Civil Rights and Liberties

[Excel1]

My Father always said:

'You only have rights that other people allow you to have'.

That's the sum of it really.

that's almost defeatist, but i'd say your old man is right.

btw, those other people that unjustly curb or restrict yours and my rights are empowered and legitimised by masses of scared apathetic drones that are forever bending over instead of standing up for their own rights. it's these stupid bastards that are content to be subjugated, and maybe sneak a scrap of food of the table when their master isn't looking, that are the problem because their low aim is stuffing things up  for the rest of us

[Holden McGroin]

You're not guaranteed anything. It's all a matter of circumstance. The government can suspend what we think are rights whenever they deem it necessary. i.e. (extreme case) Marshall Law.

Judiciary Act of 1789 established the US Marshal service as a law enforcement agency.

Now Martial law, that's different

[Rich46yo]

If you dont think you have civil rights and liberties in America then you have lived a very sheltered life and never went past out borders into that craphole called "most of the rest of the world".

But I can live with "whining due to inexperience". What I cant live with is some of you sounding like lawyers with your little word games.

[CAP1]

There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.

i don't know why....maybe i'm just paranoid , but i think they already HAVE taken it away from us. i often feel as if my/our votes mean nothing, and that these elections are nothing more than a big overly expensive "dog and pony" show.

[DREDIOCK]

And AWAYYYY we go!

[wrag]

If you dont think you have civil rights and liberties in America then you have lived a very sheltered life and never went past out borders into that craphole called "most of the rest of the world".

But I can live with "whining due to inexperience". What I cant live with is some of you sounding like lawyers with your little word games.

IMHO You, and me, and everyone else, have ONLY the Rights and Liberties WE are willing to both exercise, and fight for......

As to the little word games, you might want to pay attention to em!  Especially when certain people start using em.

It ain't the little word games on here that you need to worry about!

It's when the politicians and such start their little word games that SHOULD create worry............

[BnZ]

If you dont think you have civil rights and liberties in America then you have lived a very sheltered life and never went past out borders into that craphole called "most of the rest of the world".

But I can live with "whining due to inexperience". What I cant live with is some of you sounding like lawyers with your little word games.

Yes, we have no business complaining about creeping infringements UNTIL we are just as bad as Soviet Russia.

As long as we are even slightly better, we need to STFU!

[BnZ]

IMHO You, and me, and everyone else, have ONLY the Rights and Liberties WE are willing to both exercise, and fight for......

I think it has pretty much been proven by events that Americans as a whole will put up with anything out of their government as long as they have plenty Mcburgers to eat and their satellite dish keeps working.

[humble]

There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.

I don't have the time or interest to "debate" constitutional law with someone unless I know they actually have a background in the above. The  
"right to vote" is clearly protected everywhere from the preamble thru the original articles. What is not clearly defined is who has this "right". As originally conceived that definition was left to each state as outlined in section 4...

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"

The original construction of our country was a compromise of two theoretical forms of republican government. A centralized and a distributed model, as such certain functions and responsibilities were fractionalized. Under the original construction each state determined which of its citizens was entitled to vote, those voters then elected the state legislators and the states then elected representatives to the federal government. The constitution reserved the final say on those decisions for the new federal government. As originally envisioned the United States was created as a Republic not a democracy (there is a very big difference).

So the underlying question isn't if the right to vote is protected, its establishing who has the right. As with most constitutional issues the intent of the founders is most often found clarified and distilled in the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So we see that the founding fathers clearly believed and stated that the power of the "Governments" are derived from the consent of its individual members. What is often unclear hundreds of years later is that the original structure followed on the continental congress. So each state had leaders elected by "the people", who then in turn elected members which formed the original continental congress, hence our current electoral system where popular vote does not elect the president, and technically you are not actually voting for the president put for an "elector" who is pledged but not legally bound to actually vote for your choice.

So the simple answer is that yes your right to vote is protected (but not defined) in article four of the Constitution.

[Curlew]

Thats true, the people actauly are not agrenteed the right to vote, just that it cannot be denied because of race, sex, or age (as long as over 18), and those votes arent actauly who elect the president, the electoral college does.

And as for the whole hate words thing: obscenety has always been veiwed as being outside the bounds of constitutional protection and thus can be regulated. Fighting words also are not veiwed to be protected by the constitution, both fall under the catigory of order v free speech.

[humble]

Again there is a lot of confusion here over what is and is not "guaranteed" with regard to suffrage. Here is a quote from an individual who is  a signer of the declaration of independence, member of the body that originally drafted the constitution and a President of the United States.

"The same reasoning which will induce you to admit all men who have no property, to vote, with those who have . . . will prove that you ought to admit women and children; for, generally speaking, women and children have as good judgments, and as independent minds, as those men who are wholly destitute of property. . . . Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."

These were men who realized the power and responsibility a voice in government affairs entails and were prepared to risk all to secure and protect that right. A compelling argument can be made globally that a dilution of the standards for voting is at the heart of the fall of nations. I'd venture that our current "cast of characters" at the local, state and federal level validates the thoughts and feelings of the gentleman above. We've reached a point where we have a government "of the idiots, for the idiots and by the idiots"...

[Casca]

There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.

Apart from Humble's worthy exposition you can find it referred to specifically as a right in admendments XV, XIX and XXVI.

You're not guaranteed anything. It's all a matter of circumstance. The government can suspend what we think are rights whenever they deem it necessary. i.e. (extreme case) Marshall Law.

This is a servere misinterpretation to think that we have rights. What we have are privileges. Big difference.

I think this is true in a de facto sense.  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 84, argued vigorously against a Bill of Rights in the nascent Constitution on two grounds:  The first was that it might be interpreted as limiting rights to those listed.  The second was that even though they were an enummeration of pre-existing "inalienable" rights that they would come to be seen as rights granted by the government and what the government can grant the government can remove.  In his words:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

He was, as ever, prescient for it is clear that we have "men disposed to usurp" in spades at this point in history.  I believe we will continue to see an erosion of actual rights coupled with an expansion of hallucinatory "rights" that are not rights at all.  The right to a free college education for example.

Hmm... I'm wondering if I see a lock starting to materialize in the mist?

[humble]

I agree completely, any attempt to understand the meaning and intent of our "founding fathers is incomplete without a fundamental working knowledge of the surrounding documentation. I've always felt that when in doubt the guiding document is actually the declaration itself. Everyone of the men who signed it literally made a decision of victory or death. These were ideals they were willing to die for if necessary, while at the same time they set a standard of conduct and responsibility for the government that followed...


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In effect the constitution is a "living document" who's primary goal is to allow modification the meet the goal stated above thru peaceful means, revolution from within vs armed force from without.

[potsNpans]

To keep in theme with several of the recent threads I would like to see how much you all know about your rights and liberties as a citizen in the USA. I just studied my oscar off for my midterm on this, lets see what you can come up with, and dont give me the name, tell me what and why and limitations to it, and even your opinion on it.

With a little bit of posting this could get interesting 

Our rights are granted to us by the author and creator of Life recognized by our government to be The Triune God of the Bible. As the founders knew the corruption of mans character, they set limits to be recognized upon government. However each individual is obligated to act in the best interest of another even at their own personal legitimate expense and is only limited by ability and opportunity.

[Chalenge]

You dont have a right to vote. Its not in there.