BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?

Subject: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 10:35 PM

I confess, I am frequently dim. This is on one of those subjects. On another thread someone just remarked upon our "rights and freedoms being taken away".

So help me out: In the United States of America, what rights and freedoms have we lost?

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 12:47 AM

Not knowing exactly what thread and the context, Ebbie, I can only think of the current Tea Party (read:Republicans) attempts to restrict voting rights and abortion rights and other such stuff...

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:15 AM

Naming no names but here is the post: "Joe, you wrote, " The song, 'I'm Proud To Be An American,' has become a Republican National Anthem. It makes me gag." It makes me gag, too, and more now as our freedoms and rights are being taken away."


What rights and freedoms are being referred to?

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:27 AM

The US Constitution, in its original form, set up a form of government but did little else. Most of the states that "nominally approved" that document demanded the first ten amendments, now generally known as the "Bill of Rights."

The single most critical "right" demanded by the founders was the First Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of any religion." In debate, that amendment was extended to add "The freedom of the press shall not be infringed."

It took about 200 years to get Pennsylvania to amend their State Consitution from "All of the people shall be taxed to build one of OUR CHURCHES wherever one doesn't exist" to "The Church shall establish a tax on all the people whenever one of OUR CHURCHES is needed, and the State will collect it for them," but even that's been additionally changed and now mostly conforms to the US requirement.

People (mostly in Red state?) are still trying to overturn that one, of course.

In the early days, the "press" had a lot of money, so they managed to obtain corruptions of the "freedom of the press" amendment so that it now has little resemblence to what the founders had in mind, and is mostly just a "license to lie" irresponsibly; but we live with it.

MOST of the recent arguments have been over the Fourth Amendment:

"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."

The question in contention is whether one's "published papers" (emails, web postings, and computer contents maybe?) are "private papers" or once posted/published are "public information."

Since a cell phone's location must be known for the service provider to communicate with it, is the location from which you made a call "public information?"

Anyone can see you drive through a given intersection at a given time, so does anyone have the right to record when you did so?

Can a web search engine that knows that you looked at blue socks sell that information (including who YOU are) to anyone who wants to sell blue socks?

There are some precedents for permitting collection of information by almost anyone, but with limits on what uses can be made of the information collected. Most of the precedents (and opinions) on the subject are quite vague.

In legal uses, a web search on the "Exclusion Principle" may aid understanding of how confused things are, but won't contribute much to understanding how they're supposed to work. (It's okay to know that, but you can't use it in court - sometimes - but you're not supposed to even know that other stuff since you did something illegal to get it. ????)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 08:38 AM

Good Liberals, in their zeal to protect the integrity of the first and fourth amendments while trying to deny the existence of the second, frequently argue that "arms" means only flintlocks and edged weapons, since that's what existed at the time of the amendment's enactment, so that's all it could have been intended to protect. IF you apply that logic consistently, the fourth amendment can have no application to electronic or digital communications, which didn't exist back then either.

But Good Liberals and Good Conservatives seem to be in a perpetual contest to see which side can reach the most absurd extremes of logical inconsistency.

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 10:29 AM

Every Right, every Freedom, has a corresponding Responsibility. Freedom to print opinions also means that you have the responsibility to back those opinions with facts that actually support your opinion; freedom to travel means that you have the responsibility to travel in such a way that it does not endanger other travelers; freedom to bear arms means you have the responsibility not to misuse them, the right to privacy means you have a responsibility to extend that right to others, etc.

You have the right to sing off-key, I have the right not to listen or, if I am your teacher, the duty to correct you.

If you don't want you location to be known via a cell phone, don't use one. If you don't want the NSA storing your email, use the postal service.

Just as you have a responsibility to use your right of franchise to support good candidates, you have the right to turn bad ones out of office.

But all of this requires both thinking and work -- two responsibilities to seem in small use today.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 10:48 AM

All well and good - and known- but just what 'rights and freedoms' does the man on the street refer to when he uses that phrase?

Sorry to harp on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 10:55 AM

Maybe you should ask it of the person who used that phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 11:30 AM

Parts of the First Amendment- free press (unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers and journalists; much governmental obstruction of right to assemble).

Second Amendment- there is strong opposition there but many and varied attempts at infringement. Because I hate weapons, I am ambivalent on this but it cannot be denied that there has been infringement. If you gave a right, you don't need a license or a permit (the same applies to right to assemble).

Fourth Amendment- spying activities of the NSA and so fourth, plain as the nose on your face.

Fifth, Sixth & Eighth Amendments- derailed by the Patriot Act- unlawful detention and/or interrogation, torture, execution without due process. Going to get much worse, you'll see...

Ninth Amendment- Right to privacy

Tenth Amendment- federal encroachment of state's rights. When the fed strong arms state and local authority, treating them as subordinates in a hierarchy. They are not really supposed to be doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 11:50 AM

there is a great danger of us just allowing them to expire and then one day going oops...

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 12:54 PM

Midchuck... you have largely mischaracterized the argument 'liberals' sometimes use about the 2nd Amendment, saying that they "..frequently argue that "arms" means only flintlocks and edged weapons,...."

What is claimed is that in 1789, "militia" meant, not a standing army, but able-bodied men who owned arms and who should be willing to appear when needed to defend the country...(we had just concluded one struggle to create the country, and until 1815, would have to defend it on several occasions).
Then... the fact that the 'arms' available were non-standard, privately owned items such as flintlocks was perfectly consistent with 'not infringing their ownership OF such weapons', since the government had no weapons to issue. This situation remained until the middle 1800s, when standardized firearms were gradually introduced, and a standing army became the norm. By then it was convenient for the army to control the type of firearm its soldiers (not militia) used, in order to make both ammunition and training in the use of standardized weapons convenient. It also made sense for pioneers moving West to settle new areas..(no matter what you think of their methods).. to own firearms for hunting and self defense.

The 'liberal' argument (usually) is that BECAUSE the framers knew only one basic type of weapon, it makes no sense to interpret the 2nd Amendment to cover the enormous variety of modern weapons available today. The 2nd Amendment, as written, could ONLY apply to the situation as the framers knew it, and was designed with the technology and political realities of the day in mind.

Now, people who have grown up surrounded by weapons want to clasp that vague, archaic phrase to their bosoms, along with assault rifles, rapid-fire handguns and assorted other items the framers never dreamed of, and cite those few words to defend something that is totally inappropriate in today's world. The 2nd Amendment should have been amended and the wording brought up to date by 1900 at the latest, but by the time the glut of guns in urban situations was out of control, the gun lobby had the $$$$$ to stop all attempts.

To answer Ebbie's question, it seems to me that the major right & freedom we have lost..or are losing rapidly.. is the ability to apply reason and common sense to our laws and varied situations. Vested interests have learned how to manipulate the system, not only about firarms, but about technology in general, to serve their corporate interests. Individuals who just "want" guns are simply riding the coattails of those who PROFIT from keeping the status quo.

The Constitution is an amazing document, but NO document can remain relevant in all ways over 300+ years without being tweaked for sensible awareness of current situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 12:55 PM

what 'rights and freedoms' does the man on the street refer to when he uses that phrase

I'm sure that in nine cases out of ten he or she has no idea whatsoever - just picked the phrase up from Glenn and Rush and Faux News.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:16 PM

The biggest problem with debates about rights and freedoms is that almost none of the people have any idea what's in the Constitution, what their rights and freedoms should be, and no ability to make any decisions whether any of them are being threatened.

While both political parties have been guilty to some extent, the Republicans have taken the lead in assuming that "they don't know that we know that they don't know," but have clued in select groups (lobbyists) on how they intend to use that knowledge for political (and monetary) advantage, so that there are some who know that nobody knows much although only a very select few know who knows.

There are a few who know that they know that most of us don't know, but far too many of those who know don't realize that they know that we know that they know that we know that most of us don't know, and that those working solely for political advantage are recruiting gullible groups who have no reason to be concerned to advocate for inanities that have no purpose other than political advantage for the party.

It's all working quite well for those who can find sufficient numbers of those who haven't a clue, and that appears to be quite easily done.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:27 PM

From my experience - some of my relatives { from the shallow end of the gene pool } complain about their loss of privacy via the NSA and IRS - and then post pictures of the beer and enchiladas their having for lunch. Go figure that one out.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:38 PM

The problems here is what rights are we talking about...

The NRA and Gun-Nation think it's the right of anyone who wants to own a gun to own one...

I, on the other hand, think it's my right to not be shot by some criminal or wacko who clearly shouldn't own a gun...

Seems that in every instance where someone is claiming their rights are being taken away that in restoring those right infringes on someone else's rights...

Here's a good example... Back during the town hall meetings when health care was a hot topic many older people didn't go to the meetings out of fear of some asshole, using the 1st amendment at his shield, would scream in their faces...

I mean, this just ain't as simple as "I want my country back"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: John P
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:47 PM

Suzy Sock Puppet says: Second Amendment - it cannot be denied that there has been infringement. If you gave a right, you don't need a license or a permit . . .

It is possible to regulate the details of how to own a gun without infringing on the core right itself. In other words, we could say, "Yes, you have the right to own a gun. That won't be taken away. However, there are some hoops you have to jump through in order to exercise your right." The Constitution doesn't say we won't regulate the ownership of guns, or what type of guns our right to own a gun involves. It just says we get to have one. The fact that we feel comfortable telling people they can't have weapons of war means that we could put that line anywhere we want it to be.

It is also possible to say that "a well-regulated militia" trumps the concept of individual ownership. Perhaps if you want to own a gun you need to be in an official militia. Your gun would be stored at the armory until it was needed for practice or for national defense.

It is also possible to say that "the people" (as in all of us collectively) have the right to arm a militia, but that "persons" (as in an individual) don't have any rights at all in this regard. This would be consistent with the use of the words "the people" and "person" throughout the rest of the Constitution.

In fact, given what's actually writen in the Constitution, all of these interpretations of the 2nd Amendment make more sense than one that is currently in use.

It is also possible to say that my right to security is eroded by someone else's perceived right to carry a gun around with them. When two explicitly stated rights in the Constitution conflict, how do we decide which one gets put aside?

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: John P
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:11 PM

As for the person in the street, a lot of Christian fundamentalists seem to feel that being forced to live in the same society with married gay people is taking away their right to live in a Christian country. That's one of the most frequent "my rights are being taken away" complaints I've heard. Ignorant and illogical all in one swell foop.

As for rights really being taken away, Rapparee says above that if you don't want your email read, use the postal service. I can't agree with that. If they have the right to read our email, they have the right to open our snail mail.

I don't have any problem with taking photographs of people going through intersections. If you're out in public, you're out in public. Watching people who are out in public may unpleasant big-brotherlyness but I don't see it as violating any of our actual rights.

I'm not sure how I feel about being able to locate us by our phones. It falls somewhere between privacy and being in public. I suppose I would come down on the side of our location, when tracked by our phones, being private.

I think that allowing the Catholic Church to violate our employment laws is a violation of the Constitution. When they offer employment but not a normal full range of health insurance, and when that lack is because of their religious beliefs, they are imposing a religious test on employment. If you want to work for them you have to live according to their religion. If they want to behave that way, they should staff their businesses with volunteers. When Catholic hospitals fail to offer abortion services on religious grounds, they are practicing religious discrimination against people who don't share their faith. If restaurants can be forced to seat black people, Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions. Or they shouldn't be in the business. Running a hospital or other business isn't the same as conducting a church service or deciding who can be members of your congregation. If they are in the public marketplace catering to non-Catholics they should have to follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:49 PM

Oh, and as for the 2nd amendment... It isn't a slam dunk for the gun rights people as it is a long meandering "single" sentence that deals with a "well regulated militia"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 06:08 PM

I think the Catholic bishops were ill-advised to make a stink about birth control. Their attempt to control the contraceptive practices of their employees, makes their entire position on "life issues" look silly. As a result, we have people like John P insisting that Catholic institutions should be required to provide abortions. Most Catholics (and most Catholic bishops) don't really care about birth control, or even gay marriage - but when they try to interfere on these minor issues, they lose credibility on one issue they do take seriously - abortion.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:25 PM

Or you can do what Osama bin Laden did -- use couriers. Couriers worked well for the Wehrmacht in December, 1944, too -- the Allies ignored the reports from the front lines and since there were no Enigma intercepts, well, that fight in the Ardennes came as a surprise (yes, I know, there was more to it than just those things). You could even become a Booklegger!

In the US you still have the Right to travel freely. This does not mean that you have a Right to drive, use an airplane or a train, etc. -- but "they" can't stop you from going where you want to go unless you're locked up for some reason. No internal passports, no paperwork. Have a nice walk.

Quite honestly, I don't think you have a "Right" to anything at all. These are granted by your society. Come between a grizzly and her cub -- who has the greater "Right", you or the griz? The griz can outrun you and rip you to shred. Her "society" says "protect our young", yours says that you have the "Right" to live.

For most of human history the greatest number of population lived in ignorance, poverty, and long unremitting labor. Might made right, and you were as likely to die of tuberculosis or typhoid as you were to be nonchalantly speared by some passing soldiers. "Rights" evolved in the 18th Century, the "Age of Enlightenment" and in many, many places even today you have the "Right" to work, pay the bosses, die for them, and shut the f**k up the rest of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

Ebbie, lack of freedom of the press and media. Police out of control. Corporations running the country. Whistleblowers becoming "terrorists". Military control through drones.
Demonstrators beaten. CIA and FBI and NSA spying on the public. Big Brother is here.

Not all freedoms are gone......yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 09:40 PM

Gee, Stringsinger, that sounds just like 1968. Really!

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 12:44 AM

It may have been my comment that Ebbie was referring to when she started this thread, and several of you have already pointed out the very things I meant!

For anyone who wishes to review the first to amendments to the Constitution, they are here. http://members.tripod.com/us_constitution/bor.htm

My concern is mostly with Numbers 1, 4, and 8.

Just a little Rhode Island history (By now some of you may know that's my home state.) Rhode Island was the last of the 13 original colonies to join the United States. It was only when the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution that we joined. As a result, maybe I'm hypersensitive about these things! Let me assure you, not all Rhode Islanders share this trait!

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: kendall
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:47 AM

The word "Privacy" does not appear in the constitution. To think that the 9th amendment guarantees that right is a stretch.What other rights can we claim under that ambiguous amendment?

You have the right to color tv
You have the right to piss and moan...
You have the right to marry your dog...

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:04 PM

None of the 3 above, Kendall. And no more of a stretch than the 2nd Amendment "guarantees" the "right" of any nutcase who comes along to own & use an assault rifle.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 01:32 PM

Ebbie, I think the people who are saying that are expressing their hatred and bigotry over President Obama for the most part they expressed no problem with more stringent and secretive policies under Bush.

As per the changes in the gun policies

No one who is not a gun vendor or criminal thinks that convicted criminals should have a loop hole where they can buy from private citizens and gun vendors at gun shows, others just hate the closing of that loophole because President Obama, the commie-muslo-fascist democratically elected dictator is for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM

What, Jack? " . . . I think the people who are saying that are expressing their hatred and bigotry over President Obama for the most part they expressed no problem with more stringent and secretive policies under Bush."

I have trouble with anyone who tries to limit the freedom of people in the US. And I had a lot of problems with Bush, which is one reason I voted for Obama--and I never voted for either of the Bushes.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:11 PM

So you are the person who said this? "rights and freedoms being taken away". ChanteyLass?

If so exactly which rights and freedoms?

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:40 AM

Ebbie, it's a fair question. One right is that when corporations became people they began to own the media dispensing misinformation to the public and suppressing
credible news reporting. The right to know has been suppressed.

The right to fair employment is another.

The right to public assembly for grievances is another. Crack downs on dissent
are unconstitutional and paid for by corporate entities.

The invasion of dissenters by government agencies abridging their citizen rights
is another.

Fraud in the real estate, banking and insurance industry and the ability of citizens
to fight back is limited, an important legal right now eroded.

These are some.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 12:12 PM

So the answer according to stringsinger is that nothing a sane person would call a right or a fredom is gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Rights and Freedoms - Gone?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:19 AM

A "right" is a claim to a certain line of behavior
which the courts will enforce.

If the courts won't enforce your claimed "right",
you don't have the right.

I may assert that I have the right to XYZ on the
grounds of "natural law" or "religious law" or
even of formal legislation, but if the courts don't
agree with me and enforce what I want, I don't have
the right I'm claiming. All I have is my empty claim.

Dave Oesterreich