reply to post by Xcathdra
The Declaration of Independance has absolutely no legal bearing on individual rights for US citizens. It was a nice letter to the crown as to why we
were telling them to bugger off. This reinforces one of my points though that people have an idea of the documents themsleves, but dont know how they
work and apply.
How they apply is not for one, or many to determine. I have the ability and the right to believe whatever it is I wish to believe, whether or not it
is "legal" or not, holds no bearing on such. With that said, I believe that the DoI is correct in standing that humans have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who are you or anybody else to tell me what I believe is wrong? A country supposedly decided "for the people,
by the people" should hold the people's interests and beliefs at heart, not the beliefs and interests of the governors.
Freedom of religion is a good one for another point. Seperation of Church and State, since weve seena lot of that. Seperation of church and state is
nowhere in the constitution.
I never said it was. How about targeting the point I made instead of the point which "weve seena lot of".
Permit requirement is generally required when major public right of ways are affected - IE roads. Your individual rights extend to the point when htey
interfere with others, at which poiint its stops.
Permits are required ALWAYS in this day an age, regardless of whether roads are affected or not. They government is not supposed to assume that a
public assembly is going to interfere with others, and even if it does, based on your belief of how the TSA doesn't infringe upon anything, then the
people who would be affected can just as easily choose to take a different road or choose to shop at a different stop that isn't surrounded by
people. The tracks go both ways.
The right guarantees you that you can individualy own a gun. Taxes or no taxes, you can own a gun.
Have you been to New York City? Do you know it is illegal to to purchase, own, transport, or carry a long gun or a hand gun without a permit, which
you have to jump through loopholes to obtain, and which can be denied for no particular reason. This is a loss of a right - period.
Then it would be a 42 usc violation and you have a right to sue for a civil rights violation. However, being its a blanket statment you gave with no
other info, my guess is there was something else going on you either arent aware of or dont recognize something they did as valid when in fact it is.
I've seen and known people personally who have taken such to court and it has been defended under the Patriot Act so don't try to play me. As for my
personal incident, I was asked to search my vehicle, to which I declined for the officer to search anyway because I had out of state plates. My friend
was searched because he had droopy eyes at two in the morning and was suspect of transporting drugs. This is a violation and there is nothing anyone
can do about it thanks to the acts the have been passed in government.
Again a blanket statement with no info.
I'm not going to give examples. Do a search on ATS. I'm answering your question and yet you are finding any excuse not to accept the answers.
Actually no it has not.
Let us take a very public trial in the past year. Casey Anthony was suspected for murder on July 28, 2008. She was indicted on October 14th, 2008 and
she was arraigned on October 28th, 2008. Her trial began on May 24th, 2011 - nearly THREE YEARS AFTER her arrest, only to be found innocent of the
murder charge 6 weeks later.
The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines in the 1900's as to a speedy trial:
1. an interest in avoiding prolonged pretrial detention
2. an interest in minimizing the anxiety and loss of reputation accompanying formal public accusation
3. an interest in assuring the ultimate fairness of a delayed trial.
When it comes to that case in particular, the first two were thrown out the _ Not only was she held in prison for three years, but her public
image was completely destroyed prior to the trial in which she was found innocent.
This was not one off shot case, there are many trials that tack even longer to get to, all you have to do is open your eyes.
Not really and again a blanket statement
The blanket statement is, ONCE AGAIN, backed up by reality. Go look at a newspaper for arraignments and look at the amount of bail, it is a public
record, all you have to do is put in the effort.
You use the term birth right - explain what that is and where it comes from, and how the government ook it form you.
A birth right is a right I was born with, in which I don't need permission to exercise it from anybody.