It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Bill of Rights????? Yeah whatever!!!

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
In today's America I ask the Memebers here at ATS what right is not Being Infringed upon?
1st- 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
Today we have to have a permit to Protest and have speech zones which both are infringements to this right.
Then we have the government (thru hates crimes) telling the clergy that they cannot preach against certain things like Homosexual lifestyles or they will lose tax exemptions.
If we proest we have to worry about being marked by the government and labelled as terrorists, are we free if when voicing our opinion we worry what the government is going to do to us? Look at the NDAA.

2nd- 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.
We can no longer form militias for fear of the government and the media labelling us as extremists or crazy. Look at the 90's and the afront to the militia movement.
This right is infringed with all of the gun laws that are in effect, such as conceal carry, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!! Not buy a firearm and put it in a safe, unloaded. We have the right to bear ( that means to carry) firearms in any way we deem necessary to protect ourselves and our country. Concealed or open!!!!! If the law infringes on these rights, is in and of itself un-Constitutional.

3rd- 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 by law.
So far, to my knowledge we still have this right However the government is getting closer and closer to infringing it.

4th- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and siezures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.
Patriot Act 1 and 2, TSA.... The rampant law eforcement raiding innocent houses and shooting their dogs...etc...

5th-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 offence 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.
When arrested we are read our rights then interrogated for hours until you tell them what they want to hear.
The imminent domain laws being abused.

6th-In ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and causeof the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.
How many people are serving time based on circumstancial evidence? Also I point to the NDAA.

7th- In suits at common law, where the value in controvesy shall exceed 20 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
You would be laugh at if your went to court and have a jury over 100 dollars.

8th-Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
Tell this to George Zimmerman, IRS, FBI, ATF,etal.......

9th- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This article has been used to give Illegal Aliens more rights than the citizens of this great country.

10th- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited byit to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The run amuck executive (unConstitutional) orders, Again refer to NDAA....etal.....

My point is after looking at the first 10 articles of the Bill Of RIGHTS one must ask....Do these RIGHTS still exist???? If not then how do we fix it?????
It seems everyone has their favorite Right, but we as Americans Should defend the whole Constitution not just pick and choose. I promise the pro-gun people will help defend the right of speech. I wish the free speecher's would help defend the rights of gun owners. Only together can we defend the Constitution from both Foriegn and Domestic enemies.




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
So we should follow your version of the Bill of Rights? And why is that?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


This is not my version of the Bill of Rights.....This is the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights.
What you implied is what is wrong with our country! You do not know your Rights even when listed in front of you. Then somebody starred you for that? WOW!
It would help if you would read before posting!
edit on 13-12-2012 by hanyak69 because: Another thought



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
they've been eroding for years... after 11 sept. 2001 they ceased to exist ... in the totalitarian states of amerika you have no rights and live at whim of the state...



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


You do know that the Constitution and its amendments are subject to interpretation right? They are not a dogma that is not subject to change.

But I digress, I will respond to your "interpretation" of the bill of rights in numerical order.

1st. I agree with that the need to have a permit to protest is against the spirit of the 1st amendment, but realistically depending on where such a protest was to take place there are many considerations to take into account. Like if traffic would need to be rerouted, or if business in the areas would be dramatically effected, if police need to be present for safety reasons. Some measure of information must be provided to the state, its just realistic.

As for your comment on the oppression of preachers, I ask you to give one example of a man or women being arrested or penalized for preaching homophobic hate speech in church, or at some form of religious rally, because they haven't arrested any of the Westboro Baptist church people.

2nd. I'm totally a supporter of owning weapons and being able to carry them around. While many states don't allow concealed or open carry they still allow you to own a weapon for home protection, this stipulation is within the individual states rights.

3rd. Like you mentioned not happening.

4th. I agree, although I do not think the TSA is that horrible, they are still annoying and almost pointless.

5th. I agree, the police are out of control.

6th. I agree, the justice system is messed up.

7th. See above.

8th. I'm not to sure about this one, I would have to see some data. How much did Zimmerman pay? Is he not being charged with second degree murder?

9th.Yes because immigrants have more rights than an average citizen, illegal immigrants can just run for office and then pass laws to let all their friends get free stuff (sarcasm alert) Are you kidding me? Have there not been more deportations in the last decade than ever before in history?

10th. The states individual authority versus the authority of the fed has always been a very confusing issue, I don't think there is a very good solution at all. In the end to me its simply a non issue, because authority is authority no matter who is wielding it.

The interpretation of the words of the founders is up to the elected officials we imbue with authority, again the document is not a dogma.

The founders were an immoral group, they were imperialist, patriarchal, racist, slave owners who had some good ideas. That does not make them god's among men or any smarter than the politicians of today, we made their philosophy better and actually apply to "All Men" which means "All Humans".
edit on 13-12-2012 by Openeye because: Grammar




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


I wanted to say it's nice to see a thread about what America was meant to represent. S/F and keep your head up. I do have to say at this point, it is gonna take more than I want to say to "take back" America. It's equally as sick to see the generation of morons people have raised. Add to that the supply of Soup to NUTS foreigner that are welcomed with open arms as long as they represent tax and line the pockets of the criminals and their whores in office. I mean it's pretty bad when you post portions of the Bill of Rights and have to explain to an adult, you didn't write it.lmao



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   



I enjoyed your post as a well written and thought out and as we disagree about the validity of these rights. I believe that we have interpreted ourselves out of just about all of our rights that are listed in the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 

Let's change this and change that and change that this that this and we get just what we got today in AMERICA.
An infiltration of morons and America hating idealists who think the word interpretation, (as it applies to The Constitution or Bill of Rights) means take back from the people what has been given to them. Is it possible to interpret it this way and keep the continuity of it? i.e. make sure if anyone changes the forfathers intent on keeping Government honest modify if it needs it to help the people you work for. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE not the career politicians, liars and their whore in The White House and the one before him and before him back to that traitor Clinton, the ones who only talk when they are asking for money or to be elected.

People it's past the point of let's talk.


When these criminals in office say something about The American People,

IT IS AT A POINT WHERE THEY ARE ABOUT TO STRIP ANOTHER PIECE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CLOTHING OFF YOU AND SOON YOU ARE NAKED.

Anyone American or otherwise that wants to talk , lets talk . But make sure you either know The Constitution and or The Bill Of Rights (What They Stand For And Why ) or you want to learn. I dont think AMerica needs another idea in the wrong direction or a socialist, communist etc.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 



Let's change this and change that and change that this that this and we get just what we got today in AMERICA.


Yeah and the America we have had for the last 60 to 70 years has been the most prosperous time in modern history. Even today when the economy is bad and unemployment high, the average citizen of this country is not starving and freezing in the streets like they were during the 30's.


An infiltration of morons and America hating idealists who think the word interpretation, (as it applies to The Constitution or Bill of Rights) means take back from the people what has been given to them. Is it possible to interpret it this way and keep the continuity of it? i.e. make sure if anyone changes the forfathers intent on keeping Government honest modify if it needs it to help the people you work for. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE not the career politicians, liars and their whore in The White House and the one before him and before him back to that traitor Clinton, the ones who only talk when they are asking for money or to be elected.


What? I'm sorry in advance if you take this as an ad hominem, but please attempt to at least form a coherent paragraph that does not have to be read over 20 times to get the gist of your argument.

The founders in all honesty did not create an honest government, they simply created a government where authority was imbued upon an individual by the majority. This system is less corrupt than say a dictatorship/monarchy, but is not inherently less corrupt than any other modern political system. Corruption, greed, and subversion are not a result of government, they are result of the human condition.




Anyone American or otherwise that wants to talk , lets talk . But make sure you either know The Constitution and or The Bill Of Rights (What They Stand For And Why ) or you want to learn. I dont think AMerica needs another idea in the wrong direction or a socialist, communist etc


I agree with you that the state should represent the people, and I still believe by in large that they do. I mean the only complaints I hear that come from the right have to do with money, not with government wiretapping, not with government sanctioned assassination, and not with corporate subversion.

I have a lot of respect for the right and a good many fiscal conservatives, they believe in responsibility, which is admirable. But they have taken that position to the absolute extreme, they believe that if you do not work for something you deserve nothing, that compassion is not mandatory but is both voluntary and earned, which is asinine. And the left...they are just as bad, but the vast majority of them don't want to live in a Darwinian society where the weak perish and the strong live, the kind of world we have strived to escape from, the world we lived in throughout most of history.

If you don't like socialism than leave society, because that is what it is communities coming together to improve the lives of everyone, not just the individual.





edit on 13-12-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Socialism does not work as history shows. The only thing that has worked ( up until the 1916) was a REPUBLIC.
I say this cause when the Federal reserve was established we lost our Republic. The fed is an illegal organization as it too is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in its formation.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


Then you have no idea what socialism is, because you are obviously applying the term "socialism" to the application of Communism by Russia, which was neither Socialism or Communism as Marx described, it was a fascist dictatorship.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Openeye because: Sorry I made a fallacious statement.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I understand you position.

And if the debate is about the bill of rights, we must concur that this represents only the first ten amendments to our constitution.

Why are they the first amendments? Because a gathering of political activists recognized these as the most powerful restrictions against governmental abuse, and ultimately... it was an "in your face" declaration to all those who had usurped power, declared themselves 'royal' or 'entitled' to absolute obedience to the state... whether that be in the person of a king, or ruler, or a body of oligarchs and 'club members' who opportunistically oppress the people from whom they derive their wealth and authority.

Let's face it, most of the world's societies have "grown up" enough to realize that someone telling you you have to obey them "because they say so" is no basis for power. Sure, there are a few countries with still have an autocracy, bolstered by entrenched tradition, or religious doctrine that presupposes barbarity on the part of the citizens. But they are often taken with a grain of salt... the idea of some magical connection of leadership between a person and their offspring is almost ludicrous nowadays. Thomas Paine even wrote of it during this period when the bill was conceived.

But there was always a question of 'when' is it acceptable to the people, and should that matter. The American answer at the time was "never."

Not so much today. Bureaucrats, oligarchs, "Patrician-class" politicians, technocrats, and their ilk are driven to control all they see... they attract the power-mad narcissistic celebrity-wannabes that have only their own interests at heart.

Now we have these 'rights' which have been "interpreted" for us by these same people. It's almost considered laughable when a "man-on-the-street" interview gravitates towards the ideological foundation of our constitution. Often I think the decision to air such things is made by those who only want Americans to feel too ignorant to comment on the subject - which should be central to our education system - but isn't.

It's all about 'liberty.'

We know how to make someone free. We know how to respect their space and not interfere with their enterprises... but using the law to "protect us" from the unscrupulous has allowed the government to 'presume' that we require their intervention in our lives as if we were not capable of living without them... which is ironically comedic considering the opposite was the objective.

For example, "freedom of speech" .... as long as no-one's offended? Unless they may reveal some secret? Except when we are placed into "fear-porn" mode? Except if it interferes with our "image?" Ever try to sue a doctor? Ever demand that a government agency explain its authority? Ever see what happens at a public gathering when one person asks a certain question? Ever wonder how it became 'ok' for a security guard to arm-lock you - rather than simply ask you to leave?

This particular freedom has always been exceptionally simple. Look how they've confabulated it into a morass of exceptions and provisos. It even translates into this medium... because commerce controls the medium's viability.

Soon "freedom of silence" will be equally raped - and our children will be obliged to forgo certain benefits or opportunities, lest they cheer when and as they are told, and never boo at someone we've been told was 'elected.'

We could go on like this for a long time... looking at the parameters of the bill - and how the political community has monopolized its application... but in the end ...

Our only insurance as citizens of the nation is to conform, acquiesce, consume, and produce. We have become cattle to the governmental approach. And since its now 'business' to lead a nation... businessmen-politicians make us more employees and less citizens every day.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I di not and could not have said it better.......Kudos to you my friend.
2nd



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


Good article bud. I wish more people would start calling for them to actually follow the Constitution. The founders set it up for limitted Government, and we should get back to that. The Government is way to big to even sustain itself anymore. If you look at the unfunded liabilities (medicare, medicaid, social security) they add up to 220 TRILLION dollars of debt that cannot and will not ever be paid. A couple of decades ago, we had 17 workers for every one person retiring. Now that all of the baby boomers are retiring, there is only 3 people working to the one retiring. There is no possible way that this can be sustained without printing lots of money, which in turn causes massive inflation, which is worse than any tax increase. It hurts everyone including the poor. The sad part is, they don't even consider food or gas in their inflation figures. Our country is on a downward slope, and both parties are to blame with their massive spending bills.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
They must still exist. At least enough to irritate those who seek to void them.

Otherwsie Rahm wouldnt have said this:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said through a spokesman that he was “disappointed with the court’s decision.” The city is reviewing the opinion and will work with others “to best protect the residents of Chicago and still meet constitutional restrictions,” Bill McCaffrey added.


link

That damn bill of rights getting in the way of Rahms bans!
edit on 14-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: why the hell wont the link look right?



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join