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

Originally posted by backinblack
Man, myself and many others sure do get a laugh out of your posts..

Thats fine because many more laugh at you and your posts.

Originally posted by backinblack
Amazing though how you still managed to draw Hamas into the thread, then again it ain't really..

Sure - they are good examples for lots of topics when it comes what not to do, how to get killed, how to kill civilians, how to opress people and how to restrict a groups rights. Like you, Hamas is good for any joke, and anytime they open their mouths people takenotice and file it under the category of what not to do.

Originally posted by backinblack
As for answering you, I did..

Nope

Originally posted by backinblack
Learn to read and comprehend as you keep telling me and many others..

Sage and sound advice you should practice. At least you identified the problem, so now you only have 11 more steps to go now.

Originally posted by backinblack
I said I'd have to research the US "freedom of speech" to see if it was still a right..
Did you miss that post??

No, I answered your statement with the fact it is a US right, codified in the 1st amendment. Since you have never been here and have no concept of how the US works, I figure I would help your research out by giving you the right answer. That way, on the rare off chance you ever got around to answering the question from research (like so many other time you claim to research and just go away because your lost in the discussion), you and others can see your wrong answer.

Originally posted by backinblack
As for staying on topic, that's pretty hard when the thread author keeps changing it..

The thread doesnt change. Your comprehension skills are just that bad. As I stated, if you read and understood what you are reading, and then responded with relevant info, it might be different. Until you figure that out though, you will remain the source of humor for the rest of us.

On the off chance you want to know why the Mid east has all the issues it does, take a look in the mirror and your logic cycle.

Originally posted by backinblack
Lastly, what's "trool"?

Ignorance for the win once again - It always makes me laugh when a person laughs at something they dont understand.

A trool - Source

trool: a person who enters a blog comments conversation with the intent to hijack it or divert it from it's subject and tone but does so in such a clumsy, clueless manner as to provoke laughter and derision rather than humorless animosity. etymology: the word, trool, was "invented" a few months ago as a result of careless typing. it proved to be an immediate hit amongst commenters at firedoglake from which it seems to have spread virally.

Originally posted by backinblack
Lastly again, I'm over this crap, ciao till we meet again..

Yup.. See you in the next thread.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm telling you, reign it in or it will get worse.
You are a police officer so you probably can't see it from most people's point of view, but you honestly can't deny that are rights are being taken away.

You got stuck on the patriot act and infiltration stuff, but what about the other things I posted on?
The government is using police and "law" to control every aspect of our life.

So what if a farmer wants to sell unpasteurized milk or goat cheese? And so what if someone wants to buy it and eat it. Lots of people do, the person selling it (mostly amish) are doing it for money so they aren't selling bad stuff. The government is over stepping their bounds to "protect" us, but that is exactly the same as the infiltration argument they are stripping away our right to choose what we eat and taking something away that makes people happy to "protect" them. Next will be roadside fruit and vegetable stands, because they don't know what bug spray was used or if it was exposed to contaminated soil/water.

We do have rights that are being stripped away. It is impossible to deny.
We lose are right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure.
They impede on our right to fly (yes, we DO have a right to fly, at least according to law).
It goes on and on.
The other day I read about cops going to a school and locking it down (telling the kids the school had an intruder in it) so they could sniff out all the lockers and backpacks with dogs. They didn't find anything so the cops are taking heat, but had they found anything it would have been a success.

reply to post by Xcathdra


And we end another debate with your usual large post of twisted,insulting BS..

At least you're consistent..

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dav1d

 

All of which are rights we have. The point behind my post was to point out a lack of knowledge people have when it comes to their rights, how those rights work / are applied, the various levels of government and how they work etc.

Kind of roundabout way of exposing imo a major problem. People are upset with goveernment over many things, and constantly state they want change. Change of that magnitude wont come from the government, but the people. If the people dont know the baisc on our government and rights, then how can one even pinpoint the problem, let alone offer suggestions to fix things, if they arent familiar with the blueprints?

Trying to fix something of this magnitude without being familiar with it can cause more damage, and continued refusal to participate in the system at all levels dosnt help either.

Good I'm glad you acknowledge that we have a 'right' to;
Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
As Obama has taken these rights away from us! I believe the right to a public trial, and the right to be heard in ones own defense, as well as being present at that trial are rather significant!

Welcome to our new America...

It is probably too late to give any sort of decent comment, but I feel compelled.

How do I define a right? A right is something you can do without asking permission or worry of being arrested. Anything that requires a permit (permission) is not a right. Everything not banned by law or required to get a permit or a right.

So what rights have I lost?

Pretty much ALL of them. I can't fish, go anywhere in a car, build a house, start a fire, own a gun, carry a gun, grow plants of my choosing, ride my motorcycle, wander the woods, hunt, dig arrowheads, collect ginseng and moss, camp, go four wheeling, have a yard sale, shoot my gun on my property, and many, many more.

These are RIGHTS I have lost because they ALL require a permit or license or are illegal. I have to ask permission and pay a fee in order to do any of them except start a fire. No fee for that permit. Asking permission means you can be told no. If you can be told no there is no right to do a thing. I do most of those things without asking and I know I can go to prison for doing them. But yet I still feel I have my rights and no man can force me to ask if it is ok. There is principal involved here and if you're not willing to go to jail for principals, then you have none.

Telling me I can still do a thing if only I jump through government hoops is not saying I have a right to do it. It's saying I have a right to ask if it is ok for me to do it. It is NOT anywhere near the same thing.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I'm telling you, reign it in or it will get worse.
You are a police officer so you probably can't see it from most people's point of view, but you honestly can't deny that are rights are being taken away.

Which has been my argument since day 1. When I encourage people to get invovled with government, to vote, to contact their reps etc its not because I am trying to help their social skills.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
You got stuck on the patriot act and infiltration stuff, but what about the other things I posted on?
The government is using police and "law" to control every aspect of our life.

I went through the patriot act because its been brought up time and again, and portrayed as is, wihtout anyone bothering to point out the changes made since its inception, the parts that expired and werent renewed and Supreme court decisions that refined it.

Police and law to control every aspect - Give me a few specific examples and I will let you know my thought on it. Not trying to ignore this or push it off, but I am not sure what part you are referring to.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
So what if a farmer wants to sell unpasteurized milk or goat cheese? And so what if someone wants to buy it and eat it. Lots of people do, the person selling it (mostly amish) are doing it for money so they aren't selling bad stuff. The government is over stepping their bounds to "protect" us, but that is exactly the same as the infiltration argument they are stripping away our right to choose what we eat and taking something away that makes people happy to "protect" them. Next will be roadside fruit and vegetable stands, because they don't know what bug spray was used or if it was exposed to contaminated soil/water.

Ive seen this argument come up as well, and people seem to miss the point that is state law being enforced. If you want to be able to buy raw milk, organize and get the law changed. I say if people are dumb enough to smoke legal / illegal drugs / take narcotics, then they can be dumb enough to drink raw milk. I understand why the law is in place, and I understand the argument against it.

The law is not infringing on anyones rights, contrary to people stating otherwise. However, if its something you and others feel strongly enough about, organize and have it changed.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
We do have rights that are being stripped away. It is impossible to deny.

True, but at the same time leaving it as a broad statement is not accurate either.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
We lose are right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure.

Depending on what you are considering an illegal search and seizure. Just because you dont agree with the how the law / right works, doesnt mean its taken away.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
They impede on our right to fly (yes, we DO have a right to fly, at least according to law).

Actually you do not. Freedom of travel, both inside and across state lines, is a constitutionaly protected right. The manner of that travel is not, contrary to the sovereign citizen arguments.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
It goes on and on.

Again broad and generic doesnt isolate the problems, or allow people to see what you are thinking in order to fix it. The government can try to guess what you are thinking or saying, but we know that wont work to well. This all goes back to what ive been saying about knowing and understanding in order to be prepped to make the argument.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
The other day I read about cops going to a school and locking it down (telling the kids the school had an intruder in it) so they could sniff out all the lockers and backpacks with dogs. They didn't find anything so the cops are taking heat, but had they found anything it would have been a success.

Because Supreme Court rulings have set a different standard when it comes to school and what occurs during school hours. The term you are looking for is called In Loco Parentis (Latin - in place of parents). A drug / bomb sniffing dog, whether its sniffing lockers, or walking around the outside of a car, is NOT a search, and the Supreme court has ruled as much many times over now as well.

again, if its something you dont agree with, your point is valid to the extent of what you do to make a change. Its one thing to disagree with the courts on how they interpret a law (like I dont agree with the Supreme court on their rulings for campaign donations limits being lifted, ruling in favor of unlimited donations to candidates by businesses and their view on emminent domain). We do something about it by petitioning our reps to have the legislation changed to correct the mistakes.

Its all about knowledge and participation.

Originally posted by Dav1d
Good I'm glad you acknowledge that we have a 'right' to;
Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
As Obama has taken these rights away from us! I believe the right to a public trial, and the right to be heard in ones own defense, as well as being present at that trial are rather significant!

Welcome to our new America...

With accusations from people who have no clue what their talking about tends to cloud these threads. I am in favor of restricting government authority and protecting the rights of the people. What I am trying to point out is if people arent familiar with the laws, their rights, how government works, then how can they expect to preotect their rights?

Any person can rattle off a list of their rights. If they dont understand those rights and how they work, let alone where to find them in certain documents, how can one make an intelligent and compelling argument to make their case for change?

People need to ask themselves - If these rights are important to me, and the government is trying to take them away, then shouldnt I know as much as possible about them and the government to beat them?

Originally posted by Ookie
It is probably too late to give any sort of decent comment, but I feel compelled.

its never to late... We embrace the fact you showed up to the party a little late, rather than not coming at all

Originally posted by Ookie
How do I define a right? A right is something you can do without asking permission or worry of being arrested. Anything that requires a permit (permission) is not a right. Everything not banned by law or required to get a permit or a right.

okedoke

Originally posted by Ookie
So what rights have I lost?

Pretty much ALL of them. I can't fish, go anywhere in a car, build a house, start a fire, own a gun, carry a gun, grow plants of my choosing, ride my motorcycle, wander the woods, hunt, dig arrowheads, collect ginseng and moss, camp, go four wheeling, have a yard sale, shoot my gun on my property, and many, many more.

A lot of what you listed is a right so to speak. They are items that are not listed in the Consitution as perview of the Federal Government. Because of that, they are reserved for the States. A lot of what you listed are results of state law, not federal law. Personally speaking I think a lot of what you listed are rights we still have, however I think people view it along the lines of if I cant do what I want with this, then they are taking the right from me.

Kind of goes back to what I was saying about knowing and understanding your rights, how they work and apply as well as understandin the different levels of government and understanding how they work and a citizens place in them,.

Originally posted by Ookie
These are RIGHTS I have lost because they ALL require a permit or license or are illegal. I have to ask permission and pay a fee in order to do any of them except start a fire. No fee for that permit. Asking permission means you can be told no. If you can be told no there is no right to do a thing. I do most of those things without asking and I know I can go to prison for doing them. But yet I still feel I have my rights and no man can force me to ask if it is ok. There is principal involved here and if you're not willing to go to jail for principals, then you have none.

We are going to disagree on this point because what people view as a right doesnt take into account interpretation. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others. If you want to shoot your gun on your property, and you live in a heavily urbanized area, people near you must be taken into account. Your right to own and bear arms does not trump their right to be safe on their property from ricochet or noise etc etc.

Taking an all or noting approach is dangerous in the sense its being done with only your thoughts, your opinions of right and wrong, into account while ignoring those of everyone else.

When people argue that a laws interpretation is wrong, and opt to ignore the interpretation, it creates the intresting dilema of a person demanding the constitution and laws be followed, while at the very same time ignoring thr part of those documents that makes the Supreme Court the final say on some of those topics.

If people dont understand that, then they lose the ability to make the argument, since their postiion is now that of what they are accusing the government of - ignoring the law.

My intent behind asking the questions I did was not to discuss the loss of rights. It was to highlight that people MUST have more than just a passing familiarity of their rights. They must know what those rights are, how they wotk and apply, and where they can be found. They need to know how theirgovernment works, the different branches, as ell as understand how they state and local governments work. they must understand how they fit into those processes and participate.

If people take their rights seriously, as we see in this thread. Then dont you think they should know as much as possible about them in order to protect them from government intrusion?

Telling me I can still do a thing if only I jump through government hoops is not saying I have a right to do it. It's saying I have a right to ask if it is ok for me to do it. It is NOT anywhere near the same thing.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

And we end another debate with your usual large post of twisted,insulting BS..

At least you're consistent..

Sorry.. next time ill use smaller words so you can understand it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Dav1d
Good I'm glad you acknowledge that we have a 'right' to;
Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
As Obama has taken these rights away from us! I believe the right to a public trial, and the right to be heard in ones own defense, as well as being present at that trial are rather significant!

Welcome to our new America...

With accusations from people who have no clue what their talking about tends to cloud these threads. I am in favor of restricting government authority and protecting the rights of the people. What I am trying to point out is if people arent familiar with the laws, their rights, how government works, then how can they expect to preotect their rights?

Any person can rattle off a list of their rights. If they dont understand those rights and how they work, let alone where to find them in certain documents, how can one make an intelligent and compelling argument to make their case for change?

People need to ask themselves - If these rights are important to me, and the government is trying to take them away, then shouldnt I know as much as possible about them and the government to beat them?

So I understand you are a member of law enforcement, is that correct? If so what are you doing to go after a president that has assumed the right to assassinate US citizens? Citizens who have never been publicly tried and convicted, who have not had an opportunity to be at their trial, who have not been given a chance to put on a defense.

To big a bird to go after? Then how about your congressman who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution? That congress has fail to attempt to impeach is a failure to uphold their oath.

Originally posted by Dav1d
So I understand you are a member of law enforcement, is that correct?

It is. I am a municipal officer.

Originally posted by Dav1d
If so what are you doing to go after a president that has assumed the right to assassinate US citizens?

Well for starters I vote and send letters / call my reps to let them know my opinion on that. If you are looking for more then I respectfully think you should understand the term jurisdiction, doctrine of sovereign immunity, to name a few.

Originally posted by Dav1d
Citizens who have never been publicly tried and convicted, who have not had an opportunity to be at their trial, who have not been given a chance to put on a defense.

I respectfully refer you to immigration laws that deal with citizenship, specifically what a citizen must do in order to renounce that citizenship. The Supreme Court has ruled citizenship of an American born naturally in the USs cannot be stripped by the government. A person must either in person in front of specific officals renounce his citizenship, or engage in activities that run counter to the the United States, which he did. Other activities that indicate self revocation of citizenship status - engaging in hostile acts against the US, taking up a position in a foriegn government / entity with goals that run counter to those of the United States, materially giveing support to groups who stated and public purpose is the death / destruction of US citizens / infrra structure.

From a more simplistic point of view, as a citizen or as a police officer, the law does not require a person who is pointing a gun at us to discharge that weapon before we can take action to mitigate / end the threat. When we do that, there is no lapse in due process or right to trial.

A persons rights end when they infringe on the rights of someone else. As an American anyone has the choice to head to the MIddle East to join the JIhad. That doesnt mean they have a right to kill people while making the argument they are US citizens and cant be targeted by US forces.

If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn you better know the rules. The rights of a US citizen are intact while outside the political boundary of the US. However, those rights are curtailed by their location and manner of crime. He had a right as a US citizen to challenge his status in court and opted not to. He made his own bed.

Originally posted by Dav1d
To big a bird to go after? Then how about your congressman who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution? That congress has fail to attempt to impeach is a failure to uphold their oath.

If you are going to lecture on Con law, please understand how it works before doing so. The failure of the PResident to take action against an enemy who is bent on attacking and killing citizens not engaged in the fight would also be an impeachable offense using your logic. Mr. Alawakis actions as well as public statements have met the immigration criteria for a person giving up their own right to be a US citizen. I urge you and others to read those laws before jumping on the band wagon of assasination of an American citizen.

What I saw, again based on those vary same laws, is an American who chose to fight against the United States during a time of armed conflict, authorized by the US Congress and pursued by the Commander in Chief via the military.

He knew what he was getting into, and in the end he knew his death would not only amke him a matyr, but because the US killed one of its own citizens, could be used as propoganda to further his goals. Sadly, people here are falling for it hook line and sinker.

Please show me the law that states a US citizen who is engaged in hostilities against the United States, is not fair game?

The one law I know of is treason, provided he is captured. As a US citizen, and thanks to Jose Padilla, he would be in the civilian system and not the military system. Whether he is in Yemen, or downtown washington DC, any action he takes that places a person or public in imminent danger can result in the use of deadly force to end the threat, regardless if he pulls the trigger first.

Feel free to contact your reps and complain if you dont care for Obamas action on this one. Thats certainly your choice to do so. Just keep in mind if Mr. Alawaki had his way, you would be tried under Sharia law for refusing to convert to Islam.

I respect the fact your concerned about his rights.. I just wish he was as concerned about yours.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Since you think I am lost; which is funny how you even attempt that argument given the title of the thread, being: "Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US" and then your opening OP, in which people are going to respond to.

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

I understand your "intent" and where the argument and discussion is at now. But in order to even proceed with that discussion, we have to know where all parties are coming from in terms of Rights and how they see they have lost them.

So given that, I am not lost when I have shown where Rights discussed in the Constitution. How Rights not enumerated within the Bill of Rights are not to be construed as not even being a Right (Ninth Amendment). I have agreed with you that many point to the Constitution in regards to their rights, while failing to see that those particular Rights have been infringed upon or limited via the various states (Tenth Amendment).

I never called you names. I have made glancing assumptions and have pointed out how you have been operating in this thread. All I have asked you, and your answer early on to me is completely contradictory to what you are saying. That is calling someone out.

From page one, you stated an answer to the following question:
"I can't freely trade my time."

You answered "Shoe[sic] me where this is an individual right"

When I pressed you on how do you see what a Right is, you answered with the following:

"Absolutely not. I think when we get into the habbit of listing our rights, we place ourselvs into a much greater position of being oppressed, because eventually government will argue that since its not listed, its not a right and its something we can legislate on."

You continue on by saying the following:

"I would prefer, based on what we have now, that the part of the Constitution that states anything not specifically granted to the Federal Government, is granted to the states be inclusive of rights not listed. Going one step farther I would make the argument that since the people are the federal and state government, that it holds even more weight that rights not listed ar reserved for the people. We should never have to have a court case determine a right."

Those two answers, the one from page one -- to the one just above in response to me. You challenged a poster on how it was an individual right. While they didn't respond to you, I stepped in and stated that individual rights are protected via the Ninth Amendment (in which you have constantly ignored as if it never existed!)

You asked me this once, way back "Should we not point that out and try to fix it before we burn down the government because someone cant buy raw milk?"

In which I have spent my time in discussion with you explaining that the positions you are coming from are patently wrong and you have been distorting (or towing) the Government line -- that Rights not listed cannot be Rights infringed upon.

Time and time again you have taken this stance in which once confronted, you proclaim some great stance of trying to point out the lack of education or trying to teach people more. I called your bull# is all.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I understand your "intent" and where the argument and discussion is at now. But in order to even proceed with that discussion, we have to know where all parties are coming from in terms of Rights and how they see they have lost them.

wow.. you are lost, but thats fine man.

If a person states they think the pursuitoflife liberty and pursuit of happiness is a right - thats fine
If a person states that freedom of speech is a right, regardless of location - thats fine
If a person states gun ownership and possession is a right regardless of private property / purchase legislation - thats fine.

None of it matters though if they cant articulate the argument as to why is a right, nor does it carry weight if they cant specifcy what documents its derived from.

Your intelligent.... If you wanted to challenge a law, or government action towards you, it would require you either getting a lawyer to represent you, or you to represent yourself.

You are not going to walk into court with a half assed speech on why you think its valid. The judge would rule in the prosecutions favor, since they take the law into account.

You would prep and do your homework, so when you are asked that question, not only can you give your speech in the above, you can cite the laws, case laws, as well as history, interpretations etc to support your argument. You would be able to argue that a state law you are charged under is in violation of federal law or case law.

If people are to challenge the government and the perceived over reaching / taking away of rights, then they must know more than just be able to state the 2nd amendment allows them to own a weapon.


If a person states its their right to drink unpasurized milk - thats fine.

In order to do that though, they must make a convincing argument as to why the government is over stepping its authority as well as the FDA's position and policy of ensuring a safe food supply for the citizens of this country. They could use the same argument that has been used for tobbacco and modify the argument to suit their needs, while drawing paralells in that case law history to support their argument.

Say argue that cigarettes, while known to be harful with side effects, is labeled with a warning, allowing the person buying to decide if they want to risk it. Since cigarettes, based on medical research is more harmful an causes more fatalities than drinking unpasuerized milk, the ban against unpasteurized milk is not in place for public safety, but is being used to protect certain businesses, which is a violation of anti trust laws.

thats my point.....

Anytime a person thinks a right is violated, understand the right, know how it works, be knowldgable about how the government and court system works. Its not hard, since we have access to the governments play books and any and all court actions that are resolved.

Complacency and apathy is our problem because people see what the government is doing, and jsut complain about it, hoping someone else will fix the problem.

the problem with that mindset is you have many many many supporters who feel the same way, looking at you, saying they will step up and fix it so I dont need to worry about it.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I understand your "intent" and where the argument and discussion is at now. But in order to even proceed with that discussion, we have to know where all parties are coming from in terms of Rights and how they see they have lost them.

wow.. you are lost, but thats fine man.

Okay...since you just spent your entire thread highlighting exactly what I stated up there. Except you think we need to defend our Rights to the State, the Government or some form of authority.

Whereas my argument is the State, Government should have to defend their position when they infringe upon all Rights held by the People.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yes.. the law is infringing on people rights when the go into amish farms and pour out all of their milk and confiscate their cheese and etc.

That is infringing on their rights. Regardless of whatever law they may think justifies it.

and on freedom of flying:
codes.lp.findlaw.com...

It is undeniable, I know you will go on and on in this thread and I'm kind done with it. I will concede one thing though, the state we are in (nanny and police state) isn't entirely due to our rights being stripped away. People going crazy with political correctness, and things like that are also to blame. Though I think it is mostly the government, federal or state. Makes no difference.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Okay...since you just spent your entire thread highlighting exactly what I stated up there. Except you think we need to defend our Rights to the State, the Government or some form of authority.

Whereas my argument is the State, Government should have to defend their position when they infringe upon all Rights held by the People.

edit on 25-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Which I said a few pages back we are saying the same thing, yet you proceeded on anyways...

The argument you are making in terms of justifing something is how it should work, but in reality its not even close to how it works. If you want to keep something, you must fight for it, whether its on the battle field or in a court room.

To just state the government must defend their postion is valid, except when people dont bother to show up to challenge their postion, which is what I am saying is where we are at.

If you go to court you will find that not only does a side have to defend their position, you will find the other side not being silent. They will interject and clarify and add their own position in ane ffort to bury the other position.

When we dont show up to court, the government gets to defend their position unchalleneged. If we are to keep what we have and take more back, we must be knowledgeable about it dont you think? Making an argument in court for or against something has a major impact, and its not limited to just the person involved since it becomes potential case law / precedents in other courts.

There was a case that occured in Arizona. Long story short law enforcement took action that was legal, and the defense challenged the ruling. During the case the judge agreed with the defense. The state appealed the judges ruling through all the state courts and finally into the federal appeals system. It finally made its way to the Supreme Court, who upheld the lower court rulings.

During the intial trial defense asked the officer, why did you search my clients vehicle. the answer should have been because it was a search incident to arrest and because we had no means of safely securing the prisoner, there was a significant delay in getting back to the search.

what the officer said was - because we can.

The flip answer was successfully used by the defense to reverse decades of case law with reagrds to searching a vehicle incident to arrest.

if you want the finer details its Arizona V. Gant.

My point being if people arent knowledgable, the changes they want might not be the ones they get.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yes.. the law is infringing on people rights when the go into amish farms and pour out all of their milk and confiscate their cheese and etc.

That is infringing on their rights. Regardless of whatever law they may think justifies it.

and on freedom of flying:
codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Which is a nice opinion when you phrase it in the manner you did, however its not a complelling argument the court will entertain.

reply to post by Xcathdra


That isn't the point of your own thread!
The point of this thread is what rights have we had stripped away, not whether the instances of loss of rights will hold up in court because there is now a law that makes it legal.

You asked what rights we have lost, I am telling you. Think of it as things we could do "then" and can't do now.

What you are doing, and missing the point of your own thread while you are at it, is allowing me to produce examples of loss of rights and then you counter it with why it is legal for that to happen. It doesn't matter if there is a law that says we can't buy or sell unpasteurized milk, in regards to this thread, is the fact that people want to do it, once were allowed to do it, and now can't. Call it a right, call it a civil liberty, call it a freedom. It's just one of thousands of rights taken from us. We are becoming less free, you can't prove otherwise because the facts are the facts.

Say they aren't rights, they are just liberties, things we once could do and now can't would that make it any better? Do you think losing those things makes us less free? If they weren't rights, and all of our rights are secure, then I sure as hell wish all these disappearing freedoms had been rights so we would still have them today!

reply to post by popsmayhem


Al Awaki lost his 6th amendment right. American citizen executed with no trial.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Actually it is the point of this thread. Although you would need to read through the first few pages to get that info. Asking the question I did was a way to get a real answer to the question I could not ask. How familiar are people with thier own rights and their place in government etc.