reply to post by thesungod
Ive seen the article, as a few people have posted it already.
The article about the guy and the sign, in the first paragraph, it quotes a supervisor as saying it went to far.
My point behind this thread was for people to understand their rights. Anyone can put out a list of their rights, but when you ask people about them
they cant tell you how they work, or where to find them. Some people list rights that come from the declaration of independance and not the
How can people calim the government is taking their rights if the people dont even know what they are and how they work in the first place?
Using your articla for example -
A threat to the President of the US, regardless of how trivial, is taken seriously by law enforcement (along with any threat that advocates the death
of an individual). If a threat is made / impled, and action is not taken and a person dies, the aftermath is gonna be ugly).
Devils advocate -
There is no 4th amendment violation. The stop was valid based on the good faith clause and the officers view that the sign constituted a possible
threat. The sign was seized as evidence, which is allowed under the 4th and valid without a warrant since it was based on a traffic stop.
People like to throw the 4th amendment out there, but they dont understand it at all (imo). First, it applies to the government, not the individual.
What this means is police must meet certain crieria in order to get an arrest warrant or search warrant.
There are exceptions to the 4th -
Search incident to arrest
Plain sight contraband
As far as the 1st amendment goes, not all speech is protected. A person cant walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire. SCOTUS has been more open
about the protection of signs and speech in that manner.
Mind you - devils advocate on my response above this..
The point behind this thread was to show that a person must be more familiar with their rights. Simply listing them is not enough anymore. People must
not only know what they are but also how they work, how they are applied in addition to knowledge and understanding of how our government works, at
all levels. Ive seen people mention the pursuit of life liberty and happiness. That line is not in the constitution - its in the Declaration of
Last year a senior member of Congress was talking to the media, when the rep started talking about the 3 branches of government -
Namely the Presodent (executive branch)
and finally the Senate
Completely left out the fact the Judiciary is the 3rd branch and both houses fall under legislative. Our government now represents our level of care
and participation in it.
Without that knowledge and understanding backing the people up in their argument, any challenge to government action in the courts / at the ballot box
could do more damage than good.
People must stop being apathetic about government and participate. We have had a boat load of responses, rants, hate the government, love the
government etc. I am willing to wager though that not one of those people took the extra 20 seconds to copy and paste their reponse and send it to
their reps in the state and federal governments.