0
PhreeZone

Proper usage of 1st admendment?

Recommended Posts

Here's the text of the editorial...

Quote

Re the July 11 letter, "Stop giving publicity to Moore": The letter writer, a World War II veteran, does not want to deny Mr. Moore his freedom to speak, but goes on to talk of boycotting theaters that show Mr. Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, and refusing ads that promote the movie. Think of how many rights would be trampled by just boycotting theaters.

The owner would be denied his/her right to make a living. The workers would be denied their right to make a living and theatergoers would be denied their right to see the movie. That's an awful lot of people whose rights would be stepped on.

Now if that doesn't smack of Third Reich dictatorship, then what does?

The freedoms this veteran fought so hard for in WWII weren't just for him and those who agree with his opinions, but he also fought for Mr. Michael Moore and those who agree with his opinion.

Freedom is about choice, and that is why we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship.



"Think of how many rights would be trampled by just boycotting theaters... The owner would be denied his/her right to make a living. The workers would be denied their right to make a living and theatergoers would be denied their right to see the movie. That's an awful lot of people whose rights would be stepped on."

WHAT???? So now I have to go watch a flick so that the theater owner can charge me $9.00 to see the film, $3.00 for nasty popcorn and another $3.00 for a Coke? That way (s)he and his rude concession staff can continue to treat me like crap?

Using this logic I should have also seen "Gigli" and now "Catwoman" (though Halle Berry is hot ;)).

"Freedom is about choice, and that is why we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship."

Exactly numb-nuts. You have the right to go see it and others have the right to not go see it.

BTW. I guess I should end my boycott of Red Bull because otherwise I'll be infringing on certain sponsored people's rights to burn my favorite objects. :P

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, using this idiot's logic, no one should have the right to boycott anything, since they'd be boycotting something that someone else makes a living off. I can't imagine how this woman became convinced that it is wrong to simply decide not to spend your money to support someone or something you are ideologically against! Isn't that fundamentally the right of every individual? How is it required of me, or any association to which I might belong, to give my financial support to a movie theater?! How is it wrong if I associate with a group of people who, because we oppose something the theater is doing, use the power of withholding our wealth, in order to send a message to the theater owner or parent corporation? This kind of thing is done all the time, and it is not unethical or immoral, nor is it an infringement on anyone's rights. Businesses start up and go out of business all the time! If you open a Vietnames restaurant in the middle of a predominantly black neighborhood and it doesn't succeed because no one spends their money there, do you have a claim that the locals were wrong to not patronize you, because you you have a "right to make a living"?

Ridiculous. And still people this dumb vote. That's scary to me. Can't say that I have an alternative idea that would not run counter to human rights, but I can't say either that I am comfortable knowing that millions of DUMB people are out there affecting the course of our country.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I admire the ACLU if for no other reason than that they're consistent. Yes they take on some off-the-wall lefty causes, but they'll also turn right around and defend an off-the-wall right winger's right to THEIR opinion as well.



Unless it involves guns. They're very consistently opposed to the 2nd Ammendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I admire the ACLU if for no other reason than that they're consistent. Yes they take on some off-the-wall lefty causes, but they'll also turn right around and defend an off-the-wall right winger's right to THEIR opinion as well.



Unless it involves guns. They're very consistently opposed to the 2nd Ammendment.



One year, my friend and I swapped memberships: I bought him a year in the NRA (which, though a gun owner, he opposes because "they lobby") and he bought me a year in the ACLU (which, though a civil libertarian, I oppose because they conspicuously neglect the 2nd Amendment).

The year up, they started sending me renewal forms. I wrote on one of the forms a short paragraph about how I would not renew until they came out in support of that single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that they have scorned. I wrote it right on the renewal form.

Some time later the woman in charge of membership sent me an envelope with a few articles enclosed, and a letter, and a bit explaining the ACLU's "view" of the 2nd Amendment.

It was an utter load of shit. One article she sent was a review of Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America," which has been thoroughly trounced, shredded and debunked by numerous scholars, not least of which is a tribunal that included a Harvard scholar (or was it professor?) I read the tribunal's report in PDF online somewhere. It was LONG. So she cites a book which had already at that time been debunked, and a bit of other nonsense, and the ACLU's website and literature say that they bow to the "Collective Rights" model of the 2nd Amendment. (You know, the bullshit one that claims that "the people" means the state militia in that one of all of the Amendments!)

The ACLU is far too leftist for a reasonable person to expect them to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. And their reasoning on the subject is so specious that it calls into question their conclusions on anything else they support or do not support (i.e. "if they can be so wrong about this...")

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff, I wrote a very long and detailed paper on the Second Amendment while in law school. I think you would like it. I got an excellent grade on it, even though my instructor was very anti-gun.

PM me if you're interested in reading it.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The reason I side with Scalia et al is because the ONLY thing people can be CERTAIN about is what is actually written in the statute.



I knew we'd find some common ground eventually. ;) A judge's job is to interpret, not rewrite, the law.

The law is what it is. And it is what it says. If you don't like it, put pressure on your politician to change it.

Quote

The so-called "spirit" of the law is ALWAYS subject to special interests distorting it.



Yes.

Now, if a law is unclear, you can sometimes look to the legislative record to see if there may be some clarification via debate. But debates aren't law, so it's dicey.

Here's one that will probably ruffle a lot of feathers...

Somebody please show me where the Constitution explicitly grants a right to "privacy".

Hint: It ain't there. It was invented by the Supreme Court several years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut. Essentially, the court said that our Constitution has "penumbras" and "emanations" which infer certain rights which aren't actually there.

The ruling in Griswold was heavily relied upon in... you guessed it... Roe v. Wade.



There are always the IXth and Xth Amendments.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Somebody please show me where the Constitution explicitly grants a right to "privacy".

Hint: It ain't there. It was invented by the Supreme Court several years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut. Essentially, the court said that our Constitution has "penumbras" and "emanations" which infer certain rights which aren't actually there.

The ruling in Griswold was heavily relied upon in... you guessed it... Roe v. Wade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are always the IXth and Xth Amendments.



Yes, those amendments have always been there.

Quote

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.



Throughout history, the 9th Amendment has not been much good. It realy has not been examined too much, or interpreted in great fashion. It's almost been ignored.

The 10th Amendment, on the other hand, was one of th emost powerful until FDR. It has fundamentally been stripped of power due to novel (well, last 60 years) of jurisprudence regarding the commerce clause.

Zennie is right - the right to privacy is not explicitly stated. Ironically, this is why we have the new verb "to Bork." Bork said the right to privacy isn't in the Constitution. He's right.

Jurisprudence probably could have used the 9th amendment to find the right to privacy. It hasn't. Instead, it used the 1st, 4th, 5th and mainly the 14th Amendments.

Sure, I like my right to privacy. I just don't like how they went about getting it.

It's not there, but can be inferred. My opinion is that the courts should have used moe solid thinking and reasoning to find it.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There is a local group that started protesting on the statehouse lawn last weekend with plans to protest all week long. The problem comes that in order to protest you must file for a sidewalk permit and if you are going to errect large signs/banners the artwork has to be approved ahead of time to meet "decency" requirements that a non-partisian board is to rule by. Also the permit states that it is only good for 72 hours and if signs are abandoned for any time the state officials can discard them. Permits are not to be issued for back to back time peroids to the organization and there is to be no camping on the lawn of the statehouse.

The group protesting now erected a large billboard that was not approved in their permit. Second issue is that their 72 hour permit expired, but they had a second group apply for the middle time block and they got the 72 hours following that. To the state officials it appeared that 2 different organizations wanted to protest but it was just a shell organization applying for the second permit. The members are sleeping on the sidewalk (as to not violate the lawn phrase), and there have been complaints from lots of businesses around the statehouse as to the billboard/poster that is displayed.

The State lost a case recently to the KKK from the mid 90's via the Supreme Court about displaying a cross on the statehouse lawn and it seems they are still smarting from it. They refuse to do anything but provide additional security to the protesters for fear of violating their first admendment rights.

Does anyone think that the protesters are within their rights, or does anyone think that they are outside their rights?



OK, I'll accept all that.

So, What would you recommend be done?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Somebody please show me where the Constitution explicitly grants a right to "privacy".

Hint: It ain't there. It was invented by the Supreme Court several years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut. Essentially, the court said that our Constitution has "penumbras" and "emanations" which infer certain rights which aren't actually there.

The ruling in Griswold was heavily relied upon in... you guessed it... Roe v. Wade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are always the IXth and Xth Amendments.



Yes, those amendments have always been there.

Quote

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.



Throughout history, the 9th Amendment has not been much good. It realy has not been examined too much, or interpreted in great fashion. It's almost been ignored.

The 10th Amendment, on the other hand, was one of th emost powerful until FDR. It has fundamentally been stripped of power due to novel (well, last 60 years) of jurisprudence regarding the commerce clause.

Zennie is right - the right to privacy is not explicitly stated. Ironically, this is why we have the new verb "to Bork." Bork said the right to privacy isn't in the Constitution. He's right.

Jurisprudence probably could have used the 9th amendment to find the right to privacy. It hasn't. Instead, it used the 1st, 4th, 5th and mainly the 14th Amendments.

Sure, I like my right to privacy. I just don't like how they went about getting it.

It's not there, but can be inferred. My opinion is that the courts should have used moe solid thinking and reasoning to find it.



Seems to me that if the only rights possessed by the people are those explicitly granted in the Constitution, (excluding Amendments IX and X which appear to be defunct), then the people don't actually have many rights at all, and that the Declaration of Independence is a hollow shell.

And it seems to me that the "conservatives" are those leading the charge to deprive us of non-explicitly granted rights.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Seems to me that if the only rights possessed by the people are those explicitly granted in the Constitution, (excluding Amendments IX and X which appear to be defunct), then the people don't actually have many rights at all, and that the Declaration of Independence is a hollow shell.

And it seems to me that the "conservatives" are those leading the charge to deprive us of non-explicitly granted rights.



It works on both sides. I'm a big 10th and 9th Amendment guy. My post regarding the rights in the 9th and 10th does not reflect my frustrations that those Amendments are not given their due worth.

It sure as hell wasn't the conservatives who used the commerce clauseto trump the 10th Amendment. But, here's how it works.

Since it isn't explicitly named, let's call it the "Kallend Doctrine." Under the Kallend doctrine, the individual states may provide more rights than the federal government, but not less.

So, the US Constitution has no explicit right to privacy. So, Section 1 of the California Constitution reads:

Quote

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.



Thus, California law stepped in and gave everyone in California a right to privacy. This is fine, and is an example of the 10th Amendment at work.

But, let's say, for example, California had a law that stated, "All US Citizens of 1/2 Chinese descent or greater shall be denied the right to vote in all governmental elections." This would violate the 15th Amendment, and under the Kallend doctrine cannot be tolerated.

The US Constitution sets a baseline. Hell, I don't worry about arguing US Constitutional right of privacy here in Cali. Our state Constitution protects it just fine.

The conflict comes when the commerce clause conflicts with this (what is known as the "Dormant Commerce Claues") and prevents the states from doign things that the federal government disagrees with.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where does the Declaration of Independence stand? is it just a letter? or does it have any legal status?



Legally, it means nothing...

However, it can be cited as policy, or as the "spirit of the law." See that discussion above...

Think of it like a BSR - nice policy, but meaningless without rules to enforce it. The Constitution is our law of the land..


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0