• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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? :confused:

“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!”

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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? :confused:

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".
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
"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,"?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
We are entitled to food????

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

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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.

Food stamps.

Are not protected under the constitution. Food stamps are a privilege, not a right.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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".
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.

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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:
Top