posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:46 AM
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When it comes to freedom of speech, it is required to have a "protest permit", without one, you can be fined a minimum of $50. The fact that you
have to actually file paperwork technically means that your "right to protest" can be denied. Now granted, I do believe protests should be peaceful
in nature and should be used as a stage to bring attention to issues, and therefore not spout random madness and cause discord through blocking of
traffic or any malicious content as to cause grief to the public, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a law that serves to prohibit. Now, the
laws may have been instated so that the places where protests are taking place have a ".s up", but in essence, these permits may be denied and if
anything, may inhibit demonstrations and protests due to the monetary block of it. The fees of holding a protest vary depending on the venue, so as
much you think we are free to assemble and protest, there sure is a lot of money to invested, especially if everyone must obtain a "protest permit".
The executive Branch Reform Act, which thankfully isn't passed, but on the table, is a law stating that government officials would have to report any
dealing and the subject of those dealings with anyone. Meaning, even if you have a closed-door session with an official, the would still have to
report your name and the subject of the meeting, which could hinder the right for redress.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, I can you can use the National Guard as the militia, but I don't see it as "well-regulated". If were truly everyone's right to keep and bear
arms, why is it that you must go through background checks and again, get the proper permits? So if they do not approve the background check, no gun.
The amendment, does not state that "just some people have the right to own guns if the government okays them". I believe that all of the hoop-la
with permits and background checks "infringes" our right to keep and bear arms. ( Infringe : Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):
"infringe a copyright". or Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". ). I believe that those permits
and background checks are to limit and/or undermine the rights of all to keep and bear arms.
3.No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
There were gross violations during the War 1812 and the Civil War. There were claims in excess of $500,000 during that time in just the northern
states, which I believe was a crazy amount of money back then. The Southern states were not considered to even have grievances because they were at
the time, not considered part of the United States. If another civil war broke out, could we count on its protection? Probably not.
4.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act itself pretty much destroyed this amendment. To obtain warrants, wiretaps, searches, etc etc, you would just have to be suspected of
terrorist activities or activities that would hinder the US government or undermine it. The least amount of "probable cause" would be to have an
accusation of have terrorist ties. This site is almost a beacon of government dissent and technically we could all be subject to various intrusive
investigations because of our views on wars and government corruption. We fell way down the rabbit hole when we allowed this to pass and then get
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Everyday, land is being gobbled up by the government for corporations in efforts to secure land for pipelines, resources, etc. It has been decided,
that corporations may take land if it can prove that the land will benefit the community and must pay just compensation. It is said that the entity
must pay a "just compensation" which is normally market value. Unfortunately, we know that market values can be manipulated and corrupted. Let's
say that you have oil on your land, but you did not know it. A corporation that knew these details could withhold that information while making a case
that it could use the land that could benefit the community in some other way. They could pay you pennies on the dollar for your land considering it
is not a wide known fact that you have oil on your land.
I will save rest of the trial arguments for the next one since it goes along the same lines.