Both "Sides" Want to Restrict our Rights - Just Different Ones

page: 1
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
As I was talking with Semperfortis last night during the ATS Live!!! radio show, he mentioned how important it is that we vote in the presidential election - if nothing else, because the president is the one who appoints the Supreme Court Justices and they are ultimately the ones who make decisions about our rights, liberties and privileges as cases are brought to them.

I completely agree. The Supreme Court sets precedents that will decide future cases regarding our rights, liberties and privileges.

Semper seemed to be of the opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) that liberal justices are the more 'dangerous' ones because they have an interest in restricting our rights. This seems to be a common viewpoint, even among liberals, and I'd like to explore the validity of that claim.

My position is that conservatives are also interested in restricting our rights, liberties and privileges, just different ones than those the liberals want to restrict.

This is a VERY GENERAL and short outline, just to show what I'm thinking and would like to discuss. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the general public and the government. Following are some general ideas that I would like to flesh out and get your input on.

Liberals want to restrict or limit:

Our right to own firearms
Free speech (hate speech laws, fairness doctrine)
Hiring practices (anti-discrimination laws)
Free trade
Personal consumption (FDA limiting salt, etc)
Free choice (driving a gas hog)

Conservatives want to restrict or limit:

Free speech (TSA protests, military funeral protests)
Woman's right to govern her body (abortion)
Equal protection under secular laws (marriage and military service for gays)
Equal protection of religious expression (for non-Christians)
Right to trial and due process (terror suspects)
Choice (recreational drug use, abortion)

As regards the Bill of Rights here are some VERY GENERAL examples of constitutionally-protected rights that each ideology, liberal and conservative, would like to restrict:

Bill of Rights

1st Amendment - Speech, Religion - Both
Liberals want to restrict "hate speech" and religious expression (mostly of Christians)
Conservatives want to restrict freedom of (non-Christian) religious expression

2nd Amendment - Firearm Ownership - Liberals
Liberals want to restrict firearm ownership

3rd Amendment - Quartering of Troops - NA

4th Amendment - Search and Seizure - Both
Patriot Act is supported by both

5th Amendment - Due Process - Conservatives
Conservatives want to limit due process for terror suspects

6th Amendment - Jury Trial - Conservatives
Conservatives want to limit jury trial for terror suspects

7th Amendment - Common Law Suits - NA

8th Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Conservatives
Conservatives support torture of terror suspects

9th Amendment - Non-enumerated rights - Both
Conservatives don't want gays in the military or married
Liberals want to legislate what we consume (salt in processed foods)

10th Amendment - States' rights - Both
Liberals don't want Arizona's 'show your papers' law
Conservatives don't want 'Death with Dignity' laws

I think we can all (or most of us) agree that total unrestricted liberties (anarchy) would not work in a dense, complex society such as ours. Some of our individual liberties must be restricted to assure that we can all live together reasonably peacefully. But I don't think one ideology or the other is fully responsible for wanting to restrict them. Each side wants to restrict different rights and each side has what seem like very good reasons that THEIR restrictions are good for the society as a whole.

All of this goes to what many here on ATS are discovering: Not only are both parties "the same". One ideology is just as dangerous to our freedoms as the other is. Liberals and Conservatives, in their current form, are both dangerous to our way of life, our rights and our freedom.

Thoughts?




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Just sign all of your official documents with sui juris UCC-207.
This reserves all rights under the Constitution. Sign your driver's license with this and a judge cannot, and will not find you guilty of a traffic violation. I once had a judge call the cop up to the stand and ask if he had seen what was on the license before he dismissed. Most traffic police will warn you verbally and send you on your way when they see that on the license. We are all Freemen, by the way, you are only a slave if you choose to be one. Remember, ignorance of the law in no excuse.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

2nd Amendment - Firearm Ownership - Liberals
Liberals want to restrict firearm ownership


BH, This is simply not the case. Reagan and conservatives have done more to restrict gun ownership than liberals. Reagan banned the assault rifle and pushed congress to pass the Brady act. BOTH sides have supported restrictions on gun ownership. More 2nd amendment restrictions were put in place during Reagan's tenure than any other.

When it comes to 2nd amendment - Firearm Ownership, it should be noted that Liberals AND conservatives want to restrict firearm ownership.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Thank you and I agree. Wasn't the biggest gun grab done under George Bush?

And there are probably others that can be added to each side until it reads "Both" all the way down.
And that's my point. BOTH sides want to restrict and limit our freedoms.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
F&S
Add up the rights that both parties( Hegellian dialectic here) want to take away
and it adds up to all of them.
After the proven vote frauds in ohio and florida in recent elections
and the lying down of the opposition
it is pretty difficult to have faith in VOTING


PS
anyone into hockey?
which team does the puck like?
edit on 28-11-2010 by Danbones because: PS



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...
Not only are both parties "the same". One ideology is just as dangerous to our freedoms as the other is. Liberals and Conservatives, in their current form, are both dangerous to our way of life, our rights and our freedom.

Thoughts?


I completely agree. For anyone to buy into any "side's" propaganda ("Liberals/Conservatives are trying to take your freedoms! You must support Conservatives/Liberals or you are doomed!") just feeds the problem and supports their (both parties) agenda of repression. They both want a docile, ignorant population with a victim mindset, to keep pumping the wheels so the members of the plutocracy (the form of government we really have in the US) can maintain and increase their privileges.

We do live in a complex society. Fortunately, our basic laws were written during the age of political genius, and provides a legal framework for constructing a reasonably just society. The only requirement made of us as individuals is to work just as hard to protect the rights of those with whom we disagree as we do to protect the rights with which we agree. The plutocracy, of course, wants to discourage that.

We the Board of Directors need to pay more attention to what really matters, and less attention to the manufactured distractions created as part of the divide and conquer strategy currently in use.

Excellent subject!



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
Just sign all of your official documents with sui juris UCC-207.
This reserves all rights under the Constitution. Sign your driver's license with this and a judge cannot, and will not find you guilty of a traffic violation. I once had a judge call the cop up to the stand and ask if he had seen what was on the license before he dismissed. Most traffic police will warn you verbally and send you on your way when they see that on the license. We are all Freemen, by the way, you are only a slave if you choose to be one. Remember, ignorance of the law in no excuse.


Okay, we can't let a post like this just come and go. I really need to know more about this. I clicked the links, but it doesn't seem to explain the why it makes one immune to traffic violations.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by autowrench
Just sign all of your official documents with sui juris UCC-207.
This reserves all rights under the Constitution. Sign your driver's license with this and a judge cannot, and will not find you guilty of a traffic violation. I once had a judge call the cop up to the stand and ask if he had seen what was on the license before he dismissed. Most traffic police will warn you verbally and send you on your way when they see that on the license. We are all Freemen, by the way, you are only a slave if you choose to be one. Remember, ignorance of the law in no excuse.


Okay, we can't let a post like this just come and go. I really need to know more about this. I clicked the links, but it doesn't seem to explain the why it makes one immune to traffic violations.


I agree..i'm no good with legal language...it's literally like reading chinease to me....and i am super curious about this..if what you say is true..I'm going to start using this on all documents. More information please?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
how important it is that we vote in the presidential election - if nothing else, because the president is the one who appoints the Supreme Court Justices and they are ultimately the ones who make decisions about our rights, liberties and privileges as cases are brought to them.


...it only "appears" to be true if you believe the prez has power... he doesnt... he's just the mouthpiece / the puppet for whoever made sure he got into the oval office... that translates to - those who appoint justices to the scotus are not the prez, so voting accomplishes nothing because the winner was chosen long before the campaigning started...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Semper seemed to be of the opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) that liberal justices are the more 'dangerous' ones because they have an interest in restricting our rights.


...yeah, well, he didnt even know that we had pow camps in the usofa during ww2 - so, ya know, gotta consider the source...

...neither party gives a damn about us or truth... they've proved that over and over again for decades upon decades... they stood together after jfk was assassinated... nothing has changed since then... (note: i'm not implying that jfk's assassination is where it started going wrong)...

...the most important recent proof is how they all stood together after 09.11.01 and agreed to invade iraq, bomb afghanistan "back into the stone age" (per gwb), patriot act, homeland security, czars everywhere...

...to use danbones' analogy, we're just the puck - so why is how one group slaps you around better than how the other group slaps you around?...



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not only are both parties "the same". One ideology is just as dangerous to our freedoms as the other is.


...bingo...
edit on 11/28/10 by Wyn Hawks because: ...edited to correct gwb quote from dark ages to stone age - cuz i'm ditzy sometimes




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Agreed. Both parties are the problem and are NO PART of any solution. Both need to be dismantled and left to rot. Career politicians have wrecked our nation and we need term limits for Congress. We also need to dump the Congressional retirement package so politicos can work until they're 65 like the rest of us, it might just change some of their decisions.
Senators need to be appointed by the States as the Constitution intended. Dump whatever amendment made them elected.

Why do we need to restrict anyone liberties??
People own guns and the ones who are irresponsible with them usually get caught and are punished.
What liberty could cause more problems than guns?

Danbones has a point - our Presidential elections have been fraudulent since 2000. E-voting needs to be done on open source machines that cannot be hacked or tallies tampered with in the counting process.

We are the hockey puck and we've been voting for the team that hits us lightest.

Good thread. WHO appoints the Supreme court justices is extremely important.

Glad to know Semperfortis is around. I hadn't heard from him in quite a while.

Bump



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
PS
anyone into hockey?
which team does the puck like?


That is SO good. I hadn't heard it before and it really nails the comparison.


Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Glad to know Semperfortis is around. I hadn't heard from him in quite a while.


Yes, he's a good man. I called into the radio show to ask a question and we had a little discussion. Very informative.

I loved all of your ideas. You pretty much nailed it, IMO, as far as what we would need to happen for things to turn around.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
...it doesn't seem to explain the why it makes one immune to traffic violations.


That's because it doesn't.

O & A suck! And lil' Jimmy, too!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Though I disagree with some of your categorization, the general premise is pretty close. Though I would actually assign blame to the elite of both ideological groups, rather than the whole of them. Elitism is the enemy, not the individuals, like you and I, who espouse conservative or liberal beliefs.

S & F
edit on 28-11-2010 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well well BH, it's nice to see you making threads again
.

Always engaging debate and interesting topics.

I agree with you, although I think you are painting the "sides" with a broad brush.

IMO this is more about the political Extremist, more so than your average liberal or conservative. In this day and age we are always represented by the extremist, instead of the moderate, who truly represents both sides of the argument and is usually more capable of making a decision that suits both sides.

Yes both of the sides right now are the same, but we are only hearing from those who currently hold the most political clout and media attention. Both leadership circles are extremist in their own seperate ideologies and most people would subscribe to neither if another choice was presented.

I'm gonna get a lot of "shallacking" for this one, but Obama IMO is a moderate. Which is why he's had SO much trouble getting anything done or getting along with anybody, his party or the other.

Obama represents the kind of person that the left and the right do NOT want around. Somebody who IS willing to look at both sides of an issue and take the middle ground as opposed to either sides extremist view.

Now I'm not saying that I support him 100%, obviously there are things I dislike, some other things I do like. I certainly respect his attempt at bi-partisanship.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
Just sign all of your official documents with sui juris UCC-207.
This reserves all rights under the Constitution. Sign your driver's license with this and a judge cannot, and will not find you guilty of a traffic violation. I once had a judge call the cop up to the stand and ask if he had seen what was on the license before he dismissed. Most traffic police will warn you verbally and send you on your way when they see that on the license. We are all Freemen, by the way, you are only a slave if you choose to be one. Remember, ignorance of the law in no excuse.


I've heard this bantered about on many sites. A quote from the sui juris link you provided:

Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris.
Hence adding it would really indicate you aren't aware of its meaning.

I've heard the end all be all get out of jail free phrase for placing above your signature is: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207/1-308

I have yet to meet an individual who has done so and can personally testify with documentation to verify the accuracy of said claim. I know there are tons of "patriots" charging $500 fees for seminars to tell you just how accurate the claim is though.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, what's interesting here is that my politics tend to be left and progressive while I believe you to be more conservative yet we can find common ground.
I think this is true in a much broader sense, that perhaps the American people might actually be ready to dump BOTH parties simultaneously and work together for the common good as they are sensing that this is an emergency we are dealing with.
If only we could destroy the assumption that there must be an alternative party to vote for.
If we could start electing people based on ability and ideals we might just turn things around.
We've gotta get control of the Federal budget and National Debt first.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO right!

All this liberal vs. neo-con BS is just so we don't UNITE AGAINST THEM!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Totally agree with you. Brilliantly done. Both sides of the aisle want to snatch our rights out from under us and make confetti out of the Constitution. It's just that they want to do it in different ways. Sad part is that they're encroaching from both sides depending upon whose in power at that particular moment, so they're stealing them twice as fast.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
I've heard this bantered about on many sites. A quote from the sui juris link you provided:


Would you guys please either take this sui juris discussion to PM or start another thread? It's entirely off topic in this thread. Thank you.



Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I agree with you, although I think you are painting the "sides" with a broad brush.


I did paint the sides with a broad brush to make the point. I made sure to say that my points were generalizations. That was the only way I knew to get my point across.
Of course not all liberals want to outlaw guns, but it's a common liberal stance.



IMO this is more about the political Extremist, more so than your average liberal or conservative.


True. The extremes of both camps are the ones who are being swept up into the 'game' of politics. The conservatives who hate liberals and think that Liberals are the problem with this country and vice versa. They are the ones keeping the 'fight' alive. The powers LOVE those guys! Those of us who are willing to see the other side or who have opinions from both sides of the divide are the enemies of the power elite.



I'm gonna get a lot of "shallacking" for this one, but Obama IMO is a moderate. Which is why he's had SO much trouble getting anything done or getting along with anybody, his party or the other.


I'm not going to shellac you for that. I agree. Sometimes it's very frustrating to me that this is true.



Originally posted by gnosticquasar
Sad part is that they're encroaching from both sides depending upon whose in power at that particular moment, so they're stealing them twice as fast.


I am so disappointed at how Obama is treating the Constitution. I thought it would have meant a lot more to a Constitutional lawyer. I thought we'd have a respite from the Constitution-trampling, but alas... it's still just a gd piece of paper to the powers. Huge disappointment to me.
edit on 11/29/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
So if we were to inject the often alluded to hidden/secret behind the scenes power structures, it does allow for a little more insight as to how it all works, (as an illusion) in the end then doesnt it?
They play a little of the left game, (problem reaction solution)
then a little of the right game (problem reaction solution)
and all the while, in the end, when all is said and done, no one is missed, no one is spared,
To every extreme end, and all of the middle, equally reduced, equally minimized, equally controlled,
and unless youre somewhere on the power broker end of the stick, youre affected, negatively.
Pretty amazing that during the beatings downward we continue to attack eachother and havent turned in unison yet and destroyed our mutual oppressor/attacker.
Sometimes the obvious is genius, and seemingly unattainable.
S&F



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Beautiful thread....


The issue is that if you believe in freedom, then you believe in it for all, not just yourself... Otherwise, you don't believe in it ;-)


There are two cycles in political activism, just as in the path of the individual....


When rights are oppressed, activism is motivated by expanding the rights of peoples... Ala the civil rights movement, revolutionary war, Spartacus slave revolt, etc...

But then, when the expansion of rights reaches a decent velocity, fear starts to come in, and activism tends toward limiting rights.... Ala the 70's social conservative movements...

As blind as either movement might be, both of the ones described above are very natural and lead to subsequent integration of ideas from both sides, while self correcting when extremes are reached...

HOWEVER, when you end up with divisions of citizen types, one types expansion of rights can very well be another types oppression of rights.

Take for instance, the corporation and the individual. As individual rights expand, all peoples rights expand accordingly, however, if only the rights of the corporation expand, the individual rights are not necessarily expanded, and in fact the individual rights may very well be mitigated by the expansion of corporate rights.

Likewise, if the rights of individuals cause for regulation of corporations, then this can also be seen as limiting the rights of the corporate type, in order to protect the rights of the individual. And in this sense, protecting the rights of the individual, means that requiring accountability for actions taken by the corporate type.

This does create the illusion of a double standard, and the corporate type of citizen reminds us of this quite a bit through their mouth pieces.

If every individual was itself a corporation, then and only then would you have the beginnings of a level playing field as it relates to inalienable rights. Its because of this that i believe each individual should attain corporate status as they gain their emancipation from their parents.

Thanks for the thread BH!





new topics
top topics
 
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join