Bill of Rights

[Franconicus]

Just read a book last night and it reminded me of something I learned at school but forgot somewhere on the way.
After the War of Independance the Americans formed a new kind of society. The fundament was the believe, that the state is formed by the people. So first there were people. Then they agreed to form a society. (Sounds obvious, but at that time, it was not!)
The individuals had certain right before they joined the new state. These rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. They were not given by a government nor can they be taken away. The only role of the government is to protect those individual rights. If the government fails, the people have the right to fire it. I think this is even a reason why having weapons is an important right in the US.
Did I get it right?

[King of Atlantis]

Actually this is one of the only reasons i see that we really need guns. They are to protect the citizens from the government. It is the same reason for the protection of privacy gauranteed by many of the rights. In a society where the government is perfect then these rights wouldnt be needed, but if the government was ever to be corrupted then these rights should gaurantee the citezens protection.

Unfortuantly, the rights in the Bill of Rights can be taken away at any time by the government which the patriot act has proven...

[Franconicus]

Unfortuantly, the rights in the Bill of Rights can be taken away at any time by the government which the patriot act has proven...
I thought they could not. Wasn't the idea that the right stand above the government and the government is not allow to touch them?

[Proletariat]

Just read a book last night and it reminded me of something I learned at school but forgot somewhere on the way.
After the War of Independance the Americans formed a new kind of society. The fundament was the believe, that the state is formed by the people. So first there were people. Then they agreed to form a society. (Sounds obvious, but at that time, it was not!)
The individuals had certain right before they joined the new state. These rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. They were not given by a government nor can they be taken away. The only role of the government is to protect those individual rights. If the government fails, the people have the right to fire it. I think this is even a reason why having weapons is an important right in the US.
Did I get it right?

Dead on, imo. Our rights our inalienable, whereas some people in other country's seem to get their rights from their governments as concessions.

[ichi]

Just read a book last night and it reminded me of something I learned at school but forgot somewhere on the way.
After the War of Independance the Americans formed a new kind of society. The fundament was the believe, that the state is formed by the people. So first there were people. Then they agreed to form a society. (Sounds obvious, but at that time, it was not!)
The individuals had certain right before they joined the new state. These rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. They were not given by a government nor can they be taken away. The only role of the government is to protect those individual rights. If the government fails, the people have the right to fire it. I think this is even a reason why having weapons is an important right in the US.
Did I get it right?

Exactly.

True power derives from a mandate from the people, not from some farsical aquatic ceremony

ichi :bow:

[Franconicus]

Dead on, imo. Our rights our inalienable, whereas some people in other country's seem to get their rights from their governments as concessions.
This is something you can really be proud of :bow:

Does anybody remember the Human Rights thread I started here some time ago. I had the impression that most of the Americans deny that there are rights you have before a government gives it to you. Were I wrong or were they just kidding? ~:confused:

So if US soldiers fight for freedom somewhere in the world that means exactly that they bring the people the opportunity to live according to the natural rights as written in the Bill of Rights. Now I think I got it. ~:)

But I understand less than ever how the US government can say that the prisoners at Gitmo do not have these rights. :help:

[Don Corleone]

In theory, you're certainly right, Franconius. But if you ask most people, in practice, it's what the government feels like granting you today. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean, including the Bill of Rights, and they've interpreted it to mean "Congress can pretty much do as they damn well please". There isn't one of the 10 ammendments in the Bill of Rights that Congress has enacted a law limiting the scope of the original text in some way. It is very, very rare for SCOTUS to find for the individual. They almost always find for expanding the powers of Congress, whether that jibes with the Bill of Rights or not.

[Franconicus]

Well you know I still have Gawain's offer to join the US with the rest of the world. I would if the BoR is the fundament. Maybe I demand that the government is changed and the Supreme Court suspended. Yes, if he wants me to be in, that is what he has to do ~:grouphug:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But I understand less than ever how the US government can say that the prisoners at Gitmo do not have these rights

The same way those in jail loose their rights. There are exceptions to every rule.


Unfortuantly, the rights in the Bill of Rights can be taken away at any time by the government which the patriot act has proven...

You really think the government could take away the bill of rights? Not without causing another revolution they couldnt.

[Marcellus]

The same way those in jail loose their rights. There are exceptions to every rule.

If the Bill of Rights describes inalienable human rights, and you are saying that people who go to jail lose these rights (are you sure about that, anyway?), then you must be saying that anybody in jail is no longer human. Would you say that becuase someone shoplifted that they are no longer human?



You really think the government could take away the bill of rights? Not without causing another revolution they couldnt.

I think that the point that was made was that Governments have not so much removed the Bill of Rights, but rather have ignored it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If the Bill of Rights describes inalienable human rights, and you are saying that people who go to jail lose these rights (are you sure about that, anyway?),

I sure a Ive been there. If you think youve got the same rights in jail as you do on the outside your sadly mistaken. Wheres your LIBERTY for starts?


then you must be saying that anybody in jail is no longer human.

NO Im not.


Would you say that becuase someone shoplifted that they are no longer human?

Nope and they probably wont be in jail if its their first time. This is a silly way to argue this point. If your locked in a cell you sure arent getting all the rights of regular citizens.

[Al Khalifah]

They would argue that they are restricting your rights temporarily in order to protect them for the future. Pretty much all democracies will have measures in place to suspend the constitution / your rights in the event of a national emergency. The Roman Republic had the senatus consultum ultimum for example.

It's just a sad fact that free citizens are not as safe as those living under tighter controls.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's just a sad fact that free citizens are not as safe as those living under tighter controls.

Its true and ironic. Indeed you are safer from harm in jail than on the street. Its my main theme. Freedom costs lives. How much freedom are you willing to pay for is the real question.

[Proletariat]

The same way those in jail loose their rights. There are exceptions to every rule.


This is not an exception, I must disagree. No where does the BoR apply to non-US citizens.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is not an exception, I must disagree. No where does the BoR apply to non-US citizens.

Its an exception as far as US citizens losing their rights in jail. I agree that the BoR dosent extend to those not citizens here but thats not the premise thats being disscussed. Its do we believe that everyone in the world has or should have these rights. I believe they should Therfore it apllies in ths disscussion as to whether they should be treated as if they were citizens. Again I believe those in Gitmo are being treated better than the arverage US citizen is who are being held in US jails.

[Marcellus]

Its an exception as far as US citizens losing their rights in jail.

I don't think that US citizens lose their rights when they go to jail, more that certain rights are suspended in order to protect the rights of others (e.g. liberty suspended to protect others' right to safety). Going to jail does not automatically remove the person's rights.


Again I believe those in Gitmo are being treated better than the arverage US citizen is who are being held in US jails.

If this is the case then I would be very concerned about the state of US jails.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't think that US citizens lose their rights when they go to jail, more that certain rights are suspended in order to protect the rights of others (e.g. liberty suspended to protect others' right to safety). Going to jail does not automatically remove the person's rights.

It removes most of the important ones like liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Also the right to drive to vote and to even eat when or what you would like. The only rights you reall have left are those that apply to the courts and your life.


If this is the case then I would be very concerned about the state of US jails.

I seriously doubt that prisoners in your countries jails are treated as well as those at Gitmo either.

[BDC]

People don't need guns to be protected from their government. They just need lots of lawyers. And America has lots of them. They might not actually save freedoms, but they delay it long enough.

[Marcellus]

It removes most of the important ones like liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Also the right to drive to vote and to even eat when or what you would like. The only rights you reall have left are those that apply to the courts and your life.

As I said, these rights are more suspended until the person's release, in order to protect the rights of others/due to practicality (it's quite hard to choose what you want to eat in jail). And is there actually a right to drive?


I seriously doubt that prisoners in your countries jails are treated as well as those at Gitmo either.

I very much doubt that. Apart from the fact that they don't have to wear orange suits, face interrogation and the fact that they are allowed to go outside for a reasonable length of time, people in British jails actually know why they are in them. They have the right to trial before being sent to jail, and they have the right to appeal against a court's decision.

[Al Khalifah]

People don't need guns to be protected from their government. They just need lots of lawyers. And America has lots of them. They might not actually save freedoms, but they delay it long enough.
Actually the US Congress is made up of around 45 percent lawyers.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As I said, these rights are more suspended until the person's release, in order to protect the rights of others/due to practicality (it's quite hard to choose what you want to eat in jail). And is there actually a right to drive?

Its the same for those in Gitmo who never had some of these rights in their own countries.


I very much doubt that. Apart from the fact that they don't have to wear orange suits,

They dont wear uniforms in jails over there? Our county jail inmates wear them and guess what? There international bright orange ones.


face interrogation

Believe me if they think you have information concerning a crime you will be interogated there. Also you may face it if your not sentenced yet. Yes we have millions of people in jail who have not yet been convicted of any crime and Im sure you do also.


they are allowed to go outside for a reasonable length of time,

So are these guys. Have you seen their soccer field. Hey were talking Camp Gitmo here ~D I will garuntee you the food is better than your inmates get. I hear its even better than the guards get.


people in British jails actually know why they are in them

Yes these poor blokes were minding there own bussines just visiting afghanistan when our evil army swooped and and sent them to Gitmo. They damn well know why their there even if you dont.


They have the right to trial before being sent to jail, and they have the right to appeal against a court's decision.

THEIR not enemy combatants. Just for your information I saw a show on how they interogate prisoners. Do you know who taught them most of their tricks. Yeah the British . ~;) It seems the IRA has made you very good at this sort of thing.

[Proletariat]

Nm.

[Don Corleone]

I think he meant it was surprising that it wasn't 95%.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Actually the US Congress is made up of around 45 percent lawyers.

Wow is that all. I thought it was like 85 % ~:)

Dont really matter as after they get there their all the same. A fookin bunch of crooks.

[Kanamori]

What is your perception of lawyers? I bet you think they are all rich and after your money, no?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I bet you think they are all rich and after your money, no?

No as I dont nave any ~D

But I do think they are all rich and after someone elses money, no?

[Kanamori]

The best your average lawyer will do is a BMW, my friend. Only the best coming out of Columbia, Harvard, Yale, etc. will be the rich ones...or senators ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

I thought they could not. Wasn't the idea that the right stand above the government and the government is not allow to touch them?

They certainly can be taken away. The patriot act breaks the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

They certainly can be taken away. The patriot act breaks the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

No it dosent

[King of Atlantis]

So random searches arent unreasonable????? Thats the whole point of the amendment...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So random searches arent unreasonable????? Thats the whole point of the amendment... No its not. And besides they still need a warrant.

[King of Atlantis]

I thought the patriot act gave the power for random checks at airports and such??

The whole piont of the bill of rights is to protect the people from the government if the gov, cant be trusted. That is almost the sole reason they were formed though some of them were made for different effects. The Bill of Rights, right to bear arms, freedom of privacy, etc, are to protect the people from the government.

The right of privacy is just as important as the right to bear arms and they are neccesary for the exact same reason.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I thought the patriot act gave the power for random checks at airports and such??

It does. But your not forced to fly or go through this search. I find the police checkpoints far more unconstitutional and offensive.

[King of Atlantis]

I find anything that breaches the Bill of Rights very offensive..... :embarassed:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I find anything that breaches the Bill of Rights very offensive.....

Well then the Patriot act should be rather far down on your list.

[King of Atlantis]

But, it still is on my list....

[Redleg]

Well I thought about making a separate thread on some of the amendments to the Constitution that are called the Bill of Rights - partly because of an interesting discussion in a previous thread, and partly because of what Franconicus initially stated in his first post. By the way a decent job of attempting to understand the Bill of Rights, and what book was it that got you a thinking.

Now someone states that the Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights by its concept. Well lets take a good look at what the first 10 amendments truely state.

Amendment I

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.

This is possibly the most batted around amendment by about any group out there attempting to make a case for their cause. For instance many would like to think that this amendment prohibits religion from being in dicussion of the government - or from being mentioned in government. That is not what it states. What the amendment clearly states is that Congress can not establish a religion for the state - anything else is an individual interpation of the amendment that has to be discussed in congress and new legislation passed to make law.

abridging the freedom of speech also has a spefic meaning in the constitution - an interesting read on the subject from 1955 Congressional testmony -

http://fact.trib.com/1st.meikle.html

I was going to list all 10 - but in the interest of discussion - and in line with the initial post by Franconicus I think its best to do them one by one.

The first admendment allows us as citizens of the United States to freely express our views without fear of the government arresting us or placing sanctions on us for doing so. Is the first amendment violated by the government - yes. The recent court rulings about removing any reference to God from federal buildings is one such instance in my opinion. Federal buildings are not private property - but public land. The first amendment does not mean there can be no reference to religion in the government - just no state established religion.

Then there is often the requirement for protestors to have a permit in order to protest an action by the government. Again if a permit is necessary for the public good - in order to arrange for a location that allows for the people to peacefully assemble in order to provide for their safety does not violate the intent of the constitution. However denying the people the right to assemble peacefully would violate the amendment. For instance the first amendment grants you the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government. However it does not allow you to throw bricks or block others from carrying out their daily tasks. By doing so the protestor is no longer conducting a peaceful assembly to voice their political concerns.

Then there is the press aspect - one that I am not as well versed in.