Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World

  1. #1
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118

    ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World

    Not necessarily a big fan of NY Times but, interesting read.

    “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us...the-world.html
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.
    We have a RIGHT to education and health care?

    Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: “Canadian law,” he wrote, “serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world.”
    Oh yes, Canada is lauded as the land of the FREE. Uh huh.

    The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights.
    I could be wrong, but isn't that what cops do when they Miranda you after the silver bracelets go on? And we don't have equality for women, disabled, elderly, etc etc etc?

    “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

  3. #3
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    We have a RIGHT to education and health care?
    They mean that other constitutions have that but, we're "out of step" because we don't guarantee those things.

    I could be wrong, but isn't that what cops do when they Miranda you after the silver bracelets go on? And we don't have equality for women, disabled, elderly, etc etc etc?
    Not necessarily. They only read the Miranda warning if they want to use whatever you say against you in trial. If they assume they already have enough evidence and don't necessarily need a confession, or in the confusion of basic conversation with an officer (Think of an officer approaching someone "Hey, how are you?" "Fine." "Is that a loaded weapon on your hip?" "Yes, sir, it is." Well, that person just gave RAS for the officer to ask for identification in my state. During this conversation, it's unclear whether the officer is detaining or not. If he isn't detaining you and you go about saying all sorts of things, they can be admissible).

    As for the equality for women, disabled, elderly, etc. I think the language in 14A is easily interpreted and causes strife even now and should be worded more properly. Or, even, the whole "all men are created equal", I've had men use that in an argument against me since it specifically says "men" not "women". I think the principle behind our constitution is a good one but, the wording is a bit arcane and perhaps needs a face lift instead of "Oh, this amendment says it this way but, it's faulty now so, we need to make another amendment to fix that problem".
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    "Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care."

    Well... at least they got the "right to travel" part right. I guess it was never considered a right that needed any explicit mention in the Bill of Rights because it was low on the list of "greviances" of England. Maybe those better educated in this part of history can tell us.


    "entitlement to food, education and health care."

    What do these things have to do with "rights not widely protected,"?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    SNIP

    As for the equality for women, disabled, elderly, etc. I think the language in 14A is easily interpreted and causes strife even now and should be worded more properly. Or, even, the whole "all men are created equal", I've had men use that in an argument against me since it specifically says "men" not "women". I think the principle behind our constitution is a good one but, the wording is a bit arcane and perhaps needs a face lift instead of "Oh, this amendment says it this way but, it's faulty now so, we need to make another amendment to fix that problem".
    Pandora's Box.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Pandora's Box.
    Indeed, the trap of the progressives, change the constitution to "fit today", instead of learning how to read and the history of the original.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Indeed, the trap of the progressives, change the constitution to "fit today", instead of learning how to read and the history of the original.
    That's sort of the problem with the original. Like I said, the language is arcane, it can be taken out of context and used against us. "Well regulated militia"? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean someone who goes to the range every day? A group of people that hang out and talk shop? The NRA? Depending on who you speak with, it could mean a multitude of things.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    They only read the Miranda warning if they want to use whatever you say against you in trial. ....
    Actually, you are sorta, kinda right and sorta, kinda wrong about that.

    You get read your Miranda/Edwards* rights when the cops are going to conduct a custodial interrogation - which basically means to ask you questions about criminal stuff after you have been arrested.

    If you say stuff without them asking you any questions they can always use that against you in court. That's what's behind the extensive and intense discussions of what to say/not to say after a self defense shooting incident. Your call to 9-1-1 can contain a lot of stuff that could be good or bad for seeing you found not guilty of any of several crimes.

    We hire attorneys becaue this whole subject is convoluted.

    stay safe.

    * Miranda established the right to be informed of your rights. Edwards clarified when and how you were considered to have been informed and whether or not you invoked certain of those rights.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    We are entitled to food????

    Sweet, the money I save from buying food can go to another gun!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    That's sort of the problem with the original. Like I said, the language is arcane, it can be taken out of context and used against us. "Well regulated militia"? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean someone who goes to the range every day? A group of people that hang out and talk shop? The NRA? Depending on who you speak with, it could mean a multitude of things.
    It doesn't really matter what a well regulated militia is, that sentence is the preamble, it states why the amendment is important; also, the right to bear arms was not protected for the militia, but the people. However, should you be one of the mind that the reason for the amendment is important then simply read about what the founders said a militia was and what historically constituted a militia in those days. A quick answer is, a group of men who are armed for the purpose of fighting and are not professional soldiers. Interestingly, most people's right to form a militia is infringed upon greatly for lack of a constitutional protection.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Well... at least they got the "right to travel" part right. I guess it was never considered a right that needed any explicit mention in the Bill of Rights because it was low on the list of "greviances" of England. Maybe those better educated in this part of history can tell us.
    False. The First Amendment protects the right to assemble, and by necessary inference the right to travel for assembly. Courts have ruled this way in the past.

    That current courts have whittled this right down to irrelevance is no different from circumstance of the Soviet "right" to protest government -- a right which, when exercised, frequently caused the death of its owner.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    We are entitled to food????

    Sweet, the money I save from buying food can go to another gun!
    Food stamps.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    That's sort of the problem with the original. Like I said, the language is arcane, it can be taken out of context and used against us. "Well regulated militia"? What exactly does that mean? Does that mean someone who goes to the range every day? A group of people that hang out and talk shop? The NRA? Depending on who you speak with, it could mean a multitude of things.
    "Well regulated militia" is a phrase which causes much debate and therefore, interpretation arises with differing meanings. The word "regulated" as it was used here in this context in the late 18th century meant "to keep and make regular" [source: Judge Napolitano] It did not mean to drill on a regular basis, etc. The problem with contemporary times is that we tend and want to view and interpret writings from the past through the eyes of our current times. Doing this loses some, a good deal really, of the original intent of the writers and in the worse case, poisons the meaning of their message. We see this time and time again in court renderings, press reports, presidential press conferences, and even discussions on forums such as this. A prime example is the use of the word, democracy.

    How many times have you heard reporters, governmental officials including the president, teachers and professors, and a host of other folks you would think would know better, refer to our form of government as a democracy? In fact, it is no such thing and the Founders abhorred democracies because they knew what the eventual outcome of that form of government is. The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Contrast this to how many times you have heard these same individuals correctly identify our form of government. Contemporary interpretation leads to worse than coloring the original intent. It leads to increasing ignorance of it. And it is this which is leading the race to our downfall.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    It doesn't really matter what a well regulated militia is, that sentence is the preamble, it states why the amendment is important; also, the right to bear arms was not protected for the militia, but the people. However, should you be one of the mind that the reason for the amendment is important then simply read about what the founders said a militia was and what historically constituted a militia in those days. A quick answer is, a group of men who are armed for the purpose of fighting and are not professional soldiers. Interestingly, most people's right to form a militia is infringed upon greatly for lack of a constitutional protection.
    It does matter when anti-gun lobbyists are trying to tell me that I don't meet their definition of "well regulated militia" and that I shouldn't possess a gun because of such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Food stamps.
    Are not protected under the constitution. Food stamps are a privilege, not a right.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I suspect that if the founding fathers were writing the constitution today, they would be using the language of today and misinterpretations would be reduced.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    It does matter when anti-gun lobbyists are trying to tell me that I don't meet their definition of "well regulated militia" and that I shouldn't possess a gun because of such.



    Are not protected under the constitution. Food stamps are a privilege, not a right.
    Letting the definition of "well regulated militia" matter is giving in to tyrants. If you let what they say matter then you have lost, for their next word is that you don't need a gun, and if that has any meaning its over. The correct answer to their argument is: the right to bear arms is not the militia's right but the peoples right as evidenced in:"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If militia's were the intended recipient of the protection, then the amendment would need to protect militias. The federal government doesn't need protection and claiming such, especially in something called the bill of rights, is a sign that someone is trying to pull a fast one on you.

    As to food stamps, I was simply listing the government program that tries to grantee what progressives claim is a positive right. Of course the whole idea of a positive right implies either a gross misunderstanding of the physical properties of the world or an excuse, likely for idiots, to take away someone's rights and liberty.
    Last edited by Daylen; 02-07-2012 at 05:22 PM.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    False. The First Amendment protects the right to assemble, and by necessary inference the right to travel for assembly. Courts have ruled this way in the past.

    That current courts have whittled this right down to irrelevance is no different from circumstance of the Soviet "right" to protest government -- a right which, when exercised, frequently caused the death of its owner.
    Uh... I said "I guess it was never considered a right that needed any explicit mention". See the word EXPLICIT?

    You say "by necessary inference".. so NOT false...

    No worries mate. I agree with you about the inference and the "whittlization".

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Uh... I said "I guess it was never considered a right that needed any explicit mention". See the word EXPLICIT?

    You say "by necessary inference".. so NOT false...

    No worries mate. I agree with you about the inference and the "whittlization".
    I do see the world "explicit", but I consider a necessary inference to be effectively explicit. There is a right to assemble; ipso facto there is a right to travel.

    What you are saying is akin to arguing that the right to life does not make explicit the right to breathe air. I argue that it does, by necessary inference, as breathing air is an inextricable part of living in the same way that traveling is an inextricable part of assembling. Nothing is ever truly explicit to the degree your definition requires. Everything relies on prior assumptions.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-07-2012 at 11:00 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I do see the world "explicit", but I consider a necessary inference to be effectively explicit. There is a right to assemble; ipso facto there is a right to travel.
    So... I don't care what you consider. The words have different meanings and they are mutually exclusive. You're lucky I'm bored right now otherwise I wouldn't be arguing this useless point with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    What you are saying is akin to arguing that the right to life does not make explicit the right to breathe air. I argue that it does, by necessary inference, as breathing air is an inextricable part of living in the same way that traveling is an inextricable part of assembling. Nothing is ever truly explicit to the degree your definition requires. Everything relies on prior assumptions.
    What?! OK... I'll find something to do.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    So... I don't care what you consider. The words have different meanings and they are mutually exclusive. You're lucky I'm bored right now otherwise I wouldn't be arguing this useless point with you.
    I wouldn't say mutually exclusive.

    Consider the definition of "explicit":

    explicit |ikˈsplisit|
    adjective
    stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt
    Inference is not the same as implication.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-07-2012 at 11:29 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Hard to follow arguments... its time for some sleep for more than one person who has posted on here recently.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  22. #22
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Hard to follow arguments... its time for some sleep for more than one person who has posted on here recently.
    I agree. Didn't intend to kick up a storm lol. Mah bad.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  23. #23
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    Good thread. Thanks for posting.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    I agree. Didn't intend to kick up a storm lol. Mah bad.
    No its ok, most of it was fine, just the last bunch have been... less than stellar. Plus, storms and duds are about all that happens.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Just for snots and giggles, I check out the South African Constitution Ruth Ginsberg recommended...

    Of course there is nothing guarantying the right to keep and bear arms.

    I thought this was interesting though;

    39. Interpretation of Bill of Rights

    When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum *
    must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom;
    must consider international law; and
    may consider foreign law.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 02-08-2012 at 12:53 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •