Your rights are disappearing.

[Arbo]

The ONLY way problems like this are solved is when some take the higher road, use the ignore button or simply not add to the OT crap that infests so many threads.

That doesn't take care of the idiots that offer nothing but drive by comments on users instead of content.

[fj1200]

Freedom of speech is next I tell you.

You have freedom and you are also free to suffer consequences.

Guns need permits. And who knows how long until you have to give them up.

No one.

NYC signed into law that you must allow same sex marriages (There goes your freedom of religion)

[/QUOTE]

Your religious freedom is intact. If marriage weren't all over the Federal Register you might have a point but the religious aspect of it is long gone.

You must be politically correct (freedom of speech)

You don't have to be anything.

You can't petition or protest. (bikers refused ability to, but did it anyway )

They were refused a permit to close the streets or some such thing.

Your stuff can be searched without a warrent. (Nowadays they just hold you until they get one, and there's probable cause if you refuse)

What stuff?

Double jeopardy. (Past crimes are brought up when something new happens)

Were you tried on them in the first place? Nevertheless past behavior is usually inadmissible in a current trial.

Speedy public trial (zimmermans was in no way speedy)

Meh. It seemed to work in his favor.

the ninth, you may as well throw privacy right out the window.

The ninth?

And this last one just appalls me that it's been flat out thrown out the window.
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

The 1800's called, or at least 1913, they want their argument back. The States haven't been truly represented in 100 years.

[fj1200]

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

The States haven't been truly represented in 100 years.

That last one interests me. If the States are represented in the Senate and the States allow a particular expansion of Federal power, via Senate approval of legislation, has the State in effect delegated that power to the Federal???? The 17th was a backdoor gutting of the 10th if that's the case.

[cadet]

Here, I found someone else who managed to put it into clearer terms.
And I really like how he put it.

Is your Constitution toasted enough for ya?

Oh yeah, sure, it's a question asked only by those right-wing, constitutionalist, conservative worry-warts. Everything's cool, right?

And besides, silly, if you keep your nose clean, it doesn't matter how many constitutional rights the government overrides. Only lawbreakers need to worry. Right?

Of course, most people misunderstand the reason our Founders initially created the Bill of Rights. The Madisons and Jeffersons weren't allocating rights to citizens. They acknowledged that all citizens had the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, however skewed the latter has become.

The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions placed on the powers of government. But hey, American history and civics ... pretty boring stuff. And, but hey again, keep your nose clean, and it's all academic anyway, right?

Besides, clean-nosed ostriches point out, we're at war. We're fighting "people" who, if they are successful, will subdue us and remove our freedom and our rights. So, it behooves us to do away with our freedoms and our rights, in the interest of protecting them, right?

Well, on that account, Bush and Congress have done a fine job. Here's the score as I see it:

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.


Well, so far, so good, but utterings to the contrary from highly placed individuals are heard. Dedicated political internet users have seen it, have seen an AP story critical of the administration simply ... disappear. So, the First is on the chopping block, but so far, for the most part, so good.

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.


Not so good. Our state militias, the National Guard, is being spent in Iraq. The rounding up of guns - in middle-class, white neighborhoods - following Katrina shows that the government already has made clear, that if it's "necessary" for _______ (fill in the blank), THEY reserve the "right" to confiscate guns.

Totally unconstitutional.

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.


See, we're in a war, so, clearly, by declaring a war with no foreseeable end, the government explicitly has this right. Your house. And, they know it.

A side benefit of "holy," "patriotic," unending war.

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.


This one's toast, history, slain by the Patriot Act (PA) and the Military Commissions Act (MCA). Never heard of those, or, if you have, no problem, just keep a clean nose? Wrong. We are witnesses to - those of us who are awake anyway - the Bill of Rights being incrementally repealed. The repealers are counting on citizen ignorance, and indifference. If you haven't, examine the PA and MCA; see what experts in constitution law - liberals and conservatives - have to say.

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.


The MCA outlines how a citizen can be declared a non-citizen, how it requires no disclosure of evidence (ooo, it's top secret) or identification of incriminating witnesses (gotta protect sources), as it specifies which forms of torture are acceptable. Yep, parts of this one are suspended, because ... yep, we're at war.

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.


More toast please? See Amendment V. The Patriot Act and the MCA the culprits, again. Your trial could be speedier than you imagined.

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.


Good for now, I think. I better blow my nose, though, keep it clean....

Amendment VIII

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


Hmmm. Makes me wonder, are all of the approved methods of torture noted in the MCA now considered "usual" punishments? I'm not really an expert on torture.

Amendment IX

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


Oh yeah. This one applies only if people are paying attention. Otherwise, your rights are indeed subject to denial, and disparagement. Happens all the time. Busy people with clean noses are positive: no problem here. All's well, you pessimist.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.


In theory. In practice, the states and the people have been forced to aggressively defend their rights. Today, the usurpation of rights by the federal government, by and large, is considered "normal." Oh and hey, when the country's at war, well, you know, the feds are compelled to take away our rights, to defeat enemies who'd take away our rights.


Sigh ... slow torture....

Please forgive me for repeating myself, but take clear note: If the government declares you or me a terrorist, a power unambiguously assigned to the president and the secretary of defense by the MCA, you or I would be stripped of citizenship, and thus lose all protection from government power, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The majority of people seem OK with the eviscerations so far imposed upon our Bill of Rights, because everybody knows the ranks of government are populated with people of high moral standards and impeccable integrity, and besides, the truth is, if you keep a clean nose, you're cool anyway. Just be a good American citizen, and please, stop saying all those mean things about our beloved president and our exemplary Congress, you pessimist.

Sure ... I'm just kidding. As the damage done by termites often doesn't show until severe structural damage has occurred, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, are being slowly, incrementally, eroded. All looks good now to the clean-nose crowd, but ... it's not.

[fj1200]

Meh, you did just as well. It sounds like everything he's upset about can be boiled down to about two laws. And he's probably a lib because he complains about Bush and likely happy with BO.

[Arbo]

I would think when posting so much of someone else's work, one would include a link.