PDA

View Full Version : What rights do you think you have, but really don't.


nicki
04-07-2009, 4:16 PM
Okay, here is a question for the board.

We hear all about freedoms we have in this country, freedom of the press, religion, speech etc. etc.

Right to trial by jury, right to see all evidence, right to a attorney.

Many of these rights are in fact smoke, they really don't exist.

So, what I want you guys to do is think about rights that most people think they have, but don't and see what we come up with.

This kind of thread would be eye opening, especially for visitors.
Gun rights are effected by the loss of other rights and vice versa.

Our constitutional RKBA is dependent on the survival of the rest of the constitution. Of course the rest of our rights depend on our guns to enforce them.

Nicki

Dark&Good
04-07-2009, 5:03 PM
I found out about these from an Aaron Russo documentary:

"President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people, without any checks and balances."

"Because of globalization the U.S. must accept other nations' laws. Under the CAFTA treaty the sale of vitamins and supplements will be illegal."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #10999 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11921 provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months."

"Senate Bill #1873 allows the government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will."

"The FDA says Americans do not have a right to know which foods are genetically modified."

"Congressman Sensenbrenner's bill (HR 1528) requires you to spy on your neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years."

"The government claims the power to seize all financial instruments: currency, gold, silver, and everything else if they deem an emergency exists. (Treasury Department Letter, August 12, 2005)"

"There are 190 countries in the world. America has bases in 130 of them."

Add the Patriot :rolleyes: Act, and the following statement:
"[The Constitution] is just a goddamn piece of paper." (George W. Bush, Nov. 2005) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

MikeinnLA
04-07-2009, 5:52 PM
I found out about these from an Aaron Russo documentary:

"President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people, without any checks and balances."

"Because of globalization the U.S. must accept other nations' laws. Under the CAFTA treaty the sale of vitamins and supplements will be illegal."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #10999 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11921 provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months."

"Senate Bill #1873 allows the government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will."

"The FDA says Americans do not have a right to know which foods are genetically modified."

"Congressman Sensenbrenner's bill (HR 1528) requires you to spy on your neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years."

"The government claims the power to seize all financial instruments: currency, gold, silver, and everything else if they deem an emergency exists. (Treasury Department Letter, August 12, 2005)"

"There are 190 countries in the world. America has bases in 130 of them."

Add the Patriot :rolleyes: Act, and the following statement:
"[The Constitution] is just a goddamn piece of paper." (George W. Bush, Nov. 2005) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

And to think people wonder why I have so many guns and so much ammo.:confused:

Mike

GenLee
04-07-2009, 5:56 PM
I found out about these from an Aaron Russo documentary:

"President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people, without any checks and balances."

"Because of globalization the U.S. must accept other nations' laws. Under the CAFTA treaty the sale of vitamins and supplements will be illegal."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #10999 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11921 provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months."

"Senate Bill #1873 allows the government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will."

"The FDA says Americans do not have a right to know which foods are genetically modified."

"Congressman Sensenbrenner's bill (HR 1528) requires you to spy on your neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years."

"The government claims the power to seize all financial instruments: currency, gold, silver, and everything else if they deem an emergency exists. (Treasury Department Letter, August 12, 2005)"

"There are 190 countries in the world. America has bases in 130 of them."

Add the Patriot :rolleyes: Act, and the following statement:
"[The Constitution] is just a goddamn piece of paper." (George W. Bush, Nov. 2005) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

Well this pretty much covers it. Next topic? :cool:

Peragro
04-07-2009, 6:46 PM
This thread has an interesting topic. I would respectfully request a lack of FUD in the responses, please see comments below.


I found out about these from an Aaron Russo documentary:

With respect, I don't know who Aaron Russo is but a cursory glance at the claims made below make me skeptical as to his veracity

"President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people, without any checks and balances."

Can you provide the Executive Order, please? Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War so there is precedence for this claim

"Because of globalization the U.S. must accept other nations' laws. Under the CAFTA treaty the sale of vitamins and supplements will be illegal."

Again, could you provide a valid source

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #10999 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation."
This is not Bush's EO, it it JFK's from 16 Feb 1962. It assigns Emergency Preparedness functions to the Sec. of Commerce hence it's title stating just that.

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision."
Again JFK in 1962, almost 50 years ago.

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11921 provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months."
This was signed by Gerald Ford in 1976. Nowhere in the document is the term "state of emergency"

"Senate Bill #1873 allows the government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will."
According to Thomas, this bill has seen no action since 2005. It should be noted that there is no shortage of inane Bills presented in the US Congress as well as State legislatures.

"The FDA says Americans do not have a right to know which foods are genetically modified."

"Congressman Sensenbrenner's bill (HR 1528) requires you to spy on your neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years."

I could find no HR sponsored by Rep. Sensenbrenner which has this designation on Thomas. HR 1528 is currently titled "the export freedom to Cuba act of 2009"

"The government claims the power to seize all financial instruments: currency, gold, silver, and everything else if they deem an emergency exists. (Treasury Department Letter, August 12, 2005)"

Roosevelt did something similar in the '30s when he was trying to control the price of gold

"There are 190 countries in the world. America has bases in 130 of them."

There are 194 countries in the world, roughly. The US has military bases in 24 of them. This includes the 120 man detachment in the Negav desert of Israel. The US has diplomatic Embassies in almost every country. Marines are assigned to these Embassies for security. The presence of Marines does not constitute a military base.

Add the Patriot :rolleyes: Act, and the following statement:
"[The Constitution] is just a goddamn piece of paper." (George W. Bush, Nov. 2005) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

This (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html)is evidently the result of a "journalist" who had 3 unnamed sources and has a reputation for being wrong.

SubstanceP
04-07-2009, 7:02 PM
Your entire post is :icon_bs:

I'm cleaning my "check and balance" right now. :thumbsup:

I found out about these from an Aaron Russo documentary:

"President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people, without any checks and balances."

"Because of globalization the U.S. must accept other nations' laws. Under the CAFTA treaty the sale of vitamins and supplements will be illegal."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #10999 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision."

"EXECUTIVE ORDER #11921 provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months."

"Senate Bill #1873 allows the government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will."

"The FDA says Americans do not have a right to know which foods are genetically modified."

"Congressman Sensenbrenner's bill (HR 1528) requires you to spy on your neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years."

"The government claims the power to seize all financial instruments: currency, gold, silver, and everything else if they deem an emergency exists. (Treasury Department Letter, August 12, 2005)"

"There are 190 countries in the world. America has bases in 130 of them."

Add the Patriot :rolleyes: Act, and the following statement:
"[The Constitution] is just a goddamn piece of paper." (George W. Bush, Nov. 2005) http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitution-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

bigtoe416
04-07-2009, 7:12 PM
- Right to travel
- Right to happiness
- Right to marriage
- Right to have kids
- Right to buy things
- Right to keep and bear arms without any infringements :rolleyes:

Peragro
04-07-2009, 7:16 PM
- Right to travel
- Right to happiness
- Right to marriage
- Right to have kids
- Right to buy things
- Right to keep and bear arms without any infringements :rolleyes:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Would assembly denote travel? I'd like to assemble in Hawaii.

Marriage, Kids, buy things - interesting. Esp. in light of various state props.

KylaGWolf
04-07-2009, 8:00 PM
Ok totally geeky of me but I have the right to love the person of my choosing, and to choose whom I call friend.

SimpleCountryActuary
04-07-2009, 8:20 PM
The right to a body bag.
The right to a coroner; if I cannot afford a coroner, one will be appointed for me.
The right to vote for whom I am told or be hit repeatedly with a baseball bat.
The right to have my wealth sucked away to be given to foreign bankers who invested in AIG.
The right to bow to Saudi princes.
The right to vote (before or after the bat) for buffoons who bow to Saudi princes.

Somehow I thought this running gag would get funnier if I typed faster. :confused:

Dark&Good
04-07-2009, 8:48 PM
Peragro,
According to your post, the items listed in my post above have been valid for an even LONGER time than I thought... even though some of them were never used yet.

kermit315
04-07-2009, 9:05 PM
so, you cite bills that have gone nowhere, claim Bush signed an EO regarding martial law, but provide no EO number, then imply he signed other EO's, that were at least 50 years prior to now.

so, you are shooting about 50% with your post, depending on interpretation.

ohsmily
04-07-2009, 9:15 PM
so, you cite bills that have gone nowhere, claim Bush signed an EO regarding martial law, but provide no EO number, then imply he signed other EO's, that were at least 50 years prior to now.

so, you are shooting about 50% with your post, depending on interpretation.

Maybe he will reconsider his reconsideration.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=170741

Peragro
04-07-2009, 9:19 PM
Peragro,
According to your post, the items listed in my post above are valid for an even LONGER time than I thought... even though some of them were never used yet.

I don't know as to the validity. Some of the items you posted were patently false and easily debunked with a tiny bit of research. This flavors the entirety of the post. I took your post (actually Russo's commentary to be precise)to be more contemporary, laying all of those points you (Mr/Mrs Russo opined) posted as occurring within the last 10 years. Most of them have been in place at least 50 years if not longer. The connotation is that these events have all been put in place within this century, they have not.

With regard to the more salient issues, e.g. habeus corpus, government control, etc... Lots of those things happened during the Civil War or WWII. We're not unique, as a country, in government assuming control of what we normally don't think government controls. This is why war is to be avoided unless the alternative is even worse. Reading through the executive orders you listed I didn't come away with the dire consequences you, or Mr/Mrs Russo alluded to. It seemed to me that they were merely a government laying out plans of what to do in the event of emergency. If the government does not make plans for emergency they are called lackadaisical and must be replaced, if they make plans then they are trying to do away with civil rights and must be replaced. In the absence of reason I see no way that a government can govern. Anarchy is the end result of that and it never lasts long. Usually the step after that is despotism or dictatorship or worse yet, some form of communist/socialism which is no different than fascism. The missing component of Mr/Mrs Russo's diatribe was reason. He/she gave that up for a witch hunt. Thus, I don't think it's very valid.

kermit315
04-07-2009, 9:19 PM
:rolleyes:

ohsmily
04-07-2009, 9:23 PM
I took your post (actually Russo's commentary to be precise)to be more contemporary, laying all of those points you (Mr/Mrs Russo opined) posted as occurring within the last 10 years.

Aaron Russo was a entertainer/filmmaker/political activist. He is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believed that "neocons" planned and engineered the 9/11 attacks. He died in 2007.

Peragro
04-07-2009, 9:29 PM
Aaron Russo was a entertainer/filmmaker/political activist. He is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believed that "neocons" planned and engineered the 9/11 attacks. He died in 2007.

Thanks, I didn't know who he was.

jumbopanda
04-07-2009, 9:34 PM
The right to not be brought up on false charges and forced to pay thousands of dollars to clear my name. :wacko:

Dark&Good
04-07-2009, 9:38 PM
There is a video somewhere on the page...
http://polidics.com/news/george-w-bush-the-constitution-is-just-a-goddamn-piece-of-paper.html

This is very educational, too:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/countdown-bush-removes-habeas-corpus-from-us-constitution/3054193386

anthonyca
04-07-2009, 9:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM

The right to carry cash and not be detained and have to explain why I have a couple good weeks of earnings in my possession.

Dark&Good
04-07-2009, 9:45 PM
so, you cite bills that have gone nowhere, claim Bush signed an EO regarding martial law, but provide no EO number, then imply he signed other EO's, that were at least 50 years prior to now.

so, you are shooting about 50% with your post, depending on interpretation.

85% of the items have "numbers"... but even if it's just 50%, isn't that too much? ;)

Texas Boy
04-07-2009, 9:47 PM
I'll give you one specific and back it up - innocent until proven guilty.

Back in the 80's when Regan declared the war on drugs, LE agencies gained the ability to seize drug assets and auction them to fund their operations. Problem was, the property (house, vehicle, etc) could be seized and sold even if the individual was never brought to trial. In fact, it was then the burden of the individual to prove they were innocent in order to regain the property (not the burden of the state to prove their guilt).

A personal example: My sister was in High School (mid 80's) and loaned her car to her scumbag boyfriend. Turns out he was a dope head and drove her car to sell dope to an undercover cop. The cops didn't bust him, but came the next day to my parents house and seized my sisters car. My sister was devastated, had never done anything wrong in her life, immature, etc, and decided this was the end of the world - so she tried to OD on Tylenol. Fortunately she failed. I was in college a few hundred miles away - which is a good thing else I might have taken care of this jerk myself.

After sis is recovers, dad tries to get the car back and is told he would have to go file a claim with the court and PROVE she new nothing of the boyfriends activities for her to get the car back. Of course you can't prove a negative - so the car was lost.

Result -my sister was "sentenced" to the forfeiture of her car without even a trial. This wasn't something new under Bush or Obama - this was in the 80's - and I'm sure you can find numerous examples of persons denied their property without due process over the last 20-30 years in the name of some political cause - drugs, terror, gun control....

bigtoe416
04-07-2009, 9:49 PM
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Would assembly denote travel? I'd like to assemble in Hawaii.

Marriage, Kids, buy things - interesting. Esp. in light of various state props.

The Declaration of Independence mentions happiness, the fourteenth amendment only mentions the right for the government to be unable to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

- The right to die
- The right to defend oneself
- The right to privacy (I'm not sure if the courts have touched on this, but given the whole PATRIOT act and FISA nonsense...I'm relatively certain we should have this right, but do not)

kermit315
04-07-2009, 9:57 PM
85% of the items have "numbers"... but even if it's just 50%, isn't that too much? ;)

If you want to make a point, make it. But at least use stuff that you can back up your claims with. Going about it shotgun style, then having each line debunked doesnt help the point that you are trying to make.

Peragro
04-07-2009, 10:00 PM
The Declaration of Independence mentions happiness, the fourteenth amendment only mentions the right for the government to be unable to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

- The right to die
- The right to defend oneself
- The right to privacy (I'm not sure if the courts have touched on this, but given the whole PATRIOT act and FISA nonsense...I'm relatively certain we should have this right, but do not)

I agree, the right to privacy has taken some substantial hits. Computer searches at the border for American Citizens is what comes immediately to mind.

I think the DOI is interesting in it's wording. Changing Locke's original "property" into "happiness". Moving from a defined item to something very subjective.

leitung
04-07-2009, 10:35 PM
Vaccinate against my will? I dare them to try that one..

7x57
04-07-2009, 10:41 PM
The right to ensure that my children are educated as I and no one else chooses, least of all the state.

I actually regard the right to control your child's upbringing as a right that was only left unprotected because nobody in the eighteenth century would have imagined the state-run machine we have now. They'd have likely forbidden the government to have opinions about education if they had.

7x57

JoeC
04-07-2009, 10:49 PM
Vaccinate against my will? I dare them to try that one..

I'd vaccinate them right back! But then I hear lead is toxic so ...

Dark&Good
04-07-2009, 11:04 PM
The right to ensure that my children are educated as I and no one else chooses, least of all the state.

I actually regard the right to control your child's upbringing as a right that was only left unprotected because nobody in the eighteenth century would have imagined the state-run machine we have now. They'd have likely forbidden the government to have opinions about education if they had.

7x57

+1 on this

Peragro
04-08-2009, 11:37 AM
The right to ensure that my children are educated as I and no one else chooses, least of all the state.

I actually regard the right to control your child's upbringing as a right that was only left unprotected because nobody in the eighteenth century would have imagined the state-run machine we have now. They'd have likely forbidden the government to have opinions about education if they had.

7x57

Yep, I agree with that.

Homeschooling is always an option at this point. Teachers Unions and Democratic politicians hate it and thus it has a stigma attached to it in media. But from my experience the home schooled kids I've met are usually much better educated than their public school peers and they have absolutely no social issues as the common FUD put out by the aforementioned groups would like folks to believe.

Peragro
04-08-2009, 11:41 AM
Vaccinate against my will? I dare them to try that one..

I'm wondering if the origination of this subject had to do with the anthrax vaccine given to military members. In a sense the military members could be ordered to take the vaccine (because you give up some civil rights when you enlist/commision into the military). Real world result was that several members refused to take the vaccine and as a result were discharged from the military - without having taken the vaccine.

nick
04-08-2009, 11:47 AM
The right to own property. Just how private this property is... well, it's open to a lot of interpretation. Eminent domain comes to mind, for one. it can be seized if at any point you couldn't pay your property tax, or for a host of other reasons. There're tons of restrictions on what you can and cannot do on it. In fact, in many places you have fewer rights to your property than you have to a rental.

The right to bring up your chidlren the way you see fit. There're tons of "child protection" services and agencies which are pretty much exempt from the law, any law (thank you, Supreme court!), which can take your kids away from you pretty much at their whim, with little to no burden of proof of any wrongdoing on your part. They can do it if they think you gve your kids too much religious indoctrination (and raising them in any religion qualifies). They can do it if they think you teach your kids violence (teaching them how to shoot qualifies). The list goes on and on.

The right to keep and bear arms. Even where it's allowed, it's just that - allowed, making it a privilege that can be revoked at any moment.

The right to free speech - hate speech laws, anyone?

The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure - see the part about private property. And who determines the "unreasonable" part? Right, the people doing the searches and seizures.


So, the situation with our rights these days comes straight out of the old Soviet joke my mother told me. A guy in the USSR consults his lawyer on some matter. "Do I have the right to do it?" "Yes, you do" "Can I do it then?" "No, you can't"

DDT
04-08-2009, 12:02 PM
I'm wondering if the origination of this subject had to do with the anthrax vaccine given to military members. In a sense the military members could be ordered to take the vaccine (because you give up some civil rights when you enlist/commision into the military). Real world result was that several members refused to take the vaccine and as a result were discharged from the military - without having taken the vaccine.

I am sure they are talking about forced vaccination of children to attend state run schools.

Peragro
04-08-2009, 12:13 PM
I am sure they are talking about forced vaccination of children to attend state run schools.

Perhaps. I know several folks here in town who have waivers for vaccinations based on religious or moral reasons. I've never had kids in public schools anywhere else than CA, but my assumption is that if CA allows exemptions then other states would as well.

GenLee
04-08-2009, 1:05 PM
"Do I have the right to do it?" "Yes, you do" "Can I do it then?" "No, you can't"

That quote right there is going in my sig line. :thumbsup:

Whiskey_Sauer
04-08-2009, 1:36 PM
I agree, the right to privacy has taken some substantial hits. Computer searches at the border for American Citizens is what comes immediately to mind.


There is no right to privacy. At least not in the U.S. Constitution. The "constitutional" right to privacy is, well, nothing but creative judicial thinking.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-08-2009, 1:37 PM
The right to free speech - hate speech laws, anyone?


What "hate speech" laws? I'd like to know.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-08-2009, 1:40 PM
The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure - see the part about private property. And who determines the "unreasonable" part? Right, the people doing the searches and seizures.


Um, the Fourth Amendment itself says "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-08-2009, 1:41 PM
The right to own property. Just how private this property is... well, it's open to a lot of interpretation. Eminent domain comes to mind, for one.

The Fifth Amendment provides for Eminent Domain.

GuyW
04-08-2009, 2:03 PM
The right to ensure that my children are educated as I and no one else chooses, least of all the state.

I actually regard the right to control your child's upbringing as a right that was only left unprotected because nobody in the eighteenth century would have imagined the state-run machine we have now. They'd have likely forbidden the government to have opinions about education if they had.

7x57

There are SC decision(s) that state that the parent has the right and sole authority to educate their child.

In order to assert it, however, a parent needs to get out of the government indoctrination system.

DDT
04-08-2009, 3:22 PM
There is no right to privacy. At least not in the U.S. Constitution. The "constitutional" right to privacy is, well, nothing but creative judicial thinking.

Can you spell penumbra? I knew you could......

NoNOS67
04-08-2009, 7:54 PM
I'd vaccinate them right back! But then I hear lead is toxic so ...

Hell yeah! Amen to that! :thumbsup:

Dark&Good
04-09-2009, 12:02 AM
I don't need anybody's approval about what rights I have.

Dark&Good
04-09-2009, 1:51 AM
Oh, I just thought of another one: knowing where my taxes go... like, can somebody just get the information easily on where the taxes paid go to? All transit points/banks/accounts?

Peragro
04-09-2009, 12:30 PM
Oh, I just thought of another one: knowing where my taxes go... like, can somebody just get the information easily on where the taxes paid go to? All transit points/banks/accounts?

The breakdown of what your taxes are spent on (federal) is on the 1040, or whatever form you use, paperwork. It's usually a pie chart.

Gov. isn't going to give out transit point/bank account info for the same reason you wouldn't give out yours.

chuckles48
04-09-2009, 12:41 PM
Ok totally geeky of me but I have the right to love the person of my choosing, and to choose whom I call friend.

Under the generic title of freedom of association. But there is no constitutionally enumerated right to marriage. For anyone.

Pointing that out, plus the explicit, enumerated right to keep and bear arms, to a gay marriage supporter gets you funny looks, no matter your opinion of the underlying (gay marriage) issue.

Dark&Good
04-09-2009, 1:06 PM
The breakdown of what your taxes are spent on (federal) is on the 1040, or whatever form you use, paperwork. It's usually a pie chart.

Gov. isn't going to give out transit point/bank account info for the same reason you wouldn't give out yours.

It doesn't prove that taxes are actually spent on those things... and not just being used to pay the interests on the loans the Fed Reserve Bank gives the government...
I think we have the right to know where these taxes go. I mean, it's money I earn by working hard. Why would I have to pay for something I can't be sure of?

Actually, I think "money" is obsolete. But that's another subject :)

ohsmily
04-09-2009, 2:07 PM
Actually, I think "money" is obsolete. But that's another subject :)

I'll be happy to take that worthless green stuff off of your hands. OR, I will sell you tangible goods at twice their face value in worthless green paper/cloth.

Dark&Good
04-09-2009, 2:52 PM
I'll be happy to take that worthless green stuff off of your hands. OR, I will sell you tangible goods at twice their face value in worthless green paper/cloth.

Look up "obsolete" in the dictionary instead ;)

Mulay El Raisuli
04-10-2009, 10:17 AM
There is no right to privacy. At least not in the U.S. Constitution. The "constitutional" right to privacy is, well, nothing but creative judicial thinking.


I used to think so also. But reading about the history if the Constitution & its passage has made me change my mind.

One of the arguments against the need for a Bill of Rights was that by adding such to the Const., the thought would be that only the Rights enumerated would be protected. IOW, all the other Rights we enjoyed would only be protected if they were actually enumerated. This was contrary to the thinking of the Founding Fathers. Their idea was that the powers of the Federal Govt would be limited to just what was given it & that everything else was none of their damn business. IE, they'd have no power to control guns because the power to do so was NOT one of the powers listed. By listing what was protected, the implication grew that anything not listed was fair game. Of course, we might have ended up where we are anyway.

So, while Roe vs Wade is a legal abomination for many reasons, articulating the Right to privacy isn't one of them. It's just more in keeping with the FFs original thinking.

The Raisuli

Whiskey_Sauer
04-10-2009, 2:57 PM
One of the arguments against the need for a Bill of Rights was that by adding such to the Const., the thought would be that only the Rights enumerated would be protected. IOW, all the other Rights we enjoyed would only be protected if they were actually enumerated. This was contrary to the thinking of the Founding Fathers. Their idea was that the powers of the Federal Govt would be limited to just what was given it & that everything else was none of their damn business. IE, they'd have no power to control guns because the power to do so was NOT one of the powers listed. By listing what was protected, the implication grew that anything not listed was fair game. Of course, we might have ended up where we are anyway.

I agree with you generally. But the problem with this view is that in practice, the right of privacy has simply meant that the judgment of nine Justices of the Supreme Court on issues of personal morality may supplant, under the rubric of the Constitution, the judgment of elected representatives that might vary from state to state. We call this an oligarchy.

The modern notion of a constitutional right of privacy is a simply a construct of the Warren Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut, which dealt with the specific issue of whether contraceptives could be prohibited by state law. The Court struck down the statute, on the grounds that it violated a "right to marital privacy." Although such a right does not expressly appear in the Constitution, the majority found that such rights existed by virtue of the "penumbras" (yes, that word) found in other constitutional protections.

Since the Griswold decision, however, the Court has used the right of privacy primarily to adjudicate matters involving the regulation of sexual and reproductive rights. For example, the Court used and expanded the right of privacy to strike down laws regarding contraception, sodomy, and abortion. But these are inherently matters of morality, in which the Justices of the Supreme Court believed they were empowered to substitute their own personal standard of morality (and by implication, that power would be extended to all judges hearing Constitutional questions), as opposed to the will of the Legislature. And the Constitution supposedly justifies this?

Now we may very well agree with the results of these cases. But the fact of the matter is, these results means that the judgment of nine lawyers sitting in Washington D.C. on matters involving personal philosophy and morality can supplant the will of the legislatures, under a right that was never expressly mentioned in the Constitution itself. The oligarchic notion that the Supreme Court would decide matters of sexual responsibility and choice as rights found in the Constitution is not something that the drafters of the Constitution or the founders of the country ever envisioned would happen. In fact, the founders never really contemplated or addressed the issue of judicial review of constitutional questions at all - although today, it is clearly accepted.

So, while Roe vs Wade is a legal abomination for many reasons, articulating the Right to privacy isn't one of them. It's just more in keeping with the FFs original thinking.

In my view, the only reason that Roe v. Wade is a "legal abomination" is because it took the "Constitutional" right to privacy to this level. While I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome (i.e., giving women the choice to have abortions), the rationale for doing so, finding some right purportedly found in the Constitution, is suspect.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 4:18 PM
While I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome (i.e., giving women the choice to have abortions),

Ironically, you wouldn't wholeheartedly support it if your mother had aborted you...
.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-10-2009, 4:36 PM
Ironically, you wouldn't wholeheartedly support it if your mother had aborted you...
.

I suppose I wouldn't have an opinion one way or another, would I?

DesertGunner
04-10-2009, 5:29 PM
The Constitution states that any treaty to which the US is a party has the force of US law. This means that any self-described 'strict constructionists' who think that international laws should not be enforced in the US is FULL OF ****.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-11-2009, 6:48 AM
Now we may very well agree with the results of these cases. But the fact of the matter is, these results means that the judgment of nine lawyers sitting in Washington D.C. on matters involving personal philosophy and morality can supplant the will of the legislatures, under a right that was never expressly mentioned in the Constitution itself. The oligarchic notion that the Supreme Court would decide matters of sexual responsibility and choice as rights found in the Constitution is not something that the drafters of the Constitution or the founders of the country ever envisioned would happen. In fact, the founders never really contemplated or addressed the issue of judicial review of constitutional questions at all - although today, it is clearly accepted.


I agree. But then, IMHO, that was a failure on the part of the FFs. Also, if it comes to having someone defining my right to privacy, SCOTUS or 52 (states, plus DC, plus Fed) legislatures defining it, I prefer SCOTUS. Better one standard. As you say, we agree with the results. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Until bad law results, I would say the concept 'tastes' pretty good.



In my view, the only reason that Roe v. Wade is a "legal abomination" is because it took the "Constitutional" right to privacy to this level. While I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome (i.e., giving women the choice to have abortions), the rationale for doing so, finding some right purportedly found in the Constitution, is suspect.


And this is the one case we disagree on (as to whether its good or bad). I have no problem with them protecting & defining an unenumerated Right. My problem with it is that it defined a human being as not a human being. Which is factually & scientifically nonsense. So, the failure of ROE isn't that it "found" a Right, but that the Court ignored what is real to impose a political decision.

To relate this to guns, while all nine justices found the 2A to be an individual Right, four of them hit FAIL because they think that this enumerated Right should be treated differently that the other enumerated Rights listed in the BoR. IOW, four of them want to impose a political decision instead of interpret the Constitution.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
04-11-2009, 6:54 AM
The Constitution states that any treaty to which the US is a party has the force of US law. This means that any self-described 'strict constructionists' who think that international laws should not be enforced in the US is FULL OF ****.


Mostly correct. So, there is a danger of our current masters imposing something via treaty instead of their usual route. But, there is a SCOTUS Decision that states that no treaty can over-ride (or contradict) a part of the Constitution. A treaty can not then remove the Right to assemble peaceably, or the Right to keep & bear.

Supposedly.

Unfortunately, I can't remember the case. I'm hoping that someone else here is brighter than I & does know it.

The Raisuli

SimpleCountryActuary
04-11-2009, 9:08 PM
Okay, here is a question for the board.

So, what I want you guys to do is think about rights that most people think they have, but don't and see what we come up with.



I was thinking that maybe I have a right to have two wives. Then I realized that my first (and current) wife knows where my guns are and might be ... hmmmm...less than thrilled. Then I also thought about two divorce actions at the same time. :eek::eek:

Then I poured another glass of wine and the chills and nightmares went away. :sleeping:

series8217
04-11-2009, 10:40 PM
:TFH:

Well, at least we still have the right to believe everything we read or hear...

KylaGWolf
04-11-2009, 11:30 PM
On the vaccination of school children. While they cannot demand you do so they can make it hard for you to not do it. I didn't want my daughter to have the chicken pox vaccine or the hep b one BUT as they put it to me anytime anywhere in the district there is an outbreak they CAN make my child stay out of school and NOT be able to make up the work.

Dark&Good
04-11-2009, 11:50 PM
To whom it may concern:
Before you answer with some smart**s sarcasm, make sure you get enough truth (that means, not just what you're being told for 25 years).
If you haven't been looking around, take your time... I'm not posting here to just piss you off.

kermit315
04-12-2009, 7:44 AM
The Constitution states that any treaty to which the US is a party has the force of US law. This means that any self-described 'strict constructionists' who think that international laws should not be enforced in the US is FULL OF ****.

Those international laws which contradict the Constitution cannot be enforced in the US, our Constitution is the highest law of the land. It would legally be the same as passing a law here that was unconstitutional, it wouldnt be upheld.