Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

reply to post by Xcathdra


So your way to respond to questions is by avoiding them.You could send me a PM and let me know so i wouldn't waste my time.

I'm out.

So after 20 some odd pages of banter, back and forth, accusations and claims; where are we at in this discussion?

This type of thread is a fantastic breeding ground of ideas, thoughts, debates and discussions but only we we make it so and foster its growth. I understand the fickle means of a large sum of posters, but as a friend stated earlier in this thread...let us be rebels!

What better place to bring about a slight change in the discussion than in a thread that, for all intensive purposes, was not what it is now.

A few here have taken the time to explain what, where and how we have come to this point in time in terms of "what are Rights"; do they have to be listed for them to be held a Right?; and have any rights been denied or infringed upon?

Maybe through discussion and debate we can get the OP to open up on his philosophical understanding about Rights to better understand his position? I know through a bit of back and forth between me and him. Through that discussion though, I have seen two varying aspects of the OPs opinion and would like some clarity so that the discussion moves forward and advances ideas.

To those that have made claims as to loss of Rights, the OP has made some attempts, but I believe have fallen short, to draw out your reasoning and backing on how and when those Rights were lost. Though the OP has made some strides in presenting his intentions to help bring out critical thought and analysis in regards to the topic.

In that aspect I agree with the OP. Don't just spout out that you lost a Right without knowing how or when, at what level of Government did it occur? Are there remedies or ways to redress the offense?

Of course, I know this attempt is quite moot and futile; I think American Idol or some other great television show is on that requires no thought to actually occur.

To throw in my answer to the question, I honestly don't know if I have lost any rights or not. But from what I've seen, there is punishments for exercising some rights. Does that not cause the a lost of a right in itself from fear of punishment? Though, I suppose it also depends on the definition of what is and is not a right.

A few questions for you Xcathdra. What do you consider to be a right? Do you feel you have lost any rights yourself?

And the gold winning question open to everyone... What would it take to get the people to want to learn enough about the government to make beneficial changes. As a follow up, what would they, the people, need to learn?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have seen this comment used quite a bit by people lately and I am curious.

Exactly what rights have American citizens lost?
When did they lose those rights?

Im not looking for a fight or anything, but am curious as to what people are seeing in regards to this topic.

edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: spelling

I can make this very easy for you............as private citizens we retain many of the rights we've had during most of the history of this country..........the right to live where you want........do the job you want (if there are any).........marry who you want.......etc.

However, the rights we have lost are our public rights..................the Patriot act suspends habus corpus.......or the loss of the due process of law...............we have no representation of our public rights in congress as they are beholden to corporate and banking funding and lobbing.........

Perfect example............90 percent of the American people want GMO foods to be labeled as such in the grocery stores.............yet the FDA has refused to allow such labeling.........because they are run part by the same individuals that have run Monstano whose allegance is to the influence and money from them.

The FDA and all other governent instutiions have been bought and sold in such a manner that we have lost our publc rights and the forum to exercise them..................

Those are the rights we have lost...........

this thread is bs. rights we have lost? what like cops going through a smart phone durring a traffic stop? the government wire tapping american citizens with out a warrant? killing an american citizen with out a trial?right to drink water without flouride in it?smokers paying sales tax on a pack of cigs with a federal and state tax built in the price(double taxation)? there are more though you seem to question peoples claims, eg where does it say x is your right but the point of the constitution(the whole concept of america) is we believe we are all born with our rights they are not given to us/allowed, they are ours. so yah its a right to grow a plant and eat it if thats what makes you happy. i say if you and the plant are over the age of consent you can roll around naked with a plant in the privacy of your home.

point cigs/booze are legal/taxed the government has been caught all but shipping illegal drugs into the country so when people get angry that they are losing their rights what they are also angry about is the government breaking our own laws. the combination of corruption and greed/evil that infests our current government, the lack of confidence in an electoral/scam/hanging chad voting system, the illuminati/military industrial complex/etc, the fact that corporate/foriegn lobby money all but own our govt have all combined to cause people to reach the last straw point where they will appear like grumpy children unable to express themselves over what seems like a trivial disruption... we have to keep protesters in protest pens away from everything in order to protect us from terrorists durring the presidential primaries you know we give a lil for saftey you still have the right to protest why are you so angry?

the anger generaly goes much deeper and as we age the govt lies too often i guess its best to sum up with if you have to ask you wouldnt under stand.

reply to post by DrumJunkie


Yes, you can

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I have been pointing out that people should be more knowledgable about how their government works and the documents that go along with it if they want to make real changes. If they can tell where life liberty and the pursuit of happiness term is, which by the way its in the Declaration of Independance and not the Constitution, then how can they make the changes needed to fix things?

reply to post by mal1970


Yup - go back and read before dismissing.

thanks

reply to post by Alien Abduct


I have read it - and you should go back and read it and understand it, specifically the part that states "alien". That is key.

Secondly, feel free to research the Us Supreme Court case law on the Patriot Act, and whats since been stripped from it, as well as the parts that were sunset.

Originally posted by Oceanborn
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So your way to respond to questions is by avoiding them.You could send me a PM and let me know so i wouldn't waste my time.

I'm out.

You really need to learn how to read. I have answered your "demand for an answer" thread twice now. All you need to do is, well, read it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I have been pointing out that people should be more knowledgable about how their government works and the documents that go along with it if they want to make real changes. If they can tell where life liberty and the pursuit of happiness term is, which by the way its in the Declaration of Independance and not the Constitution, then how can they make the changes needed to fix things?

This is a non statement. It is nothing but empty rhetoric, and by the way "to secure the Blessings of Liberty" is in the Constitution, if you want to get technical about it.

It doesn't matter if the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is in the Constitution. If you are being genuine in your argument that people should be better educated regarding their rights, then why are you obfuscating about Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness not being in the Constitution? What point are you trying to make with that?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


The point behind my op and asking that question was to highlight that a lot of people who are claiming the government is taking their rights away, in fact dont understand what their rights are, how they apply, let alone how the government works and their place in that government.

My point was to highlight that if people want change, which we badly need, that they must be familiar with the foundation of our government. If we dont know our rights, how they work or how the government operates, how can we make the changes?

It is to open peoples eyes that saying and doing are 2 different things. The less we take part in government, the less we know about government, and the less we know about our rights, the longer we are going to be in this downward cycle we are in now.

when a senior senator from New York talks about the 3 branches of government, and identifies those branches as the Executive, The House and the Senate, and this person has been in his position for many decades now, there is a problem. Its not to much that he didnt know how his own government is set up, but the fact he is continually re-elected to his position.

reply to post by futuretense


You guys keep stating the patriot act yet its apparent you not only have not read it, but are now just quoting others. The PA does not suspend habeous corpus - check section 412 and rea the part that states "alien" and compare that term with "citizen". In addition look up the Supreme Court rulings, namely Hamdi and Hamden V. Rumsfeld and you will see the Supreme Court ruling on another federal law dealing with the rights of foreign nationals that predates 9/11 and what they are entitled to while within the military justice system.

Since then parts of the PA have been stripped by the courts, removed by congress or allowed to sunset.

It doesnt change the fact and point of this thread that if we dont know how are rights work, what they are, where they are found and how all levels of the government work, then nothing will change. We cant expect to fix things when people confuse the Delcaration of Independance with the Constitution.

So, no this thread is not BS in any sense of the imagination. It is to highlight that if people want change, they better understand how to get it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Right, and coming from a person like you, who knows where to find what in those documents, it is a non statement. When others have no idea, its pointing out a problem and is very much more than just a "non statement".

Feel free to puruse the thread and see what people have come up with. As I have stated time and again, if we dont know how our government works, and where to find basic material that we use on a daily basis, nothing is going to get fixed.

The point is, and has been stated a few times now, that this thread is not about people listing rights. Its about how well these people know the government, how it works, how they fit into it, how their rights work and apply and where to locate them, how to read them.

any person can pop the hood of a car, and any person can look at an engine schematic, but until they get familiar with the schematic, any tinkering done could lead to a more sever problem.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The point I am trying to make is that I do not see you making the point that it is not necessary for rights to be listed in any constitution in order for them to be rights. This point you either ignore, avoid, or remain silent on.

If you are going to castigate people for their ignorance without making any effort to educate, and explain yourself, then you're just a critic. Hell, even critics do their fair share of educating.

You have several times made the point that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not in the Constitution. You do not explain why this is significant to you, other than people don't know it is not in the Constitution, but in a thread about rights and knowing ones rights, your continual hammering away of this point without any clarification on the matter makes it appear as if you are implying that since it is not in the Constitution it is not a right.

If you have clarified this point in this thread, then I have missed it.

we can't even drink draw milk and you have to ask what freedom we have lost?

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 posts).

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 whole.

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?

Originally posted by The_Zomar
we can't even drink draw milk and you have to ask what freedom we have lost?

edit on 18-10-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)

Yup - Do me a favor and show me where it states you have an absolute right to drink raw milk.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by The_Zomar
we can't even drink draw milk and you have to ask what freedom we have lost?

edit on 18-10-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)

Yup - Do me a favor and show me where it states you have an absolute right to drink raw milk.

Show me where it expressly prohibits the People from drinking raw milk? Your assertion of positive Rights/Law is incorrect.

Now some States via legislation and code have regulated the selling of raw milk, but I doubt there is a State that outright bans the drinking of raw milk; that would be in your defense Xcathdra.

---- On a side note to The_Zomar ----
I actually read the motions in regard to the case that I am sure you are referring to. It seems in ATS fashion, everyone jumped on the knee-jerk ban wagon and did not bother to actually research the case, the actions and what was actually being litigated.

The State wasn't banning anyone from drinking raw milk. The issue at hand was the selling of raw milk and the application of a State Code that regulated the selling of said milk. I urge you to actually research the issue and see what the uproar is about. (This is of course absent what the judge in that case started spouting; which is much scarier and deserves scrutiny)

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You and JPZ are reading way to far into this. You, He and I are on the same page and have the same positions. I am pointing out, again, that people dont have an adequate grasp of the constitution, their rights etc.

Anyone cant state they are being deprived the right to drink raw milk, or stating the Patriot Act violates rights. Asking that person to identify in the Constitution that extends that protection (being able to) is whats being called into question.

Its the same when someone states their 4th amendment right was violated, yet fails to understand the exceptions to the 4th, when they work and when they are prohibited. Everyone knows about Miranda Rights, yet they dont know how they work and when its required.

People must have more than a passing familiarity if we are to get out of this mess. If the government passes a law saying you cant own a gun, then the people should know that not only does the 2nd amendment prohibit that type of law, they will know how to get a redress of grievance. The ability to know that a lot of this stuff comes in at the State level first before going federal etc etc etc..

The State wasn't banning anyone from drinking raw milk. The issue at hand was the selling of raw milk and the application of a State Code that regulated the selling of said milk. I urge you to actually research the issue and see what the uproar is about. (This is of course absent what the judge in that case started spouting; which is much scarier and deserves scrutiny)

This would be what I am talking about. Lack of research after the fact.