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.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
I anxiously await your examples of this.
You haven't read the OP??
I have read the original post as well as the patriot act and I can say with conviction that you have not lost a single right afforded you by the Constitution. Unless you happen to be a terrorist.
Its general finding – that all states must comply with the second amendment to the constitution – is likely to have a sweeping impact on local gun laws, particularly in inner-city areas.
Judges back law that penalizes firms hiring illegal immigrants despite civil rights challenge and condemnation by Obama. The US supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a ruling arising from the fierce national debate on immigration policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that the protests by the WBC as ugly as they may seem, are protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause...
Free Speech Upheld
...Democracy only works well when it works fully. If free speech is restricted for some groups it will inevitably be restricted for others over time. The funeral protesters are cruel, insensitive, misguided and in the estimation of most Christians wrong for what they do, but their right to free speech no matter how objectionable is constitutionally protected.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
I have read the original post as well as the patriot act and I can say with conviction that you have not lost a single right afforded you by the Constitution. Unless you happen to be a terrorist.
Great, so give us the Government's definition of a "Terrorist"..
I'm often guilty of derailing threads with logic I know.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
No mate, I asked you for the Government's definition of a "Terrorist", not a Terrorist act..
Originally posted by kro32
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
No mate, I asked you for the Government's definition of a "Terrorist", not a Terrorist act..
Well using logic I would assume that anyone creating a terroist act would be labled a terrorist wouldn't you think?
Of course I could be wrong
Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by kro32
Not sure where to begin here. lol
Can't knock down your door without a warrant? What about the recent events in Indiana concerning police entering without a warrant?
Fortunately, the people are fighting it.
And your point about 'nobody is hassled unless you're a terrorist.'
First of all, as I said in the OP, the definition of terrorist gets looser and looser. New groups are being labeled as terrorist organizations ALL the time who have nothing to do with terrorism.
And you don't have to be a terrorist to be violated at the airport.
I do COMPLETELY see your point about how the government can't win: If they stop the attacks, we cry about rights violations. If they don't, we ask why the government doesn't do something.
That is a point I have pondered for a while and still never came to a good solution in my mind. But I do believe, as the OP mentions, we cannot trade liberty with security because there really is no way to guarantee safety in this life.
I have read the original post as well as the patriot act and I can say with conviction that you have not lost a single right afforded you by the Constitution. Unless you happen to be a terrorist.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by kro32
I have read the original post as well as the patriot act and I can say with conviction that you have not lost a single right afforded you by the Constitution. Unless you happen to be a terrorist.
There is not a single Constitution within the United States, state or federal, that "affords" anyone rights. This ignorant view of rights and the enumeration in the Constitution, (See the Ninth Amendment), explains the capriciousness of your following remark, which is to qualify your first assertion and admit that, at the very least, "terrorists" are having their rights trampled upon by the United States.
Long before the 9-11 event, local, state, and federal governments within the United States have been denying and disparaging rights of individuals. Indeed, given this nation was steeped in slavery in its beginning, this nation has a long history of denying and disparaging individual rights. Either people can see what is self evident, or they will insist on turning a blind eye to it. Turning a blind eye to the self evident, doesn't make it any less self evident.
I understand that the Constitution is violated all the time as it was in Indiana. The courts will also decide that too if they evidence shows that. Since the country was founded there have always been cases in court with regards to people violating the Constitution so that has nothing to do with today or the patriot act as it's always happened.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
I understand that the Constitution is violated all the time as it was in Indiana. The courts will also decide that too if they evidence shows that. Since the country was founded there have always been cases in court with regards to people violating the Constitution so that has nothing to do with today or the patriot act as it's always happened.
The Government appointed Judges??
Isn't that like leaving the Fox to guard the Hen House ??
I understand your point fully but there are many examples of the judicial system holding up the Constitution when it has been violated and i'm sure you know this.