|
04 Jan 07 - 07:59 PM (#1926872) Subject: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Amos HE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: 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. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:06 PM (#1926876) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: catspaw49 So Amos......Like, uh.........You thinking of getting up a militia or what? Spaw |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM (#1926880) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Peace Read it and weep. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:43 PM (#1926902) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Amos Spaw: Bush has just declared himself empowered to open the US mail of any citizen if he deems it appropriate to do so. See the Bush Administration thread of this date. A |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:46 PM (#1926905) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Bobert The Bill of Rights, whilst soundin' all good and user friendly, have been interprested and reinterprted into a state of meaninglessness... Yeah, anything can be justified... Takin' innocent people and locking them up forever without charges is okay... Confiscatin' assests of people chareged with certain crimes is okay... Kids foing to school with weapons so powerfull that these weapons would scare the heck out of the Founding Fathers is okay... Yeah, the Bill of Rights were the Founding Fathers attemmpt to keep future egenartions from running amuck but... ... we have run amuck inspite of their attempts... Our government no longer looks like anything that the Founding Fathers would approve of... Tom Jefferson was all for an informed electorate but we have people who think that Walmart is one of the 3 branches of government and worse yet, thse people are allowed to vote??? Had the Founding Fathers forseen the situation that we find ourselves in they most certainly would have had an 11 Amendment to go with the Bill of Rights that would have required that folks who vote aren't friggin morons who don't know jack about jack... Yeah, that was the one they left out and in doing so they left the first 10 subject to being seriously messed up... Bobert |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:48 PM (#1926906) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Peace "House Democrats have an ambitious agenda for the next few weeks. They have pledged to pass bills to raise the minimum wage, expand the opportunity for federally funded stem cell research, make Medicare prescription drugs cheaper, reduce the cost of student loans, implement anti-terror measures and reduce tax breaks enjoyed by the oil industry -- all before Bush goes to the Capitol on Jan. 23 for his State of the Union address." I will believe it when I see it. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM (#1926912) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST,knotgrain The mostly masterful writing of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights fell short, it seems to me, in Amendment II. Strongly-opinioned debates have gone on for decades as to what the amendment denotes and implies, and as to its application for contemporary situations having to do with keeping and bearing arms. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:14 PM (#1926928) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST 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. The second amendment isn't vague at all. The people are the militia. 230+ years of court rulings have upheld this, too. Don't let anyone say the issue of gun ownership is weak or dubious. It is crystal clear in the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court has already ruled on all things constitutional. "A law repugnant to the constitution is void." Marbury vs Madison, 1803. The same decision also ruled that court decisions repugnant to the constitution are void. So the PATRIOT Act and anything else that infringes on your constitutional rights...those things are void. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM (#1926952) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: kendall Where is this well regulated militia? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM (#1926968) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Peace I believe it's all over the place. The C-in-C is George W Bush. Scary thought, no? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:49 PM (#1926990) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Rapparee Well, no. The Militia is not a federal thing, but a state or even local thing. Historically it consisted of all free white male citizens between 18 and 65 (59 in some places) who were capable of bearing arms. The Militia elected its officers and NCOs -- one Abraham Lincoln served two consequitive terms in the Illinois Militia on active duty: during the first he was a lieutenant, duly elected by his company, and during the second he was a private. Members of the Militia may or may not have had to provide their own arms and equipment. Again, it depended upon the State or locality. Specific lists of equipment WERE provided, but which firelock you carried or what knife you had could be irrelevant -- that you HAD the necessary equipment WAS relevant. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM (#1927030) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk Such a militia as is alluded to in the US Constitution was a totally normal thing in the 1770's in a society which was living on the edge of the frontier, where every family and community was under risk of being attacked by an Indian tribe that was upset about whites muscling in on and robbing their ancestral lands. That was the reality of the day, and it went on for some time afterward. The necessity for guns was universal at that time under those frontier circumstances, and pretty well everyone had them and was used to using them for both hunting and self-defence. That's why it is set up that way in the Constitution. The situation now is totally different. The frontier has vanished. we have a highly technological, crowded, stressed-out, largely urban society of people who are not familiar with responsible handling of guns and who have no practical reason whatsoever to be using a gun as a way of acquiring food and protecting themselves in case of an Indian attack out of the forest! ;-) So the Constitution as it exists has become archaic in regards to that section. Nevertheless, it remains law in the USA, and that law is no doubt quite annoying to people in power now who would prefer not to have a public that can shoot back at the authorities if they see a pressing reason to. ;-) Accordingly, I think you will see them gradually pass more and more restrictive laws which are unconstitutional, and they will bank on the fact that most people don't really know the Constitution very well, and wouldn't know what to do about it anyway. There will be noises made in the courts. There will be isolated violent incidents here and there which will reinforce the restrictive measures, and the process will go on inexorably, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the violent use of firearms will continue to be a hugely popular theme in movies and videogames! Ironical? Very. The USA is becoming a schizophrenic society in this respect. You can watch people get blown away, and that's cool. You can blow away thousands of people on your computer screen, and that's cool. Just don't make the mistake of getting lost in the fantasy and doing it for real...or the guys in the black suits will put an end to your imitative behaviour for good. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:32 AM (#1927153) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST "The situation now is totally different. The frontier has vanished. we have a highly technological, crowded, stressed-out, largely urban society of people who are not familiar with responsible handling of guns and who have no practical reason whatsoever to be using a gun as a way of acquiring food and protecting themselves in case of an Indian attack out of the forest! ;-) So the Constitution as it exists has become archaic in regards to that section. Nevertheless, it remains law in the USA, and that law is no doubt quite annoying to people in power now who would prefer not to have a public that can shoot back at the authorities if they see a pressing reason to. ;-)" It seems to me that the same arguement could be made about the other anmendments: Freedom of religion as regards to fundamentalists, freedom to assemble of whatever side ( conservative/liberal) extremists that one objects to, etc. If times having changed make the RIGHT invalid, than which ones can be still in effect? "Nevertheless, it remains law in the USA, and that law is no doubt quite annoying to people in power " |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:18 AM (#1927204) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: McGrath of Harlow A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state Well, most free states seem to get by without having one. That would seem to imply that the meaning of this clause has to be recognised as conditional - ie "In circumstances where a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So if circumstances are not such as to require such a militia - what could be called normal circumstances - this would no longer apply. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:11 AM (#1927282) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Rapparee McGrath, the National Guard is the direct descendant of the State Militia. It actually has a dual mission, first to support State missions (such as riot control [when asked for] or flood relief); its secondary mission is to act with the the Regular Army during time of war. The current administration, much to the disgust and dismay of Guardsman, seems to think that the Guard only has the second mission. A year or so ago the Governor of Montana asked for the various activated units of the Montana Guard be returned to State Control because of the fire season was expected to be very bad -- naturally, he was ignored. More -- some States have backup formations for the Guard. For example, both Indiana and Ohio both have unpaid volunteer units which meet and drill which would step into the Guard's State role if the Guard were activated. Yes, these units would be armed (they are usually made up of veterans). No, I don't know if any of them have been called up because of the Iraq unpleasantness. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:19 AM (#1927292) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: beardedbruce the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. the right of the people to keep and bear arms The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 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. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:51 PM (#1927685) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: McGrath of Harlow By "most free states" I was meaning what might otherwise be termed "most free nations". Which I would rather suspect is the meaning intended in that Constitutional Amendment. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:06 PM (#1927755) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Greg B >Nevertheless, it remains law in the USA, and that law is no doubt quite >annoying to people in power now who would prefer not to have a public >that can shoot back at the authorities if they see a pressing reason >to. ;-) As the guys in Waco how well that works out Nobody seems to be able to convince the authorities that they need a state-of-the-art tank for deer hunting. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:50 PM (#1927785) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Bill D The 2nd amendment has NEVER been "crystal clear". "Militia" in one place and "the people" in another IS an ambiguity. Further: even if it was thought clear in 1780, it is NOT now, with modern arms and the state of the world being what it is. The wording needs to be clarified, but obviously, those who WANT to "keep & bear arms" personally, beyond membership in an organized, legal militia, would not want clarification, as they would fear official limitation, so they state that it is clear, and that their rights are absolute. With guns & munitions technology way beyond what was available in 1780, and no 'frontier' to advance, the right of an individual to own and/or use almost any firearms has become a liabilty, rather than an aid to safety. It is too bad that reasonable & responsible gun owners must suffer because of the stupidity and criminality that abounds....but that is how it is. It is also too bad that they aren't willing to submit to careful limitation of the number, types and condition of weapons they can own...we 'might' be able to compromise. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM (#1927788) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Cluin Right, McGrath. You Brits are just biding your time, waiting for the liberal disarming of the militia. Then you can attack and take back the colonies. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:39 PM (#1927816) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST,knotgrain In view of all the differences of opinion there are concerning the meaning of Amendemt II, imagine all the controversy that would be spawned by any effort to constitutionally amend it. I fear that we're stuck with it as written, along with oft-misunderstood court decisions. I find cause for concern in the articulation of some, usually members of the federal administration or their legal advocates, that there is no "right to privacy" because the term per se does not occur in the Constitution. Isn't the strong implication of privacy, as in Amendment IV, sufficient? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 01:53 PM (#1928422) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: McGrath of Harlow The point is, whatever that bit "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to mean, the evident truth is that, as a general statement about free states, it is just not true. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM (#1928879) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: michaelr 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. These (in bold) are the catchphrases that will be used to circumvent the letter of the law as the founders wrote it. We will see considerable liberties taken by the authorities, and we'll see their spokesheads redefine the meaning of unreasonable and probable. Sure the US Constitution is archaic, and , in some ways, of little use in dealing with circumstances 230 years later. But any attempt to modernize it would be fraught with danger, special interests being what they are these days. I cannot imagine a committee that could pull it off in a way that would benefit THE PEOPLE. Cheers, Michael |
|
07 Jan 07 - 08:39 AM (#1929056) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk They can't take back "the colonies", Cluin, because the colonies have supplanted them AS the new British Empire, reincarnated in Washington D.C. The shift began as early as 1898, but it became totally obvious by the end of WWII. The new version of the British Empire does not have official colonies, like in the old days, because that, like official slavery, is no longer deemed appropriate or acceptable. It still has real colonies, though, lots of them, and they're all over the place. They are controlled by the flow of goods, media, and money and the threat (or the actual use) of military intervention against anyone who does not cooperate with that flow of goods, media, and money. They are places like: most of Latin America, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of Oceania, much of the Middle East, parts of the former Soviet Union, parts of Africa, various parts of Eastern Europe and Eurasia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc......wherever there is something the Empire values. The sun never sets on the new Anglo-American Empire. The power once vested in London simply moved across the ocean to America. London still plays a part, of course...a secondary role. And all of our collective history is written and re-written to reinforce the notion that everything really valuable and lasting has issued from the Anglo civilization to those "less fortunate"...trickling down to a greatful world which is only too happy to be ruled by Anglo guns, media, and money. ;-) |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:00 AM (#1929068) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk By the way, Michael, you are quite correct in what you say. Words like "unreasonable" can always be conveniently used to re-interpret a document like the Constitution in any manner that an oppressive government might desire. What they find "unreasonable" is a strictly subjective thing, after all, and any good lawyer knows that! Same goes for "probable cause". All it takes to effectively subvert a document such as the Constitution is a government that has the will to subvert it. The present USA government definitely has the will to do so, and is doing so. Another example: "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." Well, hey, that's no problem at all! The government simply has to pass a new LAW! (Like the Patriot Act. Call it the Freedom and Security Act.) Gotcha! The soldier can now be quartered in your house, in time of peace, without your consent...and he's doing it exactly in a manner prescribed by the new law that your government just passed. Child's play. It just takes the will to do it, that's all. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:03 AM (#1929070) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk "grateful" world, I meant... |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:13 AM (#1929073) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: freda underhill President Bush's new law gives him the authority to read anyone's letters without a warrant. If you're upset about the law, you can let Bush know by writing to your sister. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:27 AM (#1929077) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk Is that right, Freda? Well, I hope Mr Bush doesn't start reading all the threads here that have proliferated around the various issues raised by Shambles and responded to by his numerous opponents. If he did, it could drive him to total madness, in which case he might push the red button and we would all have a thoroughly bad day... And I don't even HAVE a sister to write to about it! |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:44 AM (#1929089) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: freda underhill Well LH, if Dubya's given permission for a company owned by the government of Dubai to run six U.S. ports, including the Port of New York, maybe he'll give permission for Shambles to run Mudcat. Then we can all send Shambles messages about how unhappy we are with the way he's doing it. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:44 AM (#1929090) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: freda underhill :-) |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:46 AM (#1929133) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk What a great idea! |
|
07 Jan 07 - 12:58 PM (#1929283) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Cluin LH, look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. Or did you just pretend to suppose I was being serious in order to indulge your penchant for didactics. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM (#1929721) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Mrrzy Americans tend to take the 2nd amendment as meaning they can have all the guns they want; I wish they would remember the well-regulated militia part. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM (#1929727) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk No, Cluin, I did not think you were serious! ;-) I was just elaborating on the theme, that's all...as you say, "in order to indulge my penchant for didactics". America's economic and cultural colonialism around the world is a subject that interests me, and you gave me an excuse to talk about it. Mrrzy - Yeah, that's true. Several thousand paranoid guys in some community who are all busy "looking out for number one" and not giving a damn about their neighbours do not make what I call a well-regulated militia... ;-) |
|
07 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM (#1929733) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: McGrath of Harlow It'd an odd amendment really - aside from the fact that the first part is, to say the least, very much open to question, there's no explicit link between it and the end part. Logically it could just as easily have read: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be regulated as appropriate in order to achieve this end. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 08:16 PM (#1929757) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk In the society of the time most men carried guns openly and without restriction, primarily for hunting, secondarily for personal protection. In any time of sudden emergency, such as an Indian raid or some other form of war breaking out, it was expected that one could immediately mobilize almost the entire male population as a well-armed militia for community defence. That was simply taken for granted on the American frontier. That was reality back then. And THAT is why that amendment was put in the Constitution and why it was worded the way it was. To pretend that nothing has changed in the last 230 years is just asinine. We do not have a society now that even resembles the situation that prompted those men to write that amendment as they did. People now are just using the 2nd amendment to push whatever special interest suits them. That is opportunism on their part, not loyalty to constitutional ideals. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:15 PM (#1929845) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST A constitutional convention. Worst idea ever. If one is ever called, it's a certainty the U.S. govt will carry our another 9/11. And a new and improved constitution will be all printed up and ready to go. It will turn our "rights" into "privileges." As far as the rights mentioned in the constitution, they are inalienable. The govt uses lots of tricks to get you to sign away your rights, but even YOU don't have the authority to sign them away. They are inalienable. So don't let anyone tell you that you've signed away a right. And now comes the biggest threat ever to the constitution. For the past 8 years the Democrats have introduced "hate crime legislation" in congress, but the Republican majority always shot it down. But now the Dems are in control, and they'll certainly try again. Probably this week. Canada and Europe already have these insane laws, but this is America with a Bill of Rights, the first of which is freedom of expression. http://www.rense.com/general74/fedlaw.htm Have your written to your representative lately? If not, write about this. When this abomination is assigned a bill #, everyone needs to speak against it. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:36 PM (#1929854) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk I agree that hate crime legislation is extremely anti-democratic and Orwellian. However, isn't it really ironical that B'nai B'rith would be lobbying for something that can lead to people being called criminals for criticizing Islam! LOL! The height of irony. You say that we already have such laws in Canada and in Europe. True. Yet, oddly enough, it appears to me that Canada and much of Europe, in spite of those laws, are in practice considerably less Orwellian than the USA is right now without those laws. Perhaps it is less a matter of law than of the hidden intent behind that law on the part of those enacting it. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:07 PM (#1929869) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST Yes, very ironic, Little Hawk. This is one of the most twisted laws ever foisted on America. From what I've read, you can't sell Nazi memorabilia in Europe now, and Brigette Bardot has been convicted 3X for saying it's a shame no one goes to the beautiful old Christian churches in France anymore. (Can't hurt the Jews' feelings, can't offend the Muslims). That kind of legal abuse may be fine in other countries that never had a Bill of Rights like the one in the U.S., but this is America dammit. And Amendment # 1 is the cornerstone of American freedom...the right to keep govt honest through criticism. And this crap the Democrats are going to present is absolutely anti-American. Anti- Bill of Rights. In fact, the legislation itself is hate speech. It hates the First Amendment so much it proposes to muzzle it. In the next couple of weeks America will probably be treated to sob stories about how badly so and so's feelings were hurt because of "hate crimes," so we need a new law to make everyone get along better. But it's all BS, people. They're trying to criminalize thought. Don't fall for it. ALL of our feelings are CONSTANTLY being hurt one way or another...legislation won't make that go away. In fact, it'll only make it worse if some turd has the power to selectively charge you with thought crimes. Yeah, Little Hawk, I thought that was amusingly ironic. What a world. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 12:05 AM (#1929896) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: dianavan Interesting indeed! Your freedom ends where my freedom begins. If you incite hatred against me because I am old, white and female (and I can proove it) you can be made to stop. If you burn a cross on my neighbors lawn - thats a hate crime. If you and a friend decide to go bash a few Gays after the bar closes, thats a hate crime. There's a difference between speaking your mind and inciting others to violence. I'm not sure how your new law will read but it hasn't seemed to cramp my style up here in Canada. It does, however, serve to protect innocent people from the actions of a group intent on making my life miserable. Thats it. Convict George Bush of hate crimes! |
|
08 Jan 07 - 01:16 PM (#1930379) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST Canadians just don't seem to understand the concept of 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. Congress shall make NO LAW against those things. Pretty straightforward. I think the problem with the Canadian inability to understand the problem has something to do with their being a Dominion. They never broke free of England. They never fought a war to throw off the lunatic royal family, and as a result they are still (today) the property of Queen Elizabeth. They are a dominion of the "British Empire." They are the slaves of the royal family, and they live at the pleasure of those perverts. Canadians have never had any real rights. What they think of as their rights are really just privileges granted to them by their monarch. What a crappy way to live. At the sufferance of those pervs. Whereas in America, a war was fought, the Brits and their Hessian hirelings were booted out, and a new constitution was drawn up. But politicians are always tinkering and trying to grab more power, so the founding fathers in America put the most lasting stamp of protection they could on the new constitution. They added a Bill of Rights. It doesn't "grant" rights, it just enumerates them and says government can't violate them. They even added the double-seal of calling them inalienable and God-given. They figured only a lunatic would defy God. And "inalienable" means, well just that. But now, with the parasitic federal govt owning the television and radio media, left-leaning and right-leaning people are all being bombarded with the same message, that rights are malleable, flexible. They're not. A right is a right. You either have it or you don't. If it is adulterated, it becomes a privilege. Hate-speech laws are unconstitutional. They may be acceptable in police states like Canada, but they have no place in America. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 01:51 PM (#1930424) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Amos I beg to differ with you, LH. The Second Amendment has deeper reasoning behind it than Indian raids or the occasional rabid painter. I don't have the references to hand but there were some very telling remarks made by Adams at the time this was being hammered out. They could not have predicted the huge imbalance caused by today's military budget. In the day, an Army was a bunch of men with guns, some cannon and some drill. The same kind or order of armament any band of citizens could get. This is no longer true. But the Amendment was certainly written against that background, and with the idea in mind to provide some ultimate recourse against despotism, in the event all the other safeguards failed. A |
|
08 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM (#1930448) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk "the occasional rabid painter"??? Please explain. Other than that, Amos, I agree with what you said, and I think it supports my point admirably. We both agree that today's society is radically different than the society of 1776...and that the words in the 2nd Amendment arose in a different context than what we have now. Despotism nowadays is accomplished through high technology communications media conglomerates and high tech military weapons that ordinary people have no effective access to. That's the difference. GUEST - But I truly get the impression on a day to day basis that Canada IS a freer and more reasonable society than the USA. And safer and less violent. How do we explain that? I think the British tradition that was passed on in Canada without a violent revolution is in fact a superior (much more peaceable) tradition socially to what happened in the USA in a number of respects. We do have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'll see if I can look it up and find out how it compares to your Bill of Rights. I don't in the least mind that Canada remained a Dominion of the British crown. So what? So did India. Is India a slave of England now? I don't think so. Neither is Canada. I don't give diddly-squat about Canada's historical ties to England being any kind of threat to freedom here. The Queen has considerably less power here than ABC, NBC, and CBS, I assure you. It is the USA that controls Canada nowadays, not England, and it is done by corporate mass media and by corporate funding. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM (#1930459) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Amos "Painter" is colloquial jargon for the indigenous wild panther of North America. A |
|
08 Jan 07 - 02:19 PM (#1930466) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk Okay, Guest, here is a summary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Bill of Rights): Under the Charter, persons physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person, including a corporation,[2] but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons or to citizens of Canada. The rights are enforceable by the courts through section 24 of the Charter, which allows courts discretion to award remedies to those whose rights have been denied. This section also allows courts to exclude evidence in trials if the evidence was acquired in a way that conflicts with the Charter and might damage the reputation of the justice system. Section 32 confirms that the Charter is binding on the federal government, the territories under its authority, and the provincial governments. The rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter include: fundamental freedoms (section 2), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought,freedom of belief, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. democratic rights: generally, the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic form of government: Section 3: the right to vote and to be eligible to serve as member of a legislature. Section 4: a maximum duration of legislatures is set at five years. Section 5: an annual sitting of legislatures is required as a minimum. mobility rights: (section 6): the right to enter and leave Canada, and to move to and take up residence in any province, or to reside outside Canada. legal rights: rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement, namely: Section 7: life, liberty, and security of the person. Section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention. Section 10: rights on arrest or detention, including the right to retain a lawyer and to be informed of that right. Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Section 12: freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Section 13: rights not to incriminate oneself. Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding. equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. language rights: generally, the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada's federal government and certain provincial governments. Specifically, the language laws enshrined in the Charter include: Section 16: English and French are the official languages of Canada and New Brunswick. Section 16.1: the English and French-speaking communities of New Brunswick have equal rights to educational and cultural institutions. Section 17: the right to use either official language in Parliament or the New Brunswick legislature. Section 18: the statutes and proceedings of Parliament and the New Brunswick legislature are to be printed in both official languages. Section 19: both official languages may be used in federal and New Brunswick courts. Section 20: the right to communicate with and be served by the federal and New Brunswick governments in either official language. Section 21: other constitutional language rights outside the Charter regarding English and French are sustained. Section 22: existing rights to use languages besides English and French are not affected by the fact that only English and French have language rights in the Charter. (Hence, if there are any rights to use Aboriginal languages anywhere they would continue to exist, though they would have no direct protection under the Charter.) minority language education rights: (Section 23): rights for certain citizens belonging to French or English-speaking minority communities to be educated in their own language. These rights are generally subject to the limitations clause (section 1) and the notwithstanding clause (section 33). The limitations clause in section 1 allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights. Every case in which a court discovers a violation of the Charter would therefore require a section 1 analysis to determine if the law can still be upheld. Infringements are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified." Section 1 has thus been used to uphold laws against objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R. v. Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R. v. Butler). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, and some have speculated that its use would be politically costly. In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec (which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless). The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage[3], respectively. (Note that Alberta's use of the notwithstanding clause was deemed of no force or effect, since the definition of marriage is federal not provincial jurisdiction.) The territory of Yukon also passed legislation once that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.[4] Other sections help clarify how the Charter works in practice. These include, Section 25, which states that the Charter does not derogate existing Aboriginal rights and freedoms. Aboriginal rights, including treaty rights, receive more direct constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 26, which clarifies that other rights and freedoms in Canada are not invalidated by the Charter. Section 27, which requires the Charter to be interpreted in a multicultural context. Section 28, which states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women. Section 29, which confirms the rights of religious schools are preserved. Section 30, which clarifies the applicability of the Charter in the territories. Section 31, which confirms that the Charter does not extend the rights of legislatures. Finally, section 34 states that the first 34 sections of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be collectively referred to as the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". |
|
08 Jan 07 - 02:32 PM (#1930478) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk Thanks, Amos. ;-) You did have me right puzzled! The thought of some rabid Pablo Picasso type gent suddenly bursting in and attacking me had been causing me a great deal of stress. Guest - Note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants every fundamental right that your American Bill of Rights does, including freedom of thought and freedom of expression(meaning: freedom of speech). Tell me we don't have a bill of rights in Canada. ;-) The problem with Americans is this: they grow up in a society where they are told, from Grade 1 on, that only THEY have things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and only they have FREEDOM. Well, that just isn't true. It's your popular mythology. The rest of the developed world (the democracies) is not as underprivileged and lacking in basic freedoms as you seem to imagine. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM (#1930918) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST Maybe you're right, Little Hawk. I haven't studied the Canadian Charter as much as I have the Bill of Rights, but our 4th Amendmentment specifies what is required for a search of personal property (see first posting), while your Section 8 says, "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure." Is "unreasonable" defined anywhere in the Charter? If not, then the right against searches doesn't exist. Any cop can kick in any door and then tell a judge later that it was reasonable. Not so in the U.S. Cops need signed warrants with specifics on them (I mean in legal searches, not in the criminal 'terrorist' searches they've made up lately). Maybe the specifics for searches are contained in your Charter and I just didn't see them. I also didn't see any mention of the right to own the weapons of defense. Firearms. Without the right to own firearms you are at the total mercy of those that DO own them. But then all this talk about 'freedoms' is becoming academic. Corporate gangsters are destroying nations everywhere as fast as they can. A time will come for America to reaffirm the Bill of Rights, I hope, and then maybe the rest of the world will be reminded how much is at stake. I'll study the Canadian charter stuff you've posted. Seems a bit contradictory, talking about freedom of expression and then listing official languages...lol...but then I need a chuckle from time to time. Thanks. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 10:14 PM (#1930984) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk Yeah, I believe cops here are required to have a search warrant to search your premises, much like in the USA. I know a retired RCMP officer (Royal Canadidan Mounted Police), and his eternal complaint has always been that there are so many laws and regulations in place to protect the public from the police force that the police are very hard put to do their job of protecting the public from each other properly. I don't know if that's true or not. All I can say is, he's a nice guy, and I would not be a bit worried if all cops in this country had his good character. I agree with you that corporate gangsters are destroying nations nowadays. No doubt about it. I also agree that a corrup government can interpret "unreasonable" to mean anything they want it to. Like I said before, the crucial thing about a government is what are its intentions? Because a good law can always be circumvented by a bad intention on the part of those in charge. The reason for the 2 official languages is specific to our cultural heritage...which was a combining of two distinct European Emigre communities: the colonial French, and the colonial British. This resulted in a large province, Quebec, where the majority spoke French and still do, while the majority elsewhere spoke English. That resulted in 2 official languages for the country instead of one. A comparable, but more complex situation exists in Switzerland where there are 4 official languages! It makes for more complicated street signs and documentation. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression, one way or another. You are totally free to speak any darned language you want to in this country, and your right to do so is guaranteed, but only 2 languages are official, meaning those 2 languages must both be used on government documents, instruction sheets that come with things you buy, packaging, money, etc... Your freedom of expression here is your own business. You are not required to speak in either French or English. No, I don't think there's any law specifying the right to own weapons, and there is a gun registry in the country...has been for a few years now. Back in the 1700's and 1800's the situation was much like that in the USA during that same period: Gun ownership was very common, specially among rural folks, and a militia could quickly be raised in time of emergency from the general population...just as in the USA. Such militias were raised, for example, to resist American military forces during the War of 1812. The differences between Canada and the USA are subtle, but significant. It's a different psychology. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 10:38 PM (#1931007) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST So does the Canadian Charter mention God or the Creator? The U.S. Constitution says the rights flow from God. And as God-given rights, they cannot be infringed by govt. If the Canadian Charter doesn't state that sentiment, then the rights mentioned are being GIVEN by the GOVERNMENT. That's where the U.S. Constitution differs from other govening documents, I believe. It does not GRANT rights. It states they are your birthright. A gift from God, to do with as you will. And at some point the Golden Rule comes into play...if you infringe on someone else's rights while practicing your own, then the situation must be dealt with artificially (human law). Now you've made me curious whether the Canadian Charter mentions rights coming from God or a Creator. Does it? |
|
08 Jan 07 - 10:40 PM (#1931011) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Cluin No. From the Queen. Who is less forgiving. |
|
08 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM (#1931038) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk No, the modern British tradition would, I think, regard it as inappropriate to bring declarations about God into such a document. That's another one of the subtle differences between Canada and the USA. In the USA politicians go on and on about God in order to impress people with how pious they are and get a few more votes...and they try very hard to make it look like their opponents are less godly than they are. In Canada most people would be downright embarrassed by such tactics on the part of a politician and it would lose him a lot of votes. There is one party that does go on and on about God...they are the Christian Heritage Party. They normally get less than 1/2 of a percent of the vote in any riding where they run, and are considered to be a bit crazy by most people. British government is based more on rationality than it is on blatant appeals to emotion. Still, I agree with you that the American concept of inalienable rights stemming directly from God is an excellent one, was very inspired and revolutionary in nature at the time, puts moral authority where it really belongs, and I essentially agree with it, but if I was in politics in Canada it is not an approach I would use much to win an election, God knows! ;-) It has been viewed for a long time in the British tradition as the normal moral responsibility of a government to treat the public decently and justly simply because that is the right thing to do...and that's how Canadian politicians tend to approach the matter. Unfortunately at the end of the day one thing really calls the shots on every vital decision, and that one thing is $$$ MONEY $$$. Such is also true in the USA and everywhere else, regardless of what people say they believe about God. Of course, money IS God in our present society, so there you are! ;-) Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter, but religion in itself is considered to be a personal and private matter, not a government matter, and the government does not see itself as a representative of God, but of the people. (the real truth is, though, that it is a representative of big business and the banking system) Individual politicians vary greater in their idealism and their loyalties. Some certainly try harder than others to represent the people who elected them. Some are just there to serve their corporate funders and collect their payroll and some are there for the glory. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 12:15 AM (#1931062) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST Well then, if the Canadian Charter doesn't mention the rights of the citizens as coming from God or a Creator, then Canadian rights are something of human creation. And if they are a human creation, then they can be given or witheld by those "in charge". Sorry, Little Hawk, but you have privileges, not rights. And THAT'S why Americans get so touchy on the subject of the Bill of Rights. No U.S. govt and no U.N. govt has any say whatsoever in whether I choose to speak freely or own a gun. And people in other countries, who weren't brought up swearing allegiance to the same principles of freedom described in our constitution, just don't seem to understand. The rights in the U.S. constitution are sacrosanct. They've been imbued with a power beyond the ability of government to corrupt. The founding fathers said they're a gift from God. And whether you're religious or not, that's pretty serious. Makes even us heathens get religion when we think about someone monkeying with our rights. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 12:25 AM (#1931066) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk But I've always known that I had privileges, not rights. That's the way it is when you're dealing with other people. Even in a family. That's just reality. Other people are flawed and changeable. The thing is, God loves me (and loves everyone else), but God doesn't decide what gets done in human affairs here on Earth because we have free will! We decide what gets done. And I KNOW that other people will not necessarily respect my God-given "rights" under certain circumstances. Like I said, that's just reality. So, yeah, of course I've got privileges, not rights, and no USA Constitution will ever alter the fact that that's exactly the same spot you are in, my friend. You also have privileges, not rights. Your government can always find clever and ruthless ways to deviate around whatever it says in your Constitution anytime they decide to...because governments are not like God. They are not that dependable. They do not love everyone. Your government is entirely capable at any time of corrupting your Constitution, regardless of whether your rights come from God or not. I understand how you feel about it...but that feeling will not protect you if your government decides you are in its way for some reason. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 12:32 AM (#1931069) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk It has always been crystal clear to me that my civil rights in this society (and in any society) were something of human invention. They may have reflected a divine will to some extent, they may have consciously attempted to emulate it, they may have (as in the case of your Constitution) given some official recognition to it, but they are of human invention. God did not write down your Constitution on a piece of paper. A bunch of men did, and they chose to speak of God when they did so. Many other civil codes have been written in that spirit by men who chose to speak of God when they wrote them. Not all of them were codes I'd want to live under. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 12:50 AM (#1931084) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST The feelings of a hundred million gun owners on this topic are liable to make quite a bit of difference. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 12:55 AM (#1931085) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Cluin *click* "Yew jus' git yer fuckin' hands off'n thet thar Consteetooshun, boy!" |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:10 AM (#1931093) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST As a young Christian lawyer riding into Culpepper, Virginia in March of 1775, Patrick Henry had witnessed the brutal public flogging of a preacher. Tied to a whipping post in the middle of the town square, the preacher's back laid bloody and bare with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged mercilessly like Jesus, with a leather whip laced with metal. What heinous crime, what foul act had this man committed to deserve such barbarous torture? He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they refused to take a license from the Crown. Three days later, the martyred minister was again flogged -- this time, to death. This was the incident which sparked Patrick Henry to write the famous words which later ignited the Revolution: 'What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know no what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!' He later made this a part of his famous speech which he delivered at Saint John's Episcopal Church in Williamsburg, Virginia. http://www.rense.com/general26/codep.htm That story illustrates the difference between a right and a privilege. The preacher had the right to preach, but the Brits wanted him to pay for what they considered a privilege. "One of his most important contributions to the founding of our nation was his steadfast refusal to ratify the Constitution until it included our precious Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments clarify the rights - the inalienable rights - of every American citizen." http://www.thepatrickhenrycenter.com/ America may not have a long history, but we do have some historical principles to uphold. The matter of supporting my constution is beyond my control. I've sworn to uphold it, so that's that. I just hope more Americans start to realize what they're at risk of losing before it's too late. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:10 AM (#1931094) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: McGrath of Harlow It's possible to pick out some rights as universal human rights. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights But it seems to me Little Hawk is right about the somewhat dishonest way that constuitutiion writers can sometime sneak in other things that aren't anything like universal human rights. Stuff about guns and militias are an obvous example - and any declaration of human rights that was consistent with the existence of slavery has to be seen as a somewhat defective. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:13 AM (#1931099) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST lol. Damn right on the consteetushun. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:24 AM (#1931106) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST The second amendment supports the first. Without the second amendment, the first could not be guranteed. It's fine for politicians to sign a constitution promising the right of expression, but what's to keep that right from being taken away? The power of an armed citizenry. It's just common sense. Patrick Henry was a lawyer and he KNEW how unscrupulous lawyers and politicians were. Without the Bill of Rights, we'd have had an American monarchy within a generation. The right to bear arms wasn't inserted into the constitution by accident or connivance...it is integral to the whole. Buenas noches. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:19 PM (#1931545) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: GUEST "To pretend that nothing has changed in the last 230 years is just asinine. We do not have a society now that even resembles the situation that prompted those men to write that amendment as they did." All very true- the "press" used to be just on paper, and the idea that a news report ( or news of anything) could travel around the world in a few minutes was unthought of. At the time, the "freedom of speech" was insured, because the victim of false speech had a chance to make comment or deny it before the entire world had heard of it- Since this is now no longer the case, I am sure you will all agree that we can get rid of that primitive, un-needed "right" of freedom of speech and of the press. ( sarcastic comment to LH) |
|
09 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM (#1931635) Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States From: Little Hawk Good point. I agree with it. It's one of the many, many things that have changed since 1776. How are you going to get your hundred million gun owners to forget their innate selfishness, work together in a united fashion for the public good, and fight for human rights? It seems far more likely to me that a good 3/4 of them would rather go and shoot whoever the government tells them to, specially if the government pays them to do it. Historical precedent indicates that that is the case. They will be particularly willing to do it if the people they are shooting have dark skins, facial hair, and speak a foreign language. Nowadays you can give people freedom of speech, but still render them basically helpless by simply ensuring that not too many others get to hear what they say...because it doesn't get reported on NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN. Simple. That's the power of corporate money. They can come on the Internet like you and I do and talk all they want, but who will give them credence? Most people who are aware of what they say will ignore it or ridicule it, because most people believe whatever is the standard line that is pushed by the media mainstream, and the media mainstream is controlled by the corporate bosses who run the system...and their main concern is selling product and making more money. Your government is just as bad as the British were in 1776, in my opinion, but its tools of mind control are far more effective. |