempts to quarter troops in peacetime or other such nonsense. These ten amendments, were merely specifications, not actual changes to the Constitution, as the rest of the amendments were, and they were put as such simply because it was too complicated to change the body of the text without further argument. It was a magnificent achievement in societal change and in civil rights.

I don't really value one much more than the others but Amendment IX seems particularly important.

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

All rights our ours inherently. We, as a society, can choose to restrict rights, if we all agree (or by majority, within the limits set forth by the Constitution) in order to form a more perfect Union, but the rights are ours. It's only by choice that we restrict these rights. I choose to restrict the right of others to molest me in the streets. I choose to restrict the rights of pedophiles to live near schools. I choose to restrict the right of a man to take from my home without permission.

I choose to live in this society where we discuss things and have arguments then vote on the issues in order to decide how we live together in more perfect harmony. It may not often seem harmonious, but it's been about a 150 years since we had a Civil War and since then we've pretty much discussed things over tea and cake then raised our hands to indicate our preferences, then pretty much went the way of the majority whether we voted that way or not.

It's a good system, and the Amendments to the Constitution, for the most part, have sought to make more perfect that document of supreme importance to our society and to the world. Imagine how the world would look if this bastion of freedom had not been founded and then reformed with the thoughts imprinted on this document..... Imagine how the world would be if our split in 1861 had been permanent......

Imagine what the definition of freedom might be now, without the framers of our Constitution who wrote, the advisors who helped, the delegates who argued and voted, and the people who ratified and then held true to it.

Number IX is important because it states a basic truth. Our rights are inherent in our humanity. This document simply acts as a written expression of our societal will to preserve them....written and unwritten.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1578 times:



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

What would be consider excessive? I seen a justice court judge give a misdemeanor DUI driver a $250,000 bond, and my all time favorite a small time judge in Missouri gave a suspect a $30million bond for sleeping with his daughter. (When the suspect walked up to me and told me he had a warrant, and dispatch confirmed it and the amount, I just couldn't believe it).


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1569 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
Number IX is important because it states a basic truth. Our rights are inherent in our humanity. This document simply acts as a written expression of our societal will to preserve them....written and unwritten.

Agreed. But more importantly what people fail to understand is that the Federal government is supposed to be a government of very limited (specifically delineated) powers. The Supreme Court's expansion of the Commerce Clause since the 1940's has turned that fundamental concept completely on its head by essentially expanding the scope of legislative authority beyond all reason. I believe that at last count there has been only two cases where Congressional legislation has been overturned on commerce clause grounds un the last 30+ years - one involved guns in schools and the other involved violence against women.

Everything else, including the regulation of marijuana grown within a state, consumed solely by the grower (therefore have no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce) has been upheld under this b.s. notion of aggregate affectation.

While abortion may get the all the attention, the most dangerous threat posed by our judiciary is and remains the uncontrolled expansion of the powers to legislate under a bastardized interpretatiion of the Commerce Clause. Even Scalia has gotten it wrong on this count.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 4):
Are we limiting the discussion to the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) or can we comment on other amendments?

I've got a real beef with the whole notion of selective incorporation of the 14th amendment.

This is an open topic. The other amendments-and proposed ones as our colleague in the UK has noted-are all targets for discussion.

Quoting Queso (Reply 5):
Quoting Dougloid (Thread starter):
Folks, I've been taken to task by some folks over on the second amendment thread because of my efforts to do some consciousness raising-which has met with only modest success I must say.

The only thing that was modestly successful was your derailing of an established thread.

You'll get over it. There'll be next week's second amendment thread, and the one after that and the one after that.

I promise I won't meddle with the second amendment love-in any further except in the larger context. And I won't complain to anyone either.


   

[Edited 2008-02-05 10:27:55]

User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Now for the life of me, I cannot figure out why people on these shows like Cops, actually give the police permission to search their cars without a warrant, and when they know that contraband is in the car.

When you consider that it pretty much wipes out the notion of reasonable cause or probable cause and makes it irrelevant, yeah...it's arm twisting by some real experts, that's for sure.

The fourth amendment is what the government uses to line birdcages with in the Federal courts, and to a lesser extent the state courts. At least at the state level it is taken a lot more seriously, because it's not the entire federal government some mutt is up against-not to mention draconian sentencing that tends to shut people up fast-but just a county prosecutor.

Wanna real puzzler? Start researching what sort of obligations federal attorneys have toward their state attorney regulatory codes....when you're done with that, consider that Scott Turow got his own personal nastygram in a Federal appeals court decision because of his conduct in the Greylord investigation.

[Edited 2008-02-05 10:27:09]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Ultimate Butt-In-A-Sling Thread! posted Mon May 14 2007 23:12:47 by Allstarflyer
The Ultimate Middle East Discussion Thread Part 1 posted Mon Jul 31 2006 19:09:01 by WellHung
The Ultimate Bodybuilding/Weightlifting/Fit Thread posted Thu Dec 11 2003 17:41:55 by AA61hvy
A New Bill Of Rights? How Sweet This Would Be posted Tue Aug 19 2003 01:36:29 by Matt D
The Ultimate Dating Self Help Thread posted Sun Jul 6 2003 05:18:05 by Matt D
The Ultimate Walk Of Life (other Way Round)... posted Fri Mar 14 2003 23:03:30 by Klm-md11
Sex: The Ultimate Weapon Of Mass Destruction posted Wed Jul 31 2002 05:28:28 by Lehpron
The Ultimate Chicago Thread Part II posted Thu Jan 24 2008 22:50:48 by Chi-town
The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 2 posted Wed Jan 16 2008 16:00:35 by Queso
The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1 posted Thu Dec 20 2007 13:23:57 by Queso