Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on April 25, 2003, 11:49:11 AM
-
I just read through the Bill of rights and did not see this one, I have a friend who says it is the 4th amendment, that gives us this right, but reading it I do not agree, so where is it?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 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.
Amendments 11-27
-
the Florida State Constitution has a privacy clause, do not know about other states.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
To me that says, in oldspeak, stay the fek out of my hard drive until you've got probable cause for a warrant. In today's society, I don't think it's a stretch to declare a hard drive's information a part of someone's papers and effects.
Anything you find in it without a warrant should fall under the exclusionary rule... ie, no warrant, not admissable in court.
If the RIAA wants to prosecute someone for things on their hard drive, it should go something like this:
1. Catch someone sharing copyrighted material. Document it somehow.
2. Give evidence of download to police, report it as a crime.
3. Police use evidence of download as probable cause to obtain search warrant of person's hard drive.
4. Search person's hard drive physically (or possibly electronically, don't know how electronic searches fall under 4th amendment).
5. Prosecute if evidence of crime is found.
-
tarmac is right...anyway if anyone decided to search for evidence of THAT crime over half the population of the computer world would be in jail...
-
This came from a friend and I talking about the megans law. I think. LOL
The law that states sex offenders will be kept track of and the areas they live in will be told they are their.
He thinks it is wrong and a voilation of the convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s rights.
I say screw that convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s and protect the people who do not hurt others.
-
LOL... thought this was in relation to the mp3 thread. Sorry sir.
Most sincere hijack ever. :D
-
A minor correction - no amendment gives us any rigts. Not the 1st, not the 2nd, not the 4th.
Constitution specifically grants the federal government certain rights and any rights not surrendered to the federal government are reserved for people.
So most amendments - especially those mentioned above, just affirm those rights but not give it to us from the government. It never had those to give up to us.
We would have had the right to bear arms even without the 2nd amendment becasue Constitution never gave the government the right to regulate the arms.
Same with privacy.
miko
-
Your friend is right, it is a violation of their rights. Of course, once they were convicted of molesting a child, they should have been brought out to the steps of the courthouse and shot.
So...I propose, we repeal Megan's Law, and enact immediate execution for anyone convicted of molestation, and enact a retro-active culling of the herd for the ones who have been previously convicted.
SOB
-
A sex offender's prior record is public knowledge. The fact that all 50 states now have laws that law enforcement must make this public information public is not a violation of anyone's rights.
-
Hell yeah!
Rapists too!
-
Not that I give a flying poop, but... The violation of their rights isn't in the fact that their records are public, it's that you're singling them out for further persecution. However, if the initial punishment was death, there wouldn't be any issue with subjecting them to further humiliation after thier sentence is carried out.
SOB
-
So if I'm drunk, piss in public, and get arrested and convicted of indecent exposure, do I count as a sex offender under these laws?
-
Once convicted, felons lose most of their civil rights. It varies by state how these rights are restored upon release. If the felon is paroled they are still convicts in the penal system, but they are basically released on their own recognizance with limited supervision. If the felon has served his/her complete sentence then depending on the state, some of their civil rights are automatically restored. However, some states like Florida have a very cumbersome civil rights restoration process.
Some examples of rights stripped of felons include the right to own a gun, the right to vote, the right to privacy (i.e. the right to be secure in one's person and property) and the right to freely associate.
Some states require a pardon in order to have rights restored. Have you ever noticed the huge list of pardons an out going President may confer? Usually, those are felons who were convicted in Federal court and live in a state that deems that a Federal conviction cannot be pardoned by a governor due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
-
vorticon: tarmac is right...anyway if anyone decided to search for evidence of THAT crime over half the population of the computer world would be in jail...
You assume that starting prosecuting people for crimes of stealing music (as opposed to, say, stealing bread for their starving children) instead of ignoring them will not make them change their behavior.
Do you have any justifications for that assumption?
GtoRA2: He thinks it is wrong and a voilation of the convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s rights.
I say screw that convicted, child molesters, rapists, *******s and protect the people who do not hurt others.
That is understandable. But do you propose to amend the law to do so or to violate the law to do so?
Because there is a law that says you cannot add punishments to that assigned by court and you cannot apply new laws retroactively.
We can legally change laws so that punishment for sex-offenders includes life-long monitoring and community notification - to the offenders that got convicted under that law, not the past offences.
But is is illegal to do so without such laws, however those people deserve it.
Mickey1992: A sex offender's prior record is public knowledge. The fact that all 50 states now have laws that law enforcement must make this public information public is not a violation of anyone's rights.
Maybe. Maybe not - it certainly sounds like a punishment. It was public information who were jews and who were homosexuals in nazi germany but once the government required them to wear yellow stars and pink triangles, we called it prosecution.
Tarmac: So if I'm drunk, piss in public, and get arrested and convicted of indecent exposure, do I count as a sex offender under these laws?
Yes. The laws written in haste do not reflect the difference and each state can supply it's own definition of "sex offence". A guy accused slapping his coworkers on the butt or a teenager who turned 18 while his girlfriend is still 17 and 11 months - and accused of statutory rape - both get labeled "sex offenders" for life with no chance of decent job, mobs breaking their windows, etc.
And since it's not a court-mandated punishment, one cannot apply to court to cancel it.
Quite a problem for people who got caught in it and assigned to the same category as violend predators.
Much like the federal firearm law that forbids owning a weapon by anyone who have been issued a restraining order - with mandatory 10-15 year sentence.
The problem is that applying for and automatcally granting a restraining order is a standard practice in divorce proceedings - and is actually mandatory issued to both spouses in some states.
So a man suddenly finds himself in violation of a federal law - that prevents him from ever owning a firearm without conviction, jusy and due process!
If he gets rid of the firearms, BTW, he goes to jail for violating the divorce court order banning sale of common property until divorce is finalised.
A doctor recently got jail sentence for such a firearm ownership violation.
miko
-
Tarmac,
In answer to your last post, no. Those are all misdemeaners and have no impact on your constitutional rights. Only one misdemeanor does at this time and that involves domestic abuse situations. That is the subject of another thread.
In regards to the "rights" of a child molester or other sexual predator. Those offenses are FELONIES. Felonies carry with them a certain loss of rights under the constitution. The right to bear arms, vote and one or two others. (My memory is failing me right now)
In regards to the so called right of privacy. This follows from the 4th ammendment as posted earlier. The term "papers" has been interpreted loosely as a result of the advances in technology that the founding Fathers had no clue about. AFAIC this is proper as Justices are applying the intent of the law to keep up with the times.
Sexual predators (certain offenses) fall into a rather dark area of society. They are statistically far more likely to re-offend than just about any other criminal. The fact that each of their offenses has a dramatic impact on their victims indicates an exceptional danger to society. To protect society, a fundamental task of government, changes were made regarding maintaining current locations on these folks. Because of this, their "rights" were abridged in a limited manner. The part taken away was the ability to remain hidden so that the public at large can maintain a reasonable (I hate that term) level of security in their lives/homes from a sexual predator. The sexual predator STILL has the right against unreasonable search and siezure as a warrant must still be obtained to search their home / papers etc. based on probable cause. Note that this is more than mere suspicion alone. A judge must be convinced that a certain amount of belief that a crime has been or is being committed.
Now for a clearer and maybe more accurate explanation one of the lawyers on the bbs should step in here. (eeewwweee did I just say lawyer?!?!?!?!) :eek: :eek:
Does this help gents.??
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Have you ever noticed the huge list of pardons an out going President may confer?
Yep, that's the only thing bad about voting Dubya out. When he leaves all them CEO's will be pardoned and back in business.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Once convicted, felons lose most of their civil rights. It varies by state how these rights are restored upon release. If the felon is paroled they are still convicts in the penal system, but they are basically released on their own recognizance with limited supervision. If the felon has served his/her complete sentence then depending on the state, some of their civil rights are automatically restored. However, some states like Florida have a very cumbersome civil rights restoration process.
I know a guy whose Masters thesis focused on the origins of removing civil rights for felons. Apparently, he discovered that those states that first instituted such a practice:
(1) Possessed relatively higher levels of felony crimes by minorities than other states (note that this doesn't speak to crime levels themselves, only to the people committing those crimes).
(2) Had recently lost civil rights cases at the federal level.
One would conclude, then, that at least initially, removing the right to vote from felons came about as a round-about way to disenfranchise minority groups in those states that implemented such a policy.
Food for thought I suppose. I honestly don't know the history of such laws, and I haven't seen the guy's data to verify its accuracy or robustness.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Todd,
That type of study has one major failing. Did he have ACCURATE stats on voting levels of those felons prior to their criminal activity? If not, then any causal relationship or correlational relationship is an invalid conclusion. In other words if they didn't vote before losing the right, then the loss of the right was of no consequence.
3 categories of liars.
Liars
Damn liars
Statisticians
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That type of study has one major failing. Did he have ACCURATE stats on voting levels of those felons prior to their criminal activity? If not, then any causal relationship or correlational relationship is an invalid conclusion. In other words if they didn't vote before losing the right, then the loss of the right was of no consequence.
[/B]
Obviously, this is something I've thought about but don't know the answer, as I haven't seen the data. I'd guess that he must have had some sort of measure along these lines (though it would quite difficult to find measures for voting felons), as it's the most obvious criticism of such a research project.
One might argue that even if a majority of felons did not vote, there remains at least a minority, no matter how small, that did. This minority was subsequently disenfranchised by the removal of civil rights for felons. In addition, statutory removal of civil rights officially eliminates the possibility of organizing that non-voting majority to vote; institutional disenfranchisement replaces self-selected disenfranchisement.
3 categories of liars.
Liars
Damn liars
Statisticians
Not true in all cases. :) A sound research design utilizing proper statistical tools may be quite valid. That's not to say that researchers can't or don't manipulate statistics, but it's certainly not considered common or acceptable to do so in academia. Most incorrect conclusions come from ignorance as to the correct statistical tools to utilize for a given set of data (using linear regression to measure non-linear relationships, for instance).
Like I said, I can't speak to the strength of this guy's data. It could be total crap, or it could be really strong.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Can we nominate Levi for most intelligent post?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
One would conclude, then, that at least initially, removing the right to vote from felons came about as a round-about way to disenfranchise minority groups in those states that implemented such a policy.
Well, if they can show that, then there is a Supreme Court ruling (Hunter v. Underwood) that states that a disenfranchisement law reflecting "purposeful racial discrimination" is not constitutional.
Originally posted by Maverick
The right to bear arms, vote and one or two others. (My memory is failing me right now)
I may be getting confused between felons on parole and felons having completed their sentence, but if I recall correctly the other two are 1) unreasonable search and seizure; and 2) free association.
If I recall, the standard for a warrantless search of a known felon is merely reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. But the Supreme Court has flip flopped so many times on 4th Amendment stuff, I don't know how any cop can keep it all straight. Used to be that a guy running at the sight of police was not sufficient for a warrantless search and now in some situations unprovoked flight is sufficient.
Also if I recall correctly, free association may be limited by making it illegal for felons to knowingly associate with other felons.
-
I can see Crow's underwear.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I can see Crow's underwear.
Pervert!:D
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Well, if they can show that, then there is a Supreme Court ruling (Hunter v. Underwood) that states that a disenfranchisement law reflecting "purposeful racial discrimination" is not constitutional.
Unless I'm mistaken, Hunter v. Underwood also made it clear that the presence of a racially disparate impact alone was not sufficient to strike down criminal disenfranchisement.
Therein lay the ingenuity of such a statutory design if in fact states began criminal disenfranchisement as a de facto method of racial discrimination. As disenfranchisement for convicted felons occurs regardless of race, the laws do not violate the Equal Protection clause. Yet by selectively choosing which felonies incur criminal disenfranchisement, states may target those racial groups most likely to commit such crimes while claiming constitutionality.
Judging intent proves a difficult endeavor if the actual impact does not matter to the courts.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Does your constitution always act in your interests? I always remember how a known cocaine dealer walked free from a New York courtroom, despite a mountain of police evidence against him and the fact that there was no doubt of his guilt, even amongst his defence counsel. The reason was that the warrant issued for the police search of the guy's house was invalid - the date on it was wrong, or some other seemingly minor error. The drug dealer pleaded the fourth amendment, and the judge had to rule that the search had been unlawful, and therefore the evidence gained from that search was inadmissible in court.
I sometimes feel that things were better in the old days! Saw a TV programme about Jack "Jack the Lad" Shephard this week. He lived in London in the early 18th century. At that time, criminals were brought before the assizes to a trial lasting all of 30 minutes. If the judge didn't like the colour of your eyes, to the gallows you went! -Sure cut out a lot of the paperwork - lol. No sitting around on Death Row for 15 years.
Ah yes, the infamous second amendment. :D TOTALLY anachronistic in this day and age. I mean, can you imagine private citizens armed with handguns or maybe even high powered rifles like RC51's, rising up against a government that has cruise missiles and cluster bombs? :rolleyes: But guns MUST be allowed! OK, so a lot (many thousands) of people are going to die at the wrong end of a gun each year... Hehe, a small price to pay, and one worth paying, I hear some of you say. Because we MUST preserve the second, and the US citizens MUST have guns. Otherwise life would just not be the same. :confused: There are 300,000 people with whom I'd like to discuss that over the years 1975-2000. Oh wait, they're all dead. Never mind.
I'll just go on locking my doors at night - has worked for my family for over 100 years that I know of.
No apology for any thread hijack, as I'm on GTO's ignore list.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Saw a TV programme about Jack "Jack the Lad" Shephard this week. He lived in London in the early 18th century.
That was a great programme! his fourth escape from jail was brilliant!
-
Beetle...You're a fool. And it's not even funny any more, it's really kinda sad. You should either seek professional help to cure you of your irrational fear and loathing of guns or perhaps isolate yourself from anything that reminds you of them. They're inanimate objects, not the boogy man. I promise.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
They're inanimate objects, not the boogy man. I promise.
SOB
Maybe, but we need to discuss it with those 300,000, and to do that we'd have to have a séance. :rolleyes: Has there been ANY year in which fewer than 5,000 people were wrongfully killed by said "inanimate objects"? You're entitled to think I'm a fool, but I think you're a complete avacado to play that stupid "inanimate objects" card time after time after time.
Come to think of it, the judicial thing has gone full circle. You may be appalled at how things were in 18th century Britain, with people being hanged after a 30 minute trial. I wonder how many people who were hanged were actually innocent of the crimes with which they were charged. I would like to compare that figure with the number of people wrongfully killed by a gun in the US each year, despite the protection of their state of the art squeaky clean judicial system, constitution, various amendments...
Anyway, SOB. Don't do a Toad and try to blame your high number of gun deaths on social problems/blacks/deprivation. We have all those problems in Britain. But we DO NOT have thousands upon thousands of unlawful gun killings each year.
Funny that... Go figure! :confused: ;) :p
-
yes i do...most people are insanely headstrong and will think it can never happen to them and continue doing it...many of them beleive that theres no way people will get a search warrent for there computer unless they do something really stupid, many of them beleive even if it is searched theres no real evidence on there...anyway it would take way to much manpower and a lot of red tape to even start something like that...look at those kiddie pornographers...an incredibly small number of htem ever gte prosecuted...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Anyway, SOB. Don't do a Toad and try to blame your high number of gun deaths on social problems/blacks/deprivation.
As wacky as this sounds, I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the person holding the gun. Crazy me, I don't believe the hunk of metal in their hand was the driving force behind their actions.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Unless I'm mistaken, Hunter v. Underwood also made it clear that the presence of a racially disparate impact alone was not sufficient to strike down criminal disenfranchisement.
Judging intent proves a difficult endeavor if the actual impact does not matter to the courts.
Yup, that's right. That's why minority groups haven't really bothered trying to litigate on that basis...proving intent is about impossible without a bench packed with Thurgood Marshalls.
-
SOB - fair enough. The thing is, whereas we could legislate against guns or require more stringent criteria to qualify for ownership, we cannot legislate against stupid people. The world is, always has been, and always will be full of them.
BTW - you should have said "a gun is in no way a threat in the hands of a responsible person, it's just plain rediculous". :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Maybe, but we need to discuss it with those 300,000, and to do that we'd have to have a séance. :rolleyes: Has there been nfused: ;) :p
350,000 americans die from cigarette smoking every year .
They should be outlawed too!! To put that in perspective with your gun deaths its 30 times as dangerous to have a cig than a handgun.
Get a grip on reality. Americans will ALWAYS have thier rights
with freedom. Quit pushing your anti freedom agendas.
We have a right to kill ourselfs as we please. Now butt out.
-
Out of my face, Bible-Belt-Boy.
BTW, if a bible belt, why no Koran-Belt or Torah-Belt?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Anyway, SOB. Don't do a Toad
(Slaps Beet1e with a calfskin glove)
I demand an apology, sir!
I believe you have confused me with someone else in this base attack.
Provide the proof, or name your seconds, sir!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The drug dealer pleaded the fourth amendment, and the judge had to rule that the search had been unlawful, and therefore the evidence gained from that search was inadmissible in court.
That is the way it must be. Consider that the alternative (allowing the guy to be convicted despite illegal government actions) would make the Constitution meaningless.
Ah yes, the infamous second amendment. :D TOTALLY anachronistic in this day and age. I mean, can you imagine private citizens armed with handguns or maybe even high powered rifles like RC51's, rising up against a government that has cruise missiles and cluster bombs?
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say WHY the people have the right to bear arms. The people who think it is so we can someday 'rise up' against the government in the modern age are generally idiots, although I'm sure someone can dig up an argument made by one of the framers endorsing this view.
A better arguement for being armed is for the times when the government can't protect you, such as during civil unrest or out in the wilderness.
-
LEGALIZE CONSENTING INTERSPECIES INTERCOURSE!
-
err does that ammendmant 2 state that as a MILITIA the people can bear arms???
-
Originally posted by Toad
(Slaps Beet1e with a calfskin glove)
I demand an apology, sir!
I believe you have confused me with someone else in this base attack.
Provide the proof, or name your seconds, sir!
Toad, allow me the priveledge, sir, of being your second. BTW I have $200.00 down on you nailing him. :D
-
"Anyway, SOB. Don't do a Toad"
Let's just clear the air right now, you sick bastard. I never - and I repeat - I NEVER did Toad. It was hard to shy off his advances, but eventually I distracted him by telling him Dowding was behind him, and made a swift escape.
SOB
-
Montezuma - when you say it like that, it makes your Constitution sound like the UN - a gridlock of paperwork which ensures that nothing can be done. Convicted killers on Death Row for 10-15 years? I think there was something to be said for guys like Judge Jeffries and the Newgate Assizes. A half hour trial, and if you look like you're guilty (which can be determined by the look in your eye), to the gallows!
SOB! Something got lost in the translation.
-
Sorry SOB, I might have cause a bit of this confusion. I might have mentioned in another thread that the last time I stopped by you answered the door wearing a komono with a frog in one hand and a squeez bottle of "Dr. Sex's lubricant and wart creme" in the other.
You sick bastard.
MiniD
-
LOL! I gotta be me. :D
SOB