Bill of Rights

[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.....

[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.