Your rights....going fast

SmarterthanYou said:
1. shall make no law
2. shall not be infringed
4. shall not be violated
5. No person shall be held to answer, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence 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.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
7. the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. shall not be required
9. shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
10. 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.

I see lots of total restrictions applied to the government, but barely any allowances for regulation of rights.
Click to expand...
Isn't 'limitation' the same as a restriction? I ask, because i used limitation in that sense, they cannot be restricted.
There are some regulations, such as unfettered free speech -you "can't yell fire in a movie"( i.e.)
 
cannabis said:
then i can threaten to kill you and claim protection under the constitution?
Click to expand...
it happens hundreds of times a day. if I complain to police that you threatened to kill me, they will laugh at me. but threaten one of them, or an elected official, and you'll see that is not protected speech. again, the federal government is not authorized or empowered to restrict speech, yet threaten a federal official or elected official, see what happens. is that right?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it happens hundreds of times a day. if I complain to police that you threatened to kill me, they will laugh at me. but threaten one of them, or an elected official, and you'll see that is not protected speech. again, the federal government is not authorized or empowered to restrict speech, yet threaten a federal official or elected official, see what happens. is that right?
Click to expand...

i disagree.

threatening to kill someone is a criminal offense. and many have been prosecuted as violating that offense.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I suggest you read the below link.

http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/t...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
Click to expand...
It'sa LOT to read, and it's a lot about war.

Maybe when im not so tired out. It's a worthy discusiion, maybe the terms we are using is throwing me off.
The BPR guarantess individual rights, they cannot be limited. A right, by law is just that -it "stands alone" Inalienable.

They can be restricted in times of war -what i was posting earlier - but what is this war? GWOT? ( Global War on Terror) - is perpetual war.
So how do the restrictions ever end? If they never end -they(BOR) do not exist.

It has no endgame, think the Crusades. Then you throw in non-state actors, and the US is using GWOT to bypass the 4th.
:whoa: I'm exausted. I'll be sure to to come back to this thread, and we can flesh it out. G.Nite.
 
annata said:
It'sa LOT to read, and it's a lot about war.

Maybe when im not so tired out. It's a worthy discusiion, maybe the terms we are using is throwing me off.
The BPR guarantess individual rights, they cannot be limited. A right, by law is just that -it "stands alone" Inalienable.

They can be restricted in times of war -what i was posting earlier - but what is this war? GWOT? ( Global War on Terror) - is perpetual war.
So how do the restrictions ever end? If they never end -they(BOR) do not exist.

It has no endgame, think the Crusades. Then you throw in non-state actors, and the US is using GWOT to bypass the 4th.
:whoa: I'm exausted. I'll be sure to to come back to this thread, and we can flesh it out. G.Nite.
Click to expand...

This particular Administration admit no such war on terror exists yet claims the "rights" due to war powers anyway.
 
cannabis said:
state, i don't know about federal...



then threatening to kill someone is protected speech.....?
Click to expand...

The inherent action, not the words, is what makes the crime. This is an attempt to simplify, and assumes that we won't understand that a threat isn't solely "speech". If such was absent, the action (a threat made into a void absent a victim), then the words would not be illegal and protected.

If I take your attempt to oversimplify to the extreme, one would merely need to carry a sign while speeding to maintain it was "protest" and protected. Speeding is illegal, regardless of the accompanying words spoken.
 
Althea said:
Does anyone expect privacy on the internet? Ya know what? I'm not stupid enough to use email for any shady activity...If this legislation busts a terrorist ring that tries to blow up the NYC subways, then I'm happy to be violated.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid response. It might shock you to know that law enforcement is not always right.
 
Ron Paul's campaign for liberty group has been busy in warning about the lame duck session and that we need to be wary of the statists in both parties.
 
Damocles said:
The inherent action, not the words, is what makes the crime. This is an attempt to simplify, and assumes that we won't understand that a threat isn't solely "speech". If such was absent, the action (a threat made into a void absent a victim), then the words would not be illegal and protected.

If I take your attempt to oversimplify to the extreme, one would merely need to carry a sign while speeding to maintain it was "protest" and protected. Speeding is illegal, regardless of the accompanying words spoken.
Click to expand...

fire in a movie theater
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top