reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Its cool you missed it... I have exaplined it a few times now.
The point of the question was not so much to have people list what they think is a right. It is to demonstrate that people answering the question (not
all) arent familiar with the documents themselves in addition to a lack of knowledge on how the government works. Your getting stuck on the op
question, which is fine since I didnt exepct this to go on to 20 pages, instead of seeing the overall point.
Those people who listed life, liberty and happiness did so as if it is in the Constitution, which it is not. They have listed the patriot act on
several occasions, and as I have pointed out on those posts time and again they are wither ignoring what it says, using old out of date information
and ignoring case law on the subject.
They have defined the issues using solely the Federal Government with no reference to state government (except in some extended discussion on a few
The over all point was to show that while people are upset at loosing their "rights" they cant exaplin what those rights are, how they work or where
they are found in our founding documents.
On a basic, fundamental level, if you are not happy with the way something is working, you look for a way to change it. In order to change it, and to
get it to work right, you have to understand how it works (or suppose to work). If that basic understanding is missing, any effort to fix will either
fail, or make the situation worse than it already is.
We all have given lists and interpretations of words, what they mean and how they apply, but the problem is, those answers arent accurate. Using your
own personal interpretation of the constitution and parts of it while ignoring supreme Court rulings is problematic.
Im not saying the supreme Court is right, but again in order to correct something, we should know the mindset behind the ruling and the intent, which
people dont want to do.
As you can see we have answers all over the board in this thread, from a strict interpretation, to an anarchists point of view. Almost all of those
answers come from a personal interpretation, with the end goal of their answers to justify something that benefiets them, instead of society as a
You and I can go all day, back and forth, on Con Law and what we interpret it as, however at the end of the day its a moot point because the Supreme
Court already has made those interpretations for us.
If we demand our government follow founding documents, shouldnt we expect the populace to know what those documents say?
edit on 19-10-2011 by
Xcathdra because: (no reason given)