Civil Rights are Disapearing in the U.S.: Amendment IV

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, should not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly deciding the place to be searched, and the person or things to be searched.

U.S. Bill of Rights

This covers the internet pretty well with both the words "Papers" and "effects." That would include e-mails, as well as web history, I am fairly certain.

As for roving wiretaps and searching phone records and e-mails, this is covered by the following:

And no warrants shall be issued, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly deciding the place to be searched, and the person or things to be searched.

Illegal Search and Seizure on Idaho Roads

I was going to write this more specifically about driving around in Idaho. Around here, the police do not seem to need to have a reason to pull you over or search your car and they do a lot of profiling. For example, I have been pulled over five times since I moved here in January and have not had a ticket once.

I was talking to my counselor about it because it is making me anxious, and he told me that he is always profiled because he wears plugs in his ears. He always follows the traffic laws and obeys the speed limits (he was a physics major and a logical person).

However, he has been pulled over multiple times while obeying all traffic laws, for "routine checks," and has even been searched during those periods of time.

Since it causes me anxiety, we discussed how I am going to have to use "I don't have anything to worry about if I haven't done anything wrong" as a positive mantra. I get nervous when I get pulled over, because I don't know what laws the officers are required to follow, and I'm not sure if they would follow them, anyway -

I expect that other police officers are going to follow suit, because if the federal agencies are leading by bad example, I see no reason why state or county or city police should worry about it.

reply to post by darkbake


The 5th Amendment is not a "civil right"; it is inalienable and not bestowed upon us because we reside in a civilization or within a State. Though the provisions of the 5th Amendment are being eroded away; to that I can agree.

More to my point -- civil right implies a 'legal right' thus one given through legislation. An inalienable right is natural, axiomatic, thought to be because we are and requires no State to declare it such.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That makes sense, so are the "Bill of Rights" declarations of inalienable rights? What happens when those are violated? Are their natural repercussions?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

The 5th Amendment is not a "civil right"; it is inalienable and not bestowed upon us because we reside in a civilization or within a State.

Actually it's a civil right. The inalienable rights are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first 10 Amendments to the USC are called the bill of rights and they were legislated. (hence, written down, passed by vote of the several states.)

Unfortunately this country IS turning into a police state and these rights are being taken away from us, by us.

But they are civil rights, this is why if one is violated you go to court and file a "civil rights" violation instead of an "inalienable rights violation".

All for your own good, my good fellow. It's the Drug War, don't ya' know? Once an "evil" is created by the state there must be an all-out battle to combat that evil. However in this case they hit the grand jackpot for perpetual pay-off.

Never before has an evil been created with such pay-off potential, and for both sides of the game. And pay-off potential is greatly enhanced for anyone who can play both sides of the game, which is why there is so much corruption potential and why it is difficult to tell who are the "good guys" from the bad. Hint: the "good guys/bad guys" construct is a false dichotomy as anyone involved is compromised either knowingly or unwittingly. For the target "prey" it does not matter if drugs are involved or not as long as there are assets that can be seized under an assumption they could be used to acquire or traffic contraband.

To effectively work the "good guys" stratagem they must employ deceit, deception, assert false assumptions, and violate personal privacy - which boundaries have now largely been eroded almost to the point of non-existence. This effectively makes the "good guys" the agressors and offense-strategy players. A tactic now widely employed is to bring outsiders into the game under an assumption they could be defensive-players then utilize whatever tactics necessary and under whatever assumption could be applicable in order to gain access to the target-prey to find evidence of possible involvement. If such evidence can be obtained then that target can be taken out of play and introduced to the next "penalty" level of action or must be let go if they can convincingly request to be dismissed from further play. In either event, if assets can be located during that action of play they can then be seized at that moment and generally surrendered before the game is over.

Because it is an aggressor's game and they have play advantage there has been a tendency to to evolve the rules more to their advantage over the years. Where such rules cannot be accommodated due to game restrictions the aggressors have been able to enhance their advanttages by employing greater "bluff and bluster" tactics to gain access and broaden their playfield. This is augmented by rules which permit them to utilize deceit and deception as a normal strategy of play whereas the defense is prohibited from using these tactics and can be eliminated from play and immediately and moved into the next penalty level. Offense has been granted greater use of "forceful occupation" strategies because is is expected defense players may attempt to likewise utilize play equipment the offense is accorded though they are only permitted verbal stategies - which are also greatly restricted as mentioned above.

Welcome to the game. Spectators, observers, players, and those with interest in the higher levels of the game find this to be spell-binding and satisfying entertainment as well as highly lucrative. Enjoy!

Originally posted by HauntWok
Actually it's a civil right. The inalienable rights are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first 10 Amendments to the USC are called the bill of rights and they were legislated. (hence, written down, passed by vote of the several states.)

To the contrary and while it seems we agree to the outcome, I believe what you wrote above is exactly what James Madison feared when he eventually penned and presented the Bill of Rights. It should be noted that the Declaration of Independence states the following, in whole, to what you are referring to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not the only unalienable rights that we find self-evident -- as further enshrined in the Constitution via the 9th Amendment. To secure those rights, the Constitution was written and implemented. Merely enumerating them doesn't make them any less of an unalienable right. For instance, in order to secure Life, one must be able to defend themselves and their property; hence the 2nd Amendment. In order to "...alter or to abolish it [government], and to institute new government...", the First Amendment must be held as an unalienable right.

Back to my first point though with regards to the fear that Madison had, when the anti-federalist were pressuring for an inclusion of Rights, he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration." He furthers his reasoning on why they were dangerous and inefficient when he wrote, "...because experience proves the inefficiency of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State."

That last part is where we are today. A simple question though regarding how you view this: If the States and/or Congress (or even the People) decided to repeal the First Amendment, are you no longer allowed to speak? Or are we charged with what the Declaration of Independence states and to "alter or abolish". If so, how can we alter the Government to "give back" (which is contrary to the definition of unalienable) said "right"?

But they are civil rights, this is why if one is violated you go to court and file a "civil rights" violation instead of an "inalienable rights violation".

No if they are violated you show cause that your Constitutional rights (i.e, your unalienable rights) were violated. Cases of "civil rights" violations rarely have to do with unalienable rights but rather rights legislated via government -- such as Americans with Disabilities Act 'violations'.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

That makes sense, so are the "Bill of Rights" declarations of inalienable rights? What happens when those are violated? Are their natural repercussions?

You show cause to that violation or you alter your government. We have done it for the past 220+ years in a quite remarkably peaceful fashion; minus the Civil War.

The natural repercussion is for self-governing people to maintain vigilance upon those rights we hold to be self-evident; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, the ability to speak, to defend ourselves, to face our accusers, to be secure in our homes, to not be subjected to repeated charges regarding the same crime, to be recognized that eight amendments cannot possibly recognize all that we hold as a right.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Here's the thing about the Declaration of Independence. It's a one time use document exclusively for the several states to the King of England. It's not a continuous living document like the Constitution. it's simply our dear john letter to King George III. If it were done today it would have been a tweet saying " this , we're gone! #letfreedomringbitches"

I know a LOT of people think that it's our personal licence to kill elected political leaders at our own personal whim. But it's really not.

And yes, we do have the obligation to change our government from time to time. We actually do this every 2 years for Congress, and every 4 years with the President. (the problem is that corporate interests have taken over our election process and no longer are we the people really represented by our government)

If the States and/or Congress (or even the People) decided to repeal the First Amendment, are you no longer allowed to speak?

Unlikely as it is for a repeal of one of the enumerated protections that fall under the bill of rights (Actually it wouldn't be really a repeal, but a nullification with another Amendment, like the 18th Amendment was effectively nullified with the 21st Amendment) But in effect, yes, we would no longer have the protections under the 1st Amendment for our speech. This would effect a lot of things such as journalism, peaceful assembly our right to protest. It wouldn't be a good thing at all.

But what we could do about it? Well, representatives from each of the 50 states could convene another continental congress (more than likely this would be the governors of each state, and a representative from each Senate, and House of Representatives for each state.) They could then vote to suspend the federal government, rewrite the Constitution, ratify it amongst themselves, and then after the likely civil war that followed, if they were successful, establish new elections and a new government would take over.

But no, the Declaration of Independence wouldn't do it. For one, it's to King George III of England addressing the grievances the colonists have with his rule. So, it doesn't apply today. For another, it's not anyone's personal licence to kill their constitutionally elected officials as MANY seem to believe.

Lawsuits under the ADA, are civil lawsuits, and don't constitute civil rights violations. Like (as an example) the police raiding your home, taking things without a warrant. That would be a civil rights violation, and you would have a civil rights lawsuit. As far as I know, (and I might be wrong) there hasn't been an Inalienable Rights Violation lawsuit ever. Because natural rights have natural consequences if violated.

Originally posted by HauntWok
Here's the thing about the Declaration of Independence. It's a one time use document exclusively for the several states to the King of England. It's not a continuous living document like the Constitution.

While it is static, it is enshrined in our culture that helps define how we view self-governance. It is also enshrined in the Congressional Archives and is the basis of our Constitution.

I know a LOT of people think that it's our personal licence to kill elected political leaders at our own personal whim. But it's really not.

Agreed, but it lays the foundations of the basis of the formation of Government and where all political power lies; with the People. No Government can exist without the consent of the People.

And yes, we do have the obligation to change our government from time to time. We actually do this every 2 years for Congress, and every 4 years with the President. (the problem is that corporate interests have taken over our election process and no longer are we the people really represented by our government)

Agreed.

Unlikely as it is for a repeal of one of the enumerated protections that fall under the bill of rights (Actually it wouldn't be really a repeal, but a nullification with another Amendment, like the 18th Amendment was effectively nullified with the 21st Amendment)

Your distinction between say the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution as opposed to the next 17 is notable. Let us examine your inclusion of the 18th and 21st. The 18th directly prohibited citizens from engaging in an activity, albeit, the government only banned the sale, manufacturing, sale and import of alcohol. Such was a direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. A right not enumerated doesn't exclude it as such.

But in effect, yes, we would no longer have the protections under the 1st Amendment for our speech. This would effect a lot of things such as journalism, peaceful assembly our right to protest. It wouldn't be a good thing at all.

But you can do it; you just face the threat of State actions no? Just as you could drink, purchase and produce alcohol after the 18th Amendment was established. Threat of State action doesn't make one right, not a right. You are showing that you believe that Rights must be enumerated and listed (and 'protected' by name) to be considered a right.

So, it doesn't apply today. For another, it's not anyone's personal licence to kill their constitutionally elected officials as MANY seem to believe.

The spirit of it does apply and again, serves as the basis of understanding what exactly is the Constitution. The Constitution isn't a limiting document upon the People, it is one upon the Government that the People have allowed to exist -- all concepts within the Declaration of Independence.

It is interesting that you are arguing this, yet you contended my statement from my original statement, while pointing to a very document you said doesn't matter and the concepts within. Maybe I am not understanding you here.

As far as I know, (and I might be wrong) there hasn't been an Inalienable Rights Violation lawsuit ever. Because natural rights have natural consequences if violated.

You are playing with words here.

It might be time to dust off those precious documents.

Maybe while on vacation the President could do some light reading.

The thing is, we as people are only powerful when we are "United".

Seems like the MSM and others can make money by dividing us.

We never even talked to our neighbors until the 20 hour power black-out.

It seems as long as the juice is on...Everybody is content to do their own thing.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

While it is static, it is enshrined in our culture that helps define how we view self-governance. It is also enshrined in the Congressional Archives and is the basis of our Constitution.

No it's not the basis for our Constitution, if you want the basis for our constitution you would have to look at the Magna Carta, and The Gayanashagowa for reference. The Declaration is important in our history, to be sure, but it's a static document and while it's relevance to today is negligible, it's import is that of this is why we separated from England and laid our own course.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

While it is static, it is enshrined in our culture that helps define how we view self-governance. It is also enshrined in the Congressional Archives and is the basis of our Constitution.

No it's not the basis for our Constitution, if you want the basis for our constitution you would have to look at the Magna Carta, and The Gayanashagowa for reference.

True and I never meant it was the sole basis of our Constitution. The inner workings have similarities, such as personal property, but overall are vastly different than the Magna Carta though. So just as the Magna Carta played a role -- so did the ideas placed forward in the Declaration of Independence did.

Again, I didn't mean that the Declaration was the sole source of structure or ideas. That would be ignorant to the fact that those who debated the ideas and fought for the provisions establishing the structure of our Government sought much in terms of how to define a Government.

What should be highlighted was they were arguing structure of Government and what we, as a People, are willing to allow said Government to do. The whole of the Constitution, regardless of say the Bill of Rights, would have and still does, secure our unalienable rights as human beings.

reply to post by HauntWok


That's not why we have 'civil rights'...They are 'civil rights' because by Government's definition now, we are all 14th amendment slaves, which were not a party to the Constitution. Thus, Congress, legislated their rights to them, with the passing of the 14th Amendment. This is why they can be taken away at anytime.

Citizens today are held to be 'citizens of the United States', legal fictions; compared to the 'Citizens of the United States' which were held to be free and equal men created by God, just as the Declaration and Constitution provides.

It is the basic principle of a syllogism...

God > Man > Government > Legal Fictions/14th Amendment citizens.

Man came from God, and Government came from Man. Government can no more rule over Man, than Adam can rule over God. However, if the Government creates artificial entities which derive their existence from the Government and it's legislation such as JOHN HENRY DOE, then they may indeed proceed to do whatever they wish with you, because in essence they are considered your creator.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Wow. I have read many of your posts with interest Eron. Overall I find your perspective refreshing and often times even enlightening. I must say in this instance that I am fascinated with this game play strategy analogy you have given in your analysis above. Kudos and I'll be adding you to my friends list if I haven't already. Thanks

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Man came from God, and Government came from Man. Government can no more rule over Man, than Adam can rule over God. However, if the Government creates artificial entities which derive their existence from the Government and it's legislation such as JOHN HENRY DOE, then they may indeed proceed to do whatever they wish with you, because in essence they are considered your creator.

Can I sum that up by saying that the government needs the straw man to use as a punching bag?

It seems to me man could create a monster that could turn against him. Our Frankenstien's monster, the government, would risk destruction only while it is weaker than it's creators. Once it has become big and powerful enough and out of control, it would destroy it's creators without guilt or remorse.

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


Thanks for wading through my semi-organized collection of thoughts on this matter. The game-play analogy came to me as I was writing this response to the matter of the erosion of our privacies which is of great concern to me. I expected I would develop on the analogy in future ponderings over this matter and this thread becomes a convenient placeholder for that embryonic idea.

I have increasingly felt the "war on drugs" has been used as a convenient tool to invade and disarm the public under the guise of altruism and good deeds of any privacy and protections the people have long held. There are great monetary incentives for aggressors to join in and widen the playfield, induct more defenders into the game, and evolve the rules to their advantage. It no longer need involve "drugs" except as a pretext to play. The game makers have only to sit back to watch the predictable outcome and cash-in on those developments. What is at stake is too vast to enumerate but it leads to having a submissive populace that is easily manipulated.

It has largely become a cat and mouse game where the general public are all assumed to be mice when the cat comes calling and generally must prove themselves to be otherwise. It has become a cat's game and become quite predatory. If any "cheese" in the form of cash can be located during the cat's visit it will be assumed as evidence of the 'presence of mice' and is then confiscated. One must then expend sizable resources to obtain a "rodent-free" bill of health in a lose-lose proposition to defend their properties. Anyone who is not operating as a bonafide cat on his own turf can be dragged into the game and placed on the defensive. All this just enhances the incentives to keep the game in play. The development will be increasing disaster at every step and level.

It is no longer about "drugs" as that is just a pretext to continue play. What is at stake is much grander.

I wish I could summarize it better, boil it down to its molecular level to show what all effects it has on the overall system of things. However, at the atomic level it appears to me our societal breakdown is being achieved through the prohibitionist evil of the war on drugs - the road to perdition paved with good intentions. So eager and accepted the project, we are now funding a freeway to get us there faster.

First thing that came to my mind when I read that, was.. exactly HOW did obamacare get passed? How is it that now, the dr.s have to put every detail of my personal life, health etc on a goverment insisted computer database? Come October 1st we have to give even more information. How did this happen? How was this allowed? and Better yet How the hell do we stop it?

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


I have to admit that I like the game play analogy better than the cat and mouse one. The game play concept can be elaborated on into greater detail. It seems to have usefulness in a practical way. With some more analysis, it could provide some strategies for the disadvantaged players of the game. It is worthy of more study in my opinion.