Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that the list gets shorter and shorter"
Does he have a point? Is the Bill of Rights essentially the Bill of Temporary Privileges?
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that the list gets shorter and shorter"
Does he have a point? Is the Bill of Rights essentially the Bill of Temporary Privileges?
actually, if you look at the Bill of Rights as written, it is completely misnamed. what it should be titled as is the Bill of Limitations on the federal government.
read the bill of Rights and you will read that it sets limits on what government can or cannot do to the people or the individual person.
actually, if you look at the Bill of Rights as written, it is completely misnamed. what it should be titled as is the Bill of Limitations on the federal government.
read the bill of Rights and you will read that it sets limits on what government can or cannot do to the people or the individual person.
I agree. The Bill of Rights is really a Bill of Limitations. No great revolution has been achieved by peace.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-09-2014 at 05:17 PM..
Reason: See DM
I agree. The Bill of Rights is really a Bill of Limitations. No great revolution has been achieved by peace.
Really not sure what that has to do with the topic.
As for the thread, it's absolutely true that no rights are ever permenent.
As a perfect example, take the 10th ammendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The10thAmendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A simple reading of this would assume that this means the constitution was only meant to address the Federal Government, not state governments. After all, why would an amendment be written that says any power not delegated to the States are reserved to the States? It would be obvious. So naturally it would be safe to assume that the restrictions only applied to the federal government, and they did...until 1925.
Enter the Incorporation Doctrine, where piece by piece, the courts forced the states to abide by the same restrictions that the federal government faced.
From a State Perspective, this was now taking away rights that the States had held, without the States choosing to give them up. A court action decided that now, States were also required to protect Freedom of Speech. They also required that states uphold the right to a trial.
Well, ok, from your perspective that might seem fine. After all, you don't want anyone taking away those rights. Except the process by which that was done was not part of the democratic process set in place when the country was founded.
We're already beginning to see that same process of "pushing down" restrictions. People are beginning to assume that corporations must also be held to the same demand of protecting free speech. Currently, no, you don't have the right to publicly state "Company X is the worst company in existence and should be destroyed" yet still continue to work there. There's no protection of that by the constitution(despite the large number of people who believe otherwise). That's not to say that we won't see this same process again in time.
And where does it go from there? Am I not allowed to stop inviting you to dinner parties because I don't like your political views? Do my actions as an individual also have to preserve your freedom of speech as an individual? I suspect we're still a long way from that coming up, but it remains an interesting dilemma if the process continues.
Ultimately though, the courts have proven that no rights are truly guaranteed and everything can be taken away.
Because that's truly what it is. Limits on the reach of government into our lives. Far too often, that reach seems to go too far, but the reality is that it's another branch of that government (the judicial) that decides how far they can go.
The only "rights" you have are those you are able to preserve for yourself and those society is able to preserve for you. There are no rights that were granted by birth, or by God, or by Thomas Jefferson.
The "Bill of Rights" is a document that binds the Federal government from taking away the listed rights. Jeo is right... up until the SCOTUS decided to start using the process of incorporation on the 14th amendment to force the States to follow the Bill of Rights, it was perfectly legal and constitutional for States to establish a state religion, refuse the right to trial, outlaw guns, and ignore your right to silence.
But those rights are only ours as long as we are willing to force our government to uphold them. After 9/11 the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments (right against illegal search, right to due process, right to a speedy public trial, right to confront witnesses, and right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment), were pretty much thrown in the trash in the interest of "national security". Pretty much the same thing happened during WWII (Japanese internment camps) and during the Cold War, but we got them back by fighting for them in the courts.
On a more personal level, I challenge anyone to go to a gang-invested area of choice, strut up to the biggest most tattooed gangster you can find, and call him a [insert racial/homophobic slur of choice]. Then inform him of your right of free speech. If you are tough enough to preserve that right for yourself, or if you happen to have a police SWAT team standing behind you (society), then you may walk away from the encounter. Otherwise, you will die.
The way I look at it, one has to look at the bottom of a society to see if ''rights'' exist. In this country, no. People are judged and prodded because of who they are. Rights are just privileges for the ruling elite. Rights are in our head and can change from time to time.
I'm curious, do you think there's a meaningful difference in this context? I've considered the two a matter of semantics, but I suppose there could be a difference.
I considered both are the ability to do something that other people can't stop you from doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
