PDA

View Full Version : Is the US becoming Unconstitutional?



Dellit Tandannon
August 6th, 2001, 03:20 PM
What do you think about some of the new laws that are surfacing in the US (ie- the cellphone law)?

MistOfTheSea86
August 6th, 2001, 03:32 PM
I wish I were smart enough to be in this Arguement!!:D 8O

Earth Walker
August 6th, 2001, 03:51 PM
Canada is getting just as bad!:mad:


She who is NOT to be interrupted!
****************************
I think of "men" as the diminutive of Women

Danustouch
August 6th, 2001, 08:33 PM
I voted yes..but not for the whole cell phone law. There are other issues that I think prove that if left to Bush..this would quickly become a facist country.

sylphanie
August 6th, 2001, 08:35 PM
Well, rhetoric aside the ultimate goal of any governmental system is to keep itself in power. With that in mind, should we be surprised?

I think a lot of it is because we tend to live in a society that promotes pacifism as a great virtue. I mean, that's not to say that I think beating each other up solves anything (all the time ^_^)...but that kind of mind-set doesn't make for a populace ripe for revolution. If no one revolts against a government, it becomes sloppy and settled and entrenched.

Such is life.

Sylph

Danu
August 6th, 2001, 09:23 PM
I voted yes, but to clarify, the US has had laws for quiet some time that were already unconstitutional. It's all a matter of which side of the fence you are standing on.

Dellit Tandannon
August 6th, 2001, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Danustouch
I voted yes..but not for the whole cell phone law. There are other issues that I think prove that if left to Bush..this would quickly become a facist country.

i completely agree, i was just using the cell phone law as an example. i don't even own a cell phone, but it still makes me mad. :mad:

Tigerwallah
August 6th, 2001, 11:54 PM
The law says that you have to have both hands on the wheel while driving. Makes good sense to me. Thing is if you have a cell phone in your hand and it is holding the phone to your ear, you are already breaking a law that is in existence in most states.

A few weeks ago I was almost in a car accident in LA that involved a woman, talking on a cellphone, entering through a do not enter driveway. So, that law, IMHO makes good sense.

My best friend was arrested a couple of years ago for aggravated harrassment. She sent someone and insulting, but non threatening, greeting card. That really ticked me off. That was completely against her first amendment rights. She had every right to express her unpopular, but heartfelt opinion of the individual that she sent the card to. The offender before her was a sexual offender and they both got the same sentence - 16 hours of community service.

Illuminatus
August 7th, 2001, 04:17 PM
yes, mainly because the fourth amendment is just a joke now. They knock, and count to two before bashing your door down and sticking a rifle in your face to plant the drugs.

rantnraven
August 7th, 2001, 07:33 PM
Isn't that uncontitutional. They imposed a "temporay" law to support the war effort and never kept the promise of "temoprary"

RnR

stormyray
August 7th, 2001, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by rantnraven
Isn't that uncontitutional. They imposed a "temporay" law to support the war effort and never kept the promise of "temoprary"

RnR
I total agree with you on this one. And Bush feel that the "Rebate" will makes us all feel better and boost his aproval raiting. ya right.....

Earth Walker
August 7th, 2001, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by stormyray

I total agree with you on this one. And Bush feel that the "Rebate" will makes us all feel better and boost his aproval raiting. ya right.....

Ditto for Gordon Campbell in British Columbia, and his "tax-cuts"
I guess the poor will appreciate their $10 - $20.


She who is NOT to be interrupted!
****************************
The diminutive of Women is "men"
****************************
I am giftedly outspoken, and a Bitch...Being in total control, honey.

EasternPriest
August 7th, 2001, 09:40 PM
As far as the example used to start this thread, there is neither a constitutional right to drive, nor a constitutional right to use a cell phone whlie driving.

Earth Walker
August 7th, 2001, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Dellit Tandannon
What do you think about some of the new laws that are surfacing in the US (ie- the cellphone law)?

People should not use cellphones while driving, or any car phone,
it's too distracting....and also dangerous are those women who
have to refresh make-up while driving, not to mention the other
stupid things people do while operating a vehicle.:crazy:


She who is NOT to be interrupted!
****************************
The diminutive of Women is "men"

Tigerwallah
August 7th, 2001, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Mystique


People should not use cellphones while driving, or any car phone,
it's too distracting....and also dangerous are those women who
have to refresh make-up while driving, not to mention the other
stupid things people do while operating a vehicle.:crazy:


She who is NOT to be interrupted!
****************************
The diminutive of Women is "men"

You're absolutely right, Mystique. Using a cell phone, or any of the other above mentioned activities compromise my (and everyone's) un-alienable right to Life.

Myst
August 7th, 2001, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Tigerwallah
You're absolutely right, Mystique. Using a cell phone, or any of the other above mentioned activities compromise my (and everyone's) un-alienable right to Life.

A few weeks ago two of my best friends got into a car accident wherein the other driver was smoking and dropped the cigarette into their lap, bent over and thus crashed into my friends. I agree with keeping both hands on the wheel - no cellphone, no makeup, no cigarettes!

BrightStar
August 8th, 2001, 03:57 PM
Hi all!
As much as I hate to,I have to disagree on the idea that income tax is unconstitutional.the reason is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which gives power to Congress to collect the income tax.Yes,it was supposed to be temporary,but the amendment wasn't rescinded,so the income tax is in the constitution.
As far as is the USA unconstitutional,I don't really understand the question.I know people who can and do argue that the US Civil Rights laws are unconstitutional.Some say the US Bill of Rights isn't even applicable to the states,which was the rule until the 1930s.That's why segregation lasted so long.What the courts did was tie laws like the civil rights laws to Congress power to regulate commerce,which many in the south see as unconstitutional,a violation of states rights.Some say Social Security is unconstitutional.It does all depend where one stands on a particular issue.
Personally,I'm appalled by the circumvention of the 4th amendment so that Search warrants became no knock warrants.That property is taken from people because they are suspected of a crime,violating the 5th amendment.But people seem to like giving away freedoms if to do so makes them feel safe.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

Dellit Tandannon
August 8th, 2001, 09:21 PM
amendments are made by the government......

Tigerwallah
August 8th, 2001, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by BrightStar
But people seem to like giving away freedoms if to do so makes them feel safe.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

Isn't that the truth :rolleyes: I personally would give up any measure of safety to have freedom, but do not meet with much support in this matter.

BrightStar
August 8th, 2001, 11:50 PM
Hi all!
"Amendments are made by the government"
Well,I'd have to say yes and no to that comment.
It is a government function to amend the Constitution,as provided in Article 5 of the US Constitution.2/3 of both houses of Congress must approve the Amendment.Then it is submitted to the states and 3/4 of the states have to ratify the proposed Amendment,usually in the states legislatures.So it ain't easy,takes a lot of people to agree who usually can't,but in 1913 they got the income tax through after much debate.According to the Constitution the state governments are the people,so one could argue that Amendments are made by the people,speaking in a constitutional sense.
Some have argued that the Constitution was created in an unconstitutional manner,as the convention took place behind closed doors with a lot of rich white men drawing the thing up.I know Rhode Island didn't want to ratify and join the gov't of the US constitution,but they were last and surrounded by pro-constitution states.
Can a government created by this document be unconstitutional?It all depends on how one reads the document.I don't know,but I really don't understand the question.I can't find an option in the poll that reflects my thoughts on the matter.
It does many things that I think are unconstitutional,but Scalia,Rehnquist,Thomas,Kennedy,and O'Connor say it is,it wins in the Supreme Court 5-4,so according to the Constitution I guess the law or action would be constitutional.I just have to vote for candidates who disagree,and hope they get to pick a lot of judges.What is constitutional seems to be able to change over time.
It really does come down to one's interpretation.Some argue for strictly original intent.That the Constitution only means exactly what people thought in the 1780s.This line of thought would declare things like Civil Rights laws and abortion as unconstitutional and uses a rather narrow interpretation of the 1st,4th,and 5th amendments.Since Wicca wasn't thought of by the white guys in the 1780s it wouldn't be covered under the constitution.They're allowed to be really tough on crime and as long as the cop 'in good faith' thinks he's following the constitution,even if he isn't,the arrest and a conviction stand.
Some see it as a living,evolving document that can change with the times,yet they'd take peoples guns while allowing civil rights laws to stand along with reproductive freedom..
A republic is really an odd form of government.
just my opinion.
Peace and Love
BrightStar
P.S.As far as using cell phones while driving.I have to agree with EP.Driving is a privilege,not a constitutional right,so the states and feds may restrict it,in ways such as demanding a person has a license.The Constitution doesn't have a "Right to drive"clause.Now,if it was using a cell phone while riding a horse,I might come down differently on the issue:)
PPS-Yeah Tigerwallah.It sometimes makes me think of what the world said about Mussolini,"At least the trains run on time"and there is no crime in the streets.Some people just want order.

kuja14
August 9th, 2001, 08:20 PM
i think we are losing rights here and there!

trey cocus
August 10th, 2001, 02:47 AM
yes. if you look at what our nation was discovered on then you realize that all new laws are destroying it. case and point gun control. we are suppose to have guns to protect us from the government as well as other criminals. yes other criminals. taking money is taking money whether you hold a person at gunpoint or not. but anyway, by illegalizing guns you just make the nation more dangerous. look at britain. criminals still have guns yet officers dont. they are criminals. making a law wont stop them.
taxation is overwhelming. wasnt our nation pushed into gaining liberty to escape unfair taxation? oh well. lets give it to jessi jackson.
there's a safety belt law in georgia where you must wear a seat belt in a moving vehicle. obviously we arent mature enough to take care of ourselves so once again big brother comes in to save us.
drugs hurt no one physically but the ones who use them. if one invades another's rights by using them then arrest them. i personaly do not use drugs, but find that there should be no law against them.
the founding fathers of our nation knew what they were doing, despite what left wing socialists of our nation believe. let their genious protect us. if you agree with the statements a wrote then check out the libertarian party. it grrrrrrreat!!!!

trey cocus
August 10th, 2001, 02:56 AM
i just read the one post about the friend in the accident. sorry about your friends but just becuase someone makes a mistake i should not have to suffer. i can smoke, dial a number, mess with my cd player while driving. why? because i drive well and have experience. i say make the driving tests more difficult. inside the car is my private property. let me be. geez....cant smoke anywhere. i say restrict areas where people can chew gum. im tired of stepping in that crap. nobody complains about stepping on cigarette butts, but gum sucks straight out. look like cows chewing it..... bleee...

Myst
August 10th, 2001, 03:07 AM
Oh well it's good that you can do all that while driving but most people can't. Maybe we *should* incorporate being able to put makeup on, talk on the cell phone, and smoke while driving into the three driving tests we have here so you don't have to go a MOMENT without a cigarette in your mouth or a phone in your ear! Anyways, if that law were in effect and my friends hadn't had to go through that or the few other people in the world who've had the same thing happen due to smokers or cell phone users then isn't that enough? How many people have to die or get injured before people should have to concentrate fully on driving?

Besides that, I don't think the smoking laws were created all because of people throwing butts on the ground. I think it had a bit more to do with the fact that second hand smoke pollutes peoples lungs and we don't appreciate that :)

Tigerwallah
August 10th, 2001, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by trey cocus
. geez....cant smoke anywhere. i say restrict areas where people can chew gum. im tired of stepping in that crap. nobody complains about stepping on cigarette butts, but gum sucks straight out. look like cows chewing it..... bleee...

There's nothing worse to someone without a niccotine addiction to get a lung full of smoke. I think I have an unalienable right to fresh air (or as fresh as the air can be with all of the other pollutants). I'd have no problem with people smoking where ever they were ...if they smoked with their heads in a plastic bags :p.

I'm not thrilled with the gum thing either, but at least it won't kill ya to get gum on your shoe.

Tigerwallah
August 10th, 2001, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by trey cocus
yes. if you look at what our nation was discovered on

I'm on the fence on gun control. Seems to me that the constitution protects our right to arms when in a militia. I don't believe that people would be safer if everyone had guns - quite the opposite. Last I heard, England's crime rate was lower than ours despite the bobbies not being armed. Too many children are killed by guns in the home everyday. Fact is you weren't born with it, you don't need it. In this day and age do you actually believe a gun is going to protect you against the gov't? If it ever came down to that, believe me, with the weapon technology that our gov't has access to, you'd never get a chance to fire.

Sad fact is that we (as a whole) do not make the right decisions. We've become a very self-centered nation. Seems like the motivating factor is immediate gratification - which is what the gov't wants. We are good consumers. We support the economy like good little brainless robots buying the latest video games, hair care products, automobiles, etc. I see it in your own post, Trey. You want to smoke where you want without consideration for those arround you. You want to remove your hands from the steering wheel, with false confidence, despite the possibility of causing injury or even fatality to others. The government shouldn't have to tell you that you can't do that. If we were acting responsibly and policing ourselves, we would have much more power, and far less control from the gov't. Keep on truckin', though. That's really what they want. The less we can control ourselves the more they will "need" to control us, and one day you wake up and this is a fascist nation.

Earth Walker
August 10th, 2001, 10:59 AM
It already is a fascist nation...along with a few others, like
Canada.


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will also have an end. :smash:

EasternPriest
August 10th, 2001, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Mystique
It already is a fascist nation...along with a few others, like
Canada.


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will also have an end. :smash:


No.

sylphanie
August 10th, 2001, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Mystique
It already is a fascist nation...along with a few others, like
Canada.


If the US and Canada were really fascist, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My whole problem with our respective governments is that they're too difficult to overthrow. I mean, it's hard to bridge the line between protecting a nation from foreign invasion and still keeping the possibility for large-scale internal reformation and revolution, but as it stands now we're either going to have to change abysmally slowly or suffer a complete collapse of the system.

Just MOSHO. ^_^

Sylph

Earth Walker
August 10th, 2001, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by EasternPriest



No.

Yes.

While not totally fascist, they still are.
In Vancouver, the city is putting up video cameras all over
the downtown eastside, chinatown, gastown, the west end,
commercial drive...........but only in these areas...not in
Shaughnessy, etc.
On August 12, we will be having the Under The Volcano
Festival in Cates Park, North Vancouver.
The RCMP will be there to ID everybody entering/leaving,
which will noted and logged.........and their excuse is that
we are all "anarchists." Pagans, activists, and other left-wingers.
In all of the past years, our own security was there to prevent
trouble....pot was confiscated....as well as the drugs: alcohol,
crack, heroin, etc, and anyone drunk or high was quietly
escorted from the park. There was never any trouble made that
made it necessary to call the police.
We also have to close down early.


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will also have an end. :smash:

EasternPriest
August 10th, 2001, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Mystique


Yes.

While not totally fascist, they still are.


No.

Tigerwallah
August 10th, 2001, 10:15 PM
Those cameras are already in place in Miami and several other touristy fashionably crowded areas. There was discussion about putting them at the Ocean Front here in Virginia Beach. Surprisingly, I was pretty lonely in my protest of these cameras. I wrote a letter to the editor of my paper. I don't think it was even considered.

They scan faces, especially concerned with the measurements around the eye area. These measurements are then compared to photos of possible criminals and mug shots. If you have the same eye/nose measurement as a murderer, theif, etc., they'll drag you off of the street and interview you. Imagine that!!!!

I've even heard whispers of xray cameras in the major airports that show EVERYTHING. You don't even know it's happenning. You think you are walking by a poster or through the metal detector and someone is manning a screen that views you right through your clothes. If that isn't an invasion of privacy, well, I'm not sure what is.

Mystique is right. In many ways we are already fascist. And we only have ourselves to blame. They tell us that this is for our own safety, and we believe them. We believe that our "SAFETY" is worth the price of our "FREEDOM."

trey cocus
August 12th, 2001, 01:10 AM
ok. i understand that there is a theory on smoking causing cancer and what not. for some reason however no one has been able to prove it. in other words, back off. i am a polite smoker. i blow the air up and never smoke in restraunts. i even ask people if htey mind if i smoke while im in my own car.
back to the main focus however. once again, sorry about your friends, but what i do in my car is my business. i mean, people fall asleep while driving, but does that mean we should give them sleep test before they drive? perhaps though we should enforce the law that everyone should listen to classical music because it helps us concentrate.

EasternPriest
August 12th, 2001, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by trey cocus
ok. i understand that there is a theory on smoking causing cancer and what not. for some reason however no one has been able to prove it. in other words, back off.

Actually, the direct link between smoking and lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, eetc....is not a theory, but well documented fact. Over 400,000 americans die from smoking related causes very year. In contrast, about 70,000 dies in Vietnam in a 14 year period.

EasternPriest
August 12th, 2001, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by trey cocus
back to the main focus however. once again, sorry about your friends, but what i do in my car is my business.

Actually, it's not if you are on a public right of way. Driving is a privilege in the U.S., not a "right." So, as long as you are driving on a public right of way, the state has a legitimate interest in passing laws that promote general safety.

mol
August 12th, 2001, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by EasternPriest


Actually, the direct link between smoking and lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, eetc....is not a theory, but well documented fact. Over 400,000 americans die from smoking related causes very year. In contrast, about 70,000 dies in Vietnam in a 14 year period.

Ah...but another fact...is that it is DIFFERENT for almost every smoker...

EasternPriest
August 12th, 2001, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by mol


Ah...but another fact...is that it is DIFFERENT for almost every smoker...

That is true...but the aggregate numbers leave no doubt as to what the odds are. Any indivual may beat the odds, but the odds are against it.....

feywytch
August 12th, 2001, 02:06 AM
Well... as to laws passed and those always proposed... in the begining when I was small and did no tknow about lawmakers and twisted politics, I thought it was grnad laws could be passed and helped people..

Then I grew up and worked within the legal system and realized that the laws themselves at the rate of idiocy that they occur and the topics that they cover are so absurd and clog the system so fluently that 'system' is an outdated word... more like 'moronic labrynths'.

Every time someone gets a wild hair....a law is proposed. Now some are darn good ones but many that clog the system and just plain confuse everyone are unnecessary and ridicualous.

Earth Walker
August 12th, 2001, 02:13 AM
Even with their millions of laws, the system cannot hold a
candle to: Do as you will, but harm none. :cool:


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will also have an end. ;smash:

Tigerwallah
August 12th, 2001, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Mystique
Even with their millions of laws, the system cannot hold a
candle to: Do as you will, but harm none. :cool:


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will also have an end. ;smash:

Yeah, that's what I think too. Again, if we all thought of the concequences of our actions, instead of immediate gratification, then we wouldn't need laws. I can't emphasize this enough.

Myst
August 12th, 2001, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by trey cocus

back to the main focus however. once again, sorry about your friends, but what i do in my car is my business.

If you fall asleep in the car and crash into me, guess what, you're going to get your butt prosecuted. :)

What you do on _public_ roads is in fact my business ;) ;) ;)

Myst
August 12th, 2001, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Tigerwallah


Yeah, that's what I think too. Again, if we all thought of the concequences of our actions, instead of immediate gratification, then we wouldn't need laws. I can't emphasize this enough.

Well said and so true.

Dellit Tandannon
May 18th, 2002, 02:25 PM
I started this poll in August, a month and five days before September 11th. I am curious to see how people answer now. Is it ok to pass over the Constitution for national security?

Arduinna
May 18th, 2002, 02:46 PM
Not in my opinion.

Dellit Tandannon
May 19th, 2002, 12:38 AM
are you addressing the original question of this thread or the one i just posed?

Arduinna
May 19th, 2002, 02:08 AM
Sorry I wasn't more clear. The one you just posted. I don't think that anyone should be giving up their rights just because of what happened in Sept. The laws are there for a reason and should be applied across the board regardless of the situation.

Danustouch
May 19th, 2002, 10:44 AM
Hmmm...this is a tough question. Yes, I believe that the Constitution should be upheld. However....there is obviosly a need now for Americans to become more aware of threaghts to our safety, and be willing to work WITH the government to make our Country Safer. The long lines at the airports, for instance. That is one way in which we are having to adjust our lifestyles to fit this new era. However...if we are talking about Racial Profiling, Carrying Racial Identification Badges, and having our actions on th Internet, radio, etc, monitored..well...this is an idea that goes against the grain of what America stands for.

We elect our congressmen in this Country. And once we do, we are supposed to trust them to make the decisions for our Nation, that we support. If we don't like a law that is going before congress, it is up to us to make our voices heard, via calling our congressmen, or sighning petitions. HOWEVER, if the majority of "We the People" support the monitoring of communications, and other security measures, then perhaps it is because in the Post Sept 11th world, America has evolved, and with it, our mindsets, and what liberties we are willing to give up in the interests of safety.

In short..I am very much against the Government going against the Constititution in anything. However, it is up to the People to decide what we will and will not do to protect our country, what we will and will not adhere to. I think that the Government must be VERY careful with any steps that they make which would possibly reduce the Liberties which have come to symbolize America...and make sure that whatever choices they are making, are choices which reflect the thoughts, feelings, and ideals of the American people.

It's a very difficult question indeed. Because there obviosly has to be some tightening of our belts where security is concerned. There has to be some change in the way we live, in this new Era. How to do that, without giving up the liberties that we prize so much, is a puzzle that is continually being looked at by both ordinary citezens, and the elected officials whom represent us. It's such a difficult question...

OnlyTheLonely
May 19th, 2002, 10:18 PM
Haven't heard of the new cell phone law, but I am sort of split on my opinion. While I feel some of the new laws that are being passed are utter non-sence, I do feel as though a few are passed with general concern for our safety.

Valnorran
June 5th, 2002, 04:59 PM
I can't remember who said it, but basically he said that the amount of liberty in a society is directly proportional to the number of laws in that society i.e., more laws, fewer liberties.

The problem with working with the gov't is that they will not work with us. They have demonstrated time and again that if we give them a little slack, they take the whole damn ball of yarn. Does anyone honestly think if we grant the gov't more power in a crisis that they will meekly surrender that power once the crisis is over? A couple of quotes from Ben Franklin spring to mind:

Historically, people have always been willing to give up freedom for security. Those who surrender the former lose the latter.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing the fields for those who didn't.

Faolan
June 6th, 2002, 03:11 AM
A friend of mine's sister was in a car wreck about two years ago, she was 15, and the crash rendered her in a coma for 3 months. She can no longer speak, or walk. She communicates by sign language. Wesla (the girl) and I weren't close friends, but I couldn't stand to see this happen to her. Now, there were problems on both sides. First off, they were coming back from a party at like 2 AM. and her boyfriend was driving their friend's car. Their friend was passed out in the back drunk, and her boyfriend has an eye impairment and not a lisence. They were driving through an intersection on a major road, and everything was fine. Austin was driving fine, he didn't seem to be having any problems. Their light had just turned red when they were in the middle of the intersection, and all of a sudden BAM! They were hit in their tiny car, by a huge SUV going about 80 mph. They proved the lady was on a cell phone, because about 5 minutes later her boyfriend showed up, and she also had a son in the car who was not buckled up. Nothing happened to her, no injuries, and no punishments. Austin was sued, and Wesla is still barely on the road to recovery. I'm sorry but if this is what our government sees as justice, it's sad. Yes Austin and those involved should not have gotten off scott-free because they were breaking laws as well, because the guy in the back -was- underage. But neither should the lady in the SUV. I don't mind the cell phone law. I hate when my mom is on the cell phone while driving, cause sometimes she'll start to merge into another lane without realizing it, and it terrifies me. Your car might be your private property, but the road your own, and the people you could potentially injure or kill are -not- your property to hurt. You can't just think about yourself, by saying it's my car I can do what I want. You have to think about the people around you, the children that could lose parents, or vice versa, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, and cousins. You have to think about them as well, because they are real people and these are real dangers.

If I've offended anyone please forgive me, it was not my intention to do so.

Calixto
June 7th, 2002, 12:13 AM
We are getting to be increasingly akin to a police state.

The stuff I have to keep track of on financial accounts due to USPATRIOT is incredible.

But its just another step in a process that has been going on for 60 years...bit by bit.

Now to a quote:


Some say the US Bill of Rights isn't even applicable to the states,which was the rule until the 1930s.That's why segregation lasted so long.What the courts did was tie laws like the civil rights laws to Congress power to regulate commerce,which many in the south see as unconstitutional,a violation of states rights

Actually, the 14th Amendment technically made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. However, the Supreme Court did not enforce this fact until the middle of this century.

Prior to this Amendment you were technically a citizen of your State, and the Bill of Rights only applied to the Feds. States had State Churches and other such practices...which became unconstitutional once the Amendment made everyone Citizens of the USA if they were born here or naturalized; and applied the Bill of Rights to all levels of the government.

I won't complain much about that.

Cal

Illuminatus
June 13th, 2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Faolan
If I've offended anyone please forgive me, it was not my intention to do so.

<sarcasm>
Your story has sold me!

From now on, I proclaim my unilateral support for blind, unlicenced drivers running red lights! They're the REAL victims!
</sarcasm>

- Illuminatus!

BrightStar
October 7th, 2003, 05:52 PM
Isn't that uncontitutional. They imposed a "temporay" law to support the war effort and never kept the promise of "temoprary"

RnR
Hi!
The tax law isn't unconstitutional,because it was allowed by a constitutional Amendment.
You are right that they said it was temporary.Too bad we didn't repeal the Amendment.
BrightStar

mol
October 17th, 2003, 04:15 PM
Good grief. This thread is OLD. We are already unconsitutional by now.

Hawk Shadowsoul
October 28th, 2003, 10:20 AM
Good grief. This thread is OLD. We are already unconsitutional by now.


You're correct. Every day more laws are passed that violate our freedoms. Congress is constantly trying to legislate morality. A friend once told me we have over 35 million laws to enforce 10 commandments. That is way over simplifying, but a harsh thread of truth exists in the statement.

The constitution has been pushed to the rear in favor of re-election, pork barrel projects, favors to campaign contributors, and highly vocal special interest groups.

It's sad to say, but there are now countries in the world whose citizens have more personal freedom than we now do.

schadenfreude
November 3rd, 2003, 10:56 AM
I believe that laws and the way of living nowadays .. is against what this country was founded on / for. But .. I also believe that one cannot live by rules and ideas created long ago because times do change ..

Jenne
October 25th, 2005, 12:19 AM
My oh my...lots of "old faces" in this thread--I miss Hawk SS and Dellit...sigh.

Anyway, for what it's worth...it's a pendulum swing, it really is. Sad thing is, tho, is this particular swing is very against the direction I believe our nation needs to go in during these current events.

I'll just wait it out under this canopy over here...wait til the pendulum comes about the other way.

charmedkisses1
October 25th, 2005, 12:34 AM
Well if you actually READ the Constitution... a big hell YES

gurlygurl2004
October 25th, 2005, 09:31 AM
I voted yes..but not for the whole cell phone law. There are other issues that I think prove that if left to Bush..this would quickly become a facist country.


That is if he actually did at least half the stuff he said he'd do such as illegalize abortion, gay rights, etc. And actually tried harder to create a more fundamentalist Christian country. IE: Actually deporting Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, maybe some liberal Christians, etc. But he's not that bad, I don't mean to toot my own horn, I still think he's not that great of a president but he actually voted against making a constitutional law to ban gay marriage (at least at the last minute). He still doesn't want Wicca to be considered a real religion, but I haven't heard him take legal action against that yet.

gurlygurl2004
October 25th, 2005, 09:39 AM
I believe that laws and the way of living nowadays .. is against what this country was founded on / for. But .. I also believe that one cannot live by rules and ideas created long ago because times do change ..


That's a good point, I mean yes our constitution has survived this long because of change but sometimes I think that we get away from the basic principles of our constitution, and what we were founded on. Yet there's debate about what we were founded on. True we did come here to escape religious persecution, but in later years we've turned that around to persecute nonChristians and to say that we were founded on Christian morals. True most of the prilgrims were Christians and they tried to convert the Indians out of disapproval of their religion, but after 200 years we could be more open to Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist, etc ideas, that may even strenghthen our country more than most Christians realize.

Valnorran
October 25th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Arewe becoming unconstitutional? No. We became unconstitutional a looooooooong time ago. The only difference is the government isn't putting forth as much effort to disguise it as they used to.

wolf
October 25th, 2005, 12:54 PM
I'm on the fence on gun control. Seems to me that the constitution protects our right to arms when in a militia.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right.

You don't have the right to free speech only in a group context ... you have an individual right to due process, an individual right to not be twice held in jeopardy of your life ... why should ONE of the 10 rights in the bill of rights be a group/collective right and all the rest individual? They aren't.


I don't believe that people would be safer if everyone had guns - quite the opposite. Last I heard, England's crime rate was lower than ours despite the bobbies not being armed.

Not true. England's crime rate has increased dramatically since banning firearms. So has Australia's.

Every state which has broaded gun rights, especially concealled carry, has experienced a drop in crime. The highest crime rates in this country are in cities that have FULL GUN CONTROL -- Washington, New York, and Chicago. Interesting thing ... the criminals are the only ones with the guns because they don't follow the law.


Too many children are killed by guns in the home everyday.

More children are drowned in bathtubs every day than killed by a gun in the home. Good luck banning bathtubs.


Fact is you weren't born with it, you don't need it.

So ... I also wouldn't hypothetically food, shelter, and medicines to support my health?


In this day and age do you actually believe a gun is going to protect you against the gov't? If it ever came down to that, believe me, with the weapon technology that our gov't has access to, you'd never get a chance to fire.

Actually, yes, I do. The point is not necessarily that I would WIN ... I accept that.

It's not only the government I need protecting from ... the junkie next door is more of a concern for me.


Now ... to get the thread back on track ... what darn cellphone law? If it's the shut-up-and-drive thing, I'm all for that. Distracted driving is more dangerous than firearms.

Come to that ... people kill people with cars all the time, more often than people get killed by people with guns ... why isn't anybody calling for an assault car ban??

aluokaloo
October 25th, 2005, 01:27 PM
yes and no in many ways people are beginning to wake up to what goes on around them. yes because some people like bush and his admin of cronies are attempting to choke the l;ife out of thisd country, whilke trying to say that everyone like them is a traitor! A\I have always agreed with Aesop! Lean freedom is better then fat slavery!I'd rather be free then safe! Besides the biggest terrorists and anti americans come from our own government.

gurlygurl2004
October 25th, 2005, 07:00 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right.

You don't have the right to free speech only in a group context ... you have an individual right to due process, an individual right to not be twice held in jeopardy of your life ... why should ONE of the 10 rights in the bill of rights be a group/collective right and all the rest individual? They aren't.



Not true. England's crime rate has increased dramatically since banning firearms. So has Australia's.

Every state which has broaded gun rights, especially concealled carry, has experienced a drop in crime. The highest crime rates in this country are in cities that have FULL GUN CONTROL -- Washington, New York, and Chicago. Interesting thing ... the criminals are the only ones with the guns because they don't follow the law.



More children are drowned in bathtubs every day than killed by a gun in the home. Good luck banning bathtubs.



So ... I also wouldn't hypothetically food, shelter, and medicines to support my health?



Actually, yes, I do. The point is not necessarily that I would WIN ... I accept that.

It's not only the government I need protecting from ... the junkie next door is more of a concern for me.


Now ... to get the thread back on track ... what darn cellphone law? If it's the shut-up-and-drive thing, I'm all for that. Distracted driving is more dangerous than firearms.

Come to that ... people kill people with cars all the time, more often than people get killed by people with guns ... why isn't anybody calling for an assault car ban??


So England has banned firearms or guns? What about hunting guns? I'm assuming they are talking about the average person and not police and security.

WokeUpDead
October 26th, 2005, 12:25 AM
They've been having this argument since 1790. One of these days it might come true.

wolf
October 26th, 2005, 01:00 AM
So England has banned firearms or guns? What about hunting guns? I'm assuming they are talking about the average person and not police and security.

All firearms. All guns. Including sporting guns. There may be some organized shooting clubs left, but I think they were also part of the ban.

Dawa Lhamo
October 26th, 2005, 02:43 PM
With regard to gun control (in the US), the single most effective way to prevent accidental gun deaths is education. You know, driving is a privilege that you have to take a test to gain. Owning firearms isn't a privilege; it's a right. So we can't create tests that people have to pass in order to own a gun. But in my school in 7th grade, we all took boating education. We had videos and tests and quizzes, and at the end we got some kind of certification. Couldn't hunter's education be incorporated into the schools at an early age? It wouldn't need to involve actual guns, just education about the uses and dangers. If people knew how to handle guns responsibly and respect guns, then accidental gun deaths would decrease dramatically. Banning all guns is a lot like banning all drugs. It just serves to make a lot of people into criminals.

With regards to the thread topic, yes, laws are becoming blatantly more and more unconstitutional. The whole history of this country is peppered with unconstitutional laws and policies. Look at McCarthyism. ^_^ It's not just the socialist left, either, as some have claimed. True, there are a lot of asinine 'socialist' laws designed to protect stupid people which tread all over the constitution. But there are also a lot of laws that come out of the right that tread all over the constitution (albeit often different parts). *coughPatriotActcough* I really don't trust any party to uphold the constitution (including the Constitution Party). ^_^

The sentiment that if people would just be conscious and responsible that a lot of laws would be irrelevant is very correct. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon. However, even taking into account the fact that there are selfish and irresponsible people out there, we still have too many laws.

And there's no good reason (including 'safety') to strip us of our constitutional rights. Foreign threats were very real to the framers of the constitution. I mean, they had just spent a long period of time at war with England. So I am very certain that they took foreign threats into account when they wrote it up, and so 'dangers from abroad' are a poor excuse to strip away those rights. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

wolf
October 26th, 2005, 02:57 PM
More schools should be using the Eddie Eagle program. (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/index.asp)

Laisrean
November 1st, 2005, 12:51 PM
Is the USA unconstitutional?


Article [X.]

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.


It already is. Last time I checked, the constitution didn't authorize the federal government to be involved in Health care, education, retirement, or have an EPA, FBI, NASA, CIA, etc. etc.

Unless the constitution specifically authorizes something the federal government isn't allowed to do it.

WokeUpDead
November 1st, 2005, 04:55 PM
Is the USA unconstitutional?



It already is. Last time I checked, the constitution didn't authorize the federal government to be involved in Health care, education, retirement, or have an EPA, FBI, NASA, CIA, etc. etc.

Unless the constitution specifically authorizes something the federal government isn't allowed to do it.

But the people vote for the people that start these things. So in a way it is left to the people.

Dawa Lhamo
November 1st, 2005, 05:25 PM
But the people vote for the people that start these things. So in a way it is left to the people.If politicians didn't lie, there'd be more of a case here. That and the fact that most people don't know exactly what their rights are or exactly what the Constitution entails...

Valnorran
November 1st, 2005, 06:36 PM
But the people vote for the people that start these things. So in a way it is left to the people.
We don't vote for federal judges, and a lot of this comes from their decisions.

WokeUpDead
November 2nd, 2005, 12:22 AM
And if it weren't for the judges congress and the president could just pass whatever the hell they want without worry about whether it's legal or not.

dragoncrone
November 9th, 2005, 10:46 AM
What do you think about some of the new laws that are surfacing in the US (ie- the cellphone law)?

Last month the California legislature passed SB861 which opens the door to banning specific breeds of dog in this state. Of course people should be safe from dog attacks -- BUT: no dog is born mean. We already have laws on the books requiring people to keep their dogs in their yard, on a leash, laws against mistreating or torturing dogs, and requiring dogs be licensed.

They can't even enforce THOSE. So since they can't control the @ssholes who torture and exploit dogs, they decide to just get rid of the dogs? This makes no sense. More kids die from gunshots every year than dog bites -- but you don't see Schwarzengroper going after the NRA!!!

I am a county coordinator for 'No SB861.' If you are a California dog owner (or even if you're not -- all I have is 6 cats!) please PM me if you would like to get involved.
:rant:

Javyn
November 11th, 2005, 11:11 AM
A law is not unconstitutional unless the United States Supreme Court declares it so and strikes it down. Has anyone here complaining actually read the Constitution in its entirety? And just because the Constitution didn't authorize something specifically doesn't mean the government stepping in is unconstitutional. It DOES give the federal government broad powers. If it is not in the Constitution that doesn't mean the government can't do it. It's more like the other way around...if it IS in the Constitution that means the government cannot do it. It amazes me that people get worked up over such trivial crap like allowing women to bear their breasts during protests or some states not allowing certain dog breeds (which the states have a completely legal right to do) and yet, I bet no one here has heard of the Kelo vs. New London case right? Where the Supreme Court has pretty much said that the government siezing private property and giving over to another private party such as a real estate developer or corporation is constitutional under Eminent Domain. But nah, let's continue to demonize Bush because I can't walk down the street buck naked with my pitbull in California, or get all worked up that non-US citizen terrorist suspects are being held in secret prisons, and that they should be protected under our Constitution too even though they are a) not citizens b) un-uniformed prisoners of war (btw: The rules of warfare have always clearly stated that any enemy combatant caught not wearing a uniform was to be immediately hanged..no trial, no jury, nothing. We followed this rule during the revolutionary war, during both world wars, but now it seems we have gone soft and just imprison them. It's kinda funny to me that everyone is complaining about these poor terrorists because we are imprisoning them without access to OUR court system, even though they are NOT citizens, and technically if we followed the law like we should have, they would all be dead by now anyway.


I have an idea, why don't we just GIVE them our country the way France did? If you think you are so oppressed here now, just wait until you are subject to Shaira Law!

Hawk Shadowsoul
April 13th, 2006, 03:25 AM
We don't vote for federal judges, and a lot of this comes from their decisions.

Trickle down politics.

Cain
April 13th, 2006, 03:26 AM
Trickle down politics.

Does that mean its also called "voodoo politics"? And if so, when do we get Richard Nixon back?

Hawk Shadowsoul
April 13th, 2006, 03:28 AM
Does that mean its also called "voodoo politics"? And if so, when do we get Richard Nixon back?

Nixon is senile. Voodoo is alive and well. do the math.

CoolJ
April 13th, 2006, 07:10 AM
I don't know about the rest of the country, but I know NYC has for a long time

Little Billy
April 13th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Isn't that uncontitutional. They imposed a "temporay" law to support the war effort and never kept the promise of "temoprary"

RnR


Um, no.

Please read amendment XVI of the US constitution.

Little Billy
April 13th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Nixon is senile. Voodoo is alive and well. do the math.


Nixon is DEAD.

But that never stopped him before.