It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In hindsight, was the Bill of Rights a success?

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Contrary to popular belief no where in the Constitution do we have the right to vote


Which Constitution are you reading?

The 26th Amendment covers that:


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
You CAN vote as you please ...wether the system counts them is a matter of corruption.


You are permitted to vote, it is a privilege like driving. No where in the constitution is there a right to vote. Certain amendments have outlined ways in which groups can not be denied from voting, but nowhere is the right to vote actually affirmed.


I am service connected with VA disabilities THEY handle all of my medical care,so if THAT is what you mean by mandated then you are correct.


The VA acts like an insurance provider approving treatment plans, that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to cases where the state has stepped in and said a person must partake in a certain treatment despite their wishes. Examples of this would be sentencing an atheist to AA which they can never successfully complete, or mandating that a 17 year old girl be given chemotherapy for her cancer despite already getting good results from a different treatment regimen. If the state wanted to, they could force you to undergo any medical procedure they wish (and at your expense), there are no laws preventing it, largely due to the fact that you have no right to determine your own medical care.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Read that again. It's saying you cannot be denied a vote based on age as long as you are 18 or older. It's not saying you can vote in the first place.

Here's an article you may find interesting.
www.politifact.com...
edit on 3-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Oh yes they do!!! And they are self-evident. If I can do it for myself, by myself, and/or with other consenting adults, then it is my natural and inalienable right.


I can steal another persons property by acting on my own, that doesn't mean I have a right to everything I can pick up and take. Two consenting adults can enter into a contract that is unfair for one reason or another (there's a legal term for this I can't think of at the moment, to be more specific) but it has generally been upheld by society that the one benefiting from such a contract doesn't have a right to exploit the other person.


The law in and of itself makes a demand of me, but it's only the force of a gun that can force me to do something or not to do something... a clear violation of my natural rights.


If your whole basis for laws is the law of the jungle, then I suppose so, but the goal of society has been to move past that and create something more equitable which means discarding the notion of might makes right. Everything written in the Constitution goes against the concept of might makes right.


Considering NSA surveillance and targeting is at an all-time high, if that were true, we would be enjoying both domestic and worldwide peace and harmony.


That's because the NSA is ineffective. North Korea has little dissent, Iraq under Saddam had little dissent. The citizens of those nations also value their security. The NSA's problem is that they gather so much information that they can't process it all, and they can act on even less.



Life ultimately means a lack of safety. Liberty means we have the right to protect ourselves the best we can... lack of liberty means we cannot protect ourselves at all.


What about when you have to restrict the liberty of the individual to protect that of society? On a small scale, seat belt laws fall into this category. The Bill of Rights itself hasn't changed in over 200 years, just as a monopoly over time results in a worse product for the consumer, so do laws that have no competition.



Hence the national security importance of protecting and promoting the 9th and 10th amendments, not throw them out with the bath water!


The intent of the 10th was that the previous amendments would serve as a baseline, while the states would compete over other rights. However, the federal government was given too much power which makes the 10th irrelevant. This is a rather deep flaw in the Constitution and is pretty much unfixable, which again goes to the idea that the entire Bill of Rights should have been enacted state by state.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I wager the founders would be surprised at how successful the Bill of Rights has been at staving off the human tendency to consolidate and abuse power. Even the most hopeful among them may not have guessed it would take over 200 years for us to forsake their wisdom.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

In the current corrupred system YES but it's ILLEGAL for the courts to do that unless of course you live in LIBERAL sytates then yes they WILL try.
I recall an attempt to incarcerate a marine because he was CLAIMED to be insane by a state official ,he beat it easily and they haven't tried it again.
But other than that YES we sure as hell do have the right to determine our medical care .
Corruption IS seeking to keep doing that yes, aka mandatory vaccinations, insanity claimes and the use of cannibis oil but the OIL is still a schedual 2 substance,So the jerks have a federal law behind them.

AND then to ,the 2nd amendmentis the LAST bastion, before a takeover happens.
edit on 3-9-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Read that again. It's saying you cannot be denied a vote based on age as long as you are 18 or older. It's not saying you can vote in the first place.


It would be nice if you actually understood how the Constitution functions.

It is not a list of things you are allowed to do, it is a list of things that the government cannot do.


The right to vote is mentioned if five separate Amendments.



edit on 3-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan

Oh AAzadan! We are so much closer in opinion than we are farther apart!!! Let me try again... and let me note that I am only explaining my understanding of our organic law... our law of the land... and how it is supposed to work as opposed to how it is working. I am not making this up off the top of my head. This is the founding law.


I can steal another persons property by acting on my own, that doesn't mean I have a right to everything I can pick up and take.


Well you can try... but you would be doing so without the other person's consent; that is not a right. That person does have a right to try to defend and protect his property. Law enforcement has the power to enforce their property rights.


Two consenting adults can enter into a contract that is unfair for one reason or another (there's a legal term for this I can't think of at the moment, to be more specific) but it has generally been upheld by society that the one benefiting from such a contract doesn't have a right to exploit the other person.


Of course. Usually because one party denied the other party the ability make a fully informed decision, and therefore violated that party's free will. Perhaps they hid information, perhaps they misrepresented something, perhaps they outright lied. In any event, the party denied pertinent information was also denied the ability to say "no" to whatever they did not know.


If your whole basis for laws is the law of the jungle...


Not the law of the jungle, Natural Law. A long established and defined social and political philosophy.


...then I suppose so, but the goal of society has been to move past that and create something more equitable which means discarding the notion of might makes right.


Exactly. Via the Social Contract, under our natural right to join together for the common and greater good, in order to protect our natural rights, giving government the power and means to act in our best interests, with our consent and approval.


Everything written in the Constitution goes against the concept of might makes right.


Of course it does. Because it is the codification of Natural Law and natural rights, intended to protect our autonomy while limiting government powers over us.


The NSA's problem is that they gather so much information that they can't process it all, and they can act on even less.


I would say that the NSA's problem is that they gather too much information on the wrong people, in the worst ways, and have forgotten who the real enemies are, as well as who they are supposed to serve...


What about when you have to restrict the liberty of the individual to protect that of society? On a small scale, seat belt laws fall into this category.


I would counter that seat belt laws -- and airbags -- have created as many new problems as they have solved, as always happens when we force the will of some on everyone. Even as we reduce threats and risks in one way, we create additional risks and threats in other ways. We cannot protect ourselves from every eventuality.


The Bill of Rights itself hasn't changed in over 200 years, just as a monopoly over time results in a worse product for the consumer, so do laws that have no competition.


If we were adhering faithfully to both the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights, and we still ended up in this mess, then I might agree. But that is not the case. I can only reiterate that the proof is in the pudding: In order to get us to this point, it required numerous and repeated flagrant violations of those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.


The intent of the 10th was that the previous amendments would serve as a baseline...


I'm not sure what you mean by "baseline." Those rights are absolute and universal.


...while the states would compete over other rights.


I'm not sure what you mean by "compete" either; but I like the laboratory metaphor.


However, the federal government was given too much power which makes the 10th irrelevant.


I would say the federal government took too much power at the point of a gun... or musket and cannon perhaps would be more appropriate.


This is a rather deep flaw in the Constitution and is pretty much unfixable...


The Constitution, like anything, can always be improved... there is always some tweaking and adjusting to do. Where it needs improvement is in transparency, accountability, further checks and balances, and, when necessary and appropriate, in criminal charges and prosecution.


...which again goes to the idea that the entire Bill of Rights should have been enacted state by state.


There is nothing stopping each state from also adopting a Bill of Rights for their citizens. But we still need a Bill of Rights to protect ourselves from the feds just as much.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It would be nice if you actually understood how the Constitution functions.

It is not a list of things you are allowed to do, it is a list of things that the government cannot do.


The right to vote is mentioned if five separate Amendments.


The Fourteenth Amendment penalizes states for not allowing a person to vote but doesn't force them to let people vote.
The Fifteenth prevents the denial of a vote based on race.
The Twenty Sixth prevents the denial of a vote based on age.

This is why for example, you can be denied a vote based on not having an ID in certain states. There is no right to vote, and there is no law that says you don't have to have an ID so long as it's freely available (if it costs money it would fall under a poll tax).



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The Consitution also does not say I can eat ice cream sundeas every other Wdnesday and Monday but I can.


You have the right to vote which is why it is protected in five separate amendments. Individual states set the requirements but the Constitution protects the right.



edit on 4-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Aazadan

The Consitution also does not say I can eat ice cream sundeas every other Wdnesday and Monday but I can.


You have the right to vote which is why it is protected in five separate amendments. Individual states set the requirements but the Constitution protects the right.


You are permitted to eat those sundae's. It is not a right, there is no right to food actually (unless you're being detained, and even that isn't in the Constitution but rather in other laws)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
In hindsight, was the Bill of Rights a success?

Nope.

Since day one it has been continually, and habitually violated without much effort.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Many founders agreed that the leaders and people must be of good moral character. When they fail to be of good moral character a bill of rights will not save them.

a perfect document? no. The greatest document written before 1800, prolly.

A moral culture surpasses the power of a government and keeps the people in order.

The success of america is based on the culture it has. most laws change based on majority opinion or majority vote of state legislatures who were elected by people. The US has been relatively free of tyrants compared to other countries. The constitution does put a check on would be tyrants even when popular opinion is with them. This is its most important duty, allowing emotional fads to dissipate before a lot of legislation gets rammed through.
but since 9/11 its check on popular support didn't work, with wars, patriot act, etc, etc.

government bloat/self preservation and a loss of moral culture is what will destroy a country.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I would have to say the basis for your op is wrong... we DO have the right to free travel, we DO have the right to choose our own healthcare, we DO have these rights...Those rights are just being ignored and trampled on and the people are not exercising their right to enforce their use of their rights. Those are completely different things.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I would have to say the basis for your op is wrong... we DO have the right to free travel


No fly list, travel ban on Cuba among other nations. If walls go up along the border, would it be illegal for the government to say we can't cross them?


we DO have the right to choose our own healthcare


Then why is Cassandra C (full name still withheld) forced to undergo chemotherapy despite her wishes and the wishes of her parents?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Unfortunately, there's no place for morals in politics. That's not just a reflection on our time, it's simply the way the profession is. It's all about getting things done at any cost. It's nice when there's some good people in the system to counterbalance the corruption but it's the mean SOB's that get things to happen.

If you want to talk about a moral collapse I'll challenge you to a different idea. The problem isn't that our congressmen are amoral, it's that their backgrounds have converged. Most are lawyers, a few are doctors, and then there's some random outliers. We don't have a single STEM graduate in Congress. There are no mathematicians on the tax committees, no network engineers on communications, no engineers directing infrastructure rebuilding. This is the problem. We have no differing perspectives on any issue, there's just one view per party.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Second reply to you, I wrote the other just before falling asleep and forgot.

One could also say that a right not recognized and not codified isn't a right you possess.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It Was , Up to 14 Years Ago.......



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea


I would counter that seat belt laws -- and airbags -- have created as many new problems as they have solved, as always happens when we force the will of some on everyone. Even as we reduce threats and risks in one way, we create additional risks and threats in other ways. We cannot protect ourselves from every eventuality.


Seatbelt laws are interesting, on one hand they save lives, reduce the need for medical care in the area, and save us all money in insurance premiums. On the other hand, it's a complete invasion by law enforcement, and by our cars themselves. My car for examples beeps at me and never stops until I buckle up (same for other passengers). It's very much intrusive and an invasion of liberty, but it exists for the greater good. Fortunately, we have 50 states and they don't all have these laws, I would be interested in looking at a comparison of the effect of them and judge them on merit.


I'm not sure what you mean by "baseline." Those rights are absolute and universal.


They were means so that at a federal level certain rights would be guaranteed, people would demand more rights in their individual states, and get them. This however failed for a myriad of reasons. Namely the feds were able to force too much power on the state, and get concessions on those rights. There's no law in the Constitution stating how the feds should deal with states rights, and so that sets the states up for failure when they try to assert rights for their citizens. For example, Ohio can't come out and say our residents have a right to privacy, and suddenly have the legal standing to make the NSA back off in Ohio.

In the constitution we establish a hierarchy of laws from the Supreme Court, to Federal Courts, to State Courts, to County Courts. But they failed to establish a similar hierarchy for rights which should have gone Federal/State/County, such that the rights of one can't infringe on the rights of a higher jurisdiction, but at the same time given precedence on enforcement to County/State/Federal so that the feds can't simply overule the State.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join