Rights in America

[steve1 5]

I looked at a book recently that went on and on about how at one time in America we had many more freedoms than we do today, and that our Government is in the process of undermining our rights. The author of this book was an intellectual kind of guy, with a lot of degrees behind his name, and it got me thinking.

It is understandable that at one time we had a lot fewer laws than we do today. At one time we had fewer people and things were a lot easier to manage. And in some ways maybe there was more freedom for most folks then.

But then I got to thinking...it wasn't too many years ago that even slavery was allowed in this country. That might have been great if you were white, but really crappy if you were black.

Then I thought about rights that went along with the Freedom of Speech. I think it's really great that we have the right to complain about our government without fear of reprisal. In todays world we can do that, but even in America this wasn't always the case.

I read a news clipping recently, that here in Montana, there was a law on the books that stated that you could be imprisoned if you complained about the war effort, during World War 1. I figured, "What the Hell, this couldn't be!" But, yes it was true. Many were put in the Lock up for several years just for complaining about Uncle Sam's involvement in that war.

There was a German immigrant who had a small homestead near Billings. One day a rally was held in town to support the war effort. Everyone was getting all wound up over this, and someone had the great idea of going out to this German's farm and making him buy some Liberty Bonds. So, a gang of these "do gooders" went out to his farm and threatened the poor guy.

When he refused to buy any war bonds, they started to hang him. This was broken up when the German's wife came out of the house with a baby in her arms, pleading for her husbands life.

But, this wasn't the end of the story. The poor guy was later locked up in Prison for several years because he was still complaining about the war. His baby son later died of dysentary, and he was not allowed to attend, because he was in the state pen.

So, at any rate, all this get you thinking about our present rights as Americans versus the past.

What's your opinion....Steve1

[skydyvr 0]

It sure would be nice if the liberal whiners here who scream in favor of "free-speech" rights for assholes who harass grieving war victims at funerals would get a bit of relaxing perspective from this history.

. . =(_8^(1)

[narcimund 0]

Quote

"free-speech" rights for assholes who harass grieving war victims at funerals

Absolutely right. Constitutionally protected free speech means you can say whatever you like -- except when new restrictions are justified because ... um ... because there have been restrictions in the past.

Yeah. That's the correct reading of the first amendment. I know it was straightforward!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

We have more rights than we had in the past. We also have less rights than we had in the past.

There were sedition laws that were designed to curtail speech against government policies. There was slavery, etc.

The Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. The states did not have to obey the Bill of Rights. In 1833, the SCOTUS specifically held that the Bill of Rights only applied to the general government, and not state of local governments. States were free to ban what they wanted to ban.

One of the things that changed things was the Civil War. The 14th Amendment stated, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So after 1968, the states had to guarantee Constitutional protections, right? Not really. In 1925, the SCOTUS held in the Gitlow case that the 14th Amendment made certain parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Over the years, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" to the states. Not until 1949, for example, did a SCOTUS case hold that state police had to comply with the 4th Amendment requirements for unreasonable searches and seizures.

Note that not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the States. The 2nd Amendment is a big one. So we actually have far more rights from LOCAL government intrusion than we did even 50-70 years ago, most of these findings of incorporation having happened in the 60's with the Warren Court.

Still, it seems that we can do less now than we could before. There is much to be said for that - rights are a double-edged sword. The right to be free from slavery means there is no right to own slaves.

And my personal beliefs tend to be that there is a slow infringement on other rights. While the decisions of the progressive courts granted more rights to the people, many decisions of the courts seem to be reeling those rights back in due to government interests.

It's a two way road.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It sure would be nice if the liberal whiners here who scream in favor of "free-speech" rights for assholes who harass grieving war victims at funerals would get a bit of relaxing perspective from this history.

I usually don't have a problem with "time, place and manner" restrictions to speech. I do have a problem with content-based speech restrictions, though.

Let the assholes protest, but keep them out of the funerals. That's my thought.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Absolutely right. Constitutionally protected free speech means you can say whatever you like -- except when new restrictions are justified because ... um ... because there have been restrictions in the past.

Restrictions are in place alright -- it's just a matter of where the line is drawn. The line seems to shift a lot.

I want to draw the line in front of people who purposefully create serious mental anguish for the innocent survivors of dead soldiers.

Where do you draw it? Ok to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? How about purposeful mental angiush?
Do the rights of your "mental fist" end where my nose begins? In certain cases, as with the Phelps people, I think so.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Let the assholes protest, but keep them out of the funerals. That's my thought.

Perfect.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

How about purposeful mental anguish?
Do the rights of your "mental fist" end where my nose begins?

I'm inclined to agree with you there.

I've just started reading H.G. Wells A Modern Utopia and there's an interesting little passage that talks about this sort of problem.

"In an organised state each one of us has a more or less elaborate code of what he may do to others and to himself, and what others may do to him. He limits others by his rights and is limited by the rights of others, and by considerations to the welfare of the community as a whole.....

But in truth, a general prohibition may increase the sum of liberty, and a general permission may diminish it. It does not follow, as some people would have us believe, that a man is more free where there is least law, and more restricted where there is most law. A socialism or a communism is not necessarily a slavery and there is no freedom under anarchy."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I want to draw the line in front of people who purposefully create serious mental anguish for the innocent survivors of dead soldiers.

Sure. I'd love it if everyone were nice to each other too.

But the cost of having a government that draws lines when people's feelings get hurt is worse than the cost of people hurting your feelings. Even if it hurts your feelings a LOT. Even if it's veterans. Even if it's kids.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I want to draw the line in front of people who purposefully create serious mental anguish for the innocent survivors of dead soldiers.

Sure. I'd love it if everyone were nice to each other too.

But the cost of having a government that draws lines when people's feelings get hurt is worse than the cost of people hurting your feelings. Even if it hurts your feelings a LOT. Even if it's veterans. Even if it's kids.

I believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. The media and the left started the run and now in some cases have managed to get courts to create law to enforce it. Hate crimes come to mind.

Thoughts?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Hate crimes come to mind.

Yeah Political correctness must suck for those who want to use all the derogatory terms just like the old days. Why do some people find it neccessary to use such terms if they cause hurt to another person.

I am sure there are PLENTY of places where its very much the norm that hate is the speech of the day. So by all means go join them if you feel the need to belittle others to TRY to make them feel smaller than you.( usually only shows the opposite)

Here... LOTS of terms for you who feel that non PC speech is what you need to make your day better for you.

http://www.rsdb.org/

2400+ racial slurs.. just for all you non PC guys.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

believe that the biggest danger to free speech is political correctness. The media and the left started the run and now in some cases have managed to get courts to create law to enforce it.

Really now? I suggest you carefully study the history of the US in the 1950's.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It sure would be nice if the liberal whiners here who scream in favor of "free-speech" rights for assholes who harass grieving war victims at funerals would get a bit of relaxing perspective from this history.

Are you really part of that little group here that thinks that just barfing out "the L-word" as a pejorative at every random opportunity equates thought, analysis and discourse?
Ho hum. Not worth the effort to argue it further.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So by all means go join them if you feel the need to belittle others to TRY to make them feel smaller than you.( usually only shows the opposite)

Bwahahaha...Oh this is just too much. Coming from you....

-

[Amazon 7]

well I would bet you are littler in a whole lot of ways Does that bother ya little fella?

AND.. none of you Ultra Right Hand boys.. could never even come close to accusing me of using any of the crap on that list..... but I bet you are REALLLLY familiar with a lot of them right???

[rushmc 23]

Thanks you made my point.
I got to thinking after I made the post that hate crimes really was not a what I wanted to express.

But, you gave the perfect expample of the PC police. You see, I am not saying that using names and bad terms is ok but, many terms that were used regularly 30 years ago have now been stigmatized. "You can't offend anyone" Names of sports teams are called "offensive".

So, who decides? You?

Thanks for the PI's. Seems to be your strong suit. Honest open debate sure is not........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I looked at a book recently that went on and on about how at one time in America we had many more freedoms than we do today, and that our Government is in the process of undermining our rights. The author of this book was an intellectual kind of guy, with a lot of degrees behind his name, and it got me thinking.

It is understandable that at one time we had a lot fewer laws than we do today. At one time we had fewer people and things were a lot easier to manage. And in some ways maybe there was more freedom for most folks then.

But then I got to thinking...it wasn't too many years ago that even slavery was allowed in this country. That might have been great if you were white, but really crappy if you were black.

Then I thought about rights that went along with the Freedom of Speech. I think it's really great that we have the right to complain about our government without fear of reprisal. In todays world we can do that, but even in America this wasn't always the case.

I read a news clipping recently, that here in Montana, there was a law on the books that stated that you could be imprisoned if you complained about the war effort, during World War 1. I figured, "What the Hell, this couldn't be!" But, yes it was true. Many were put in the Lock up for several years just for complaining about Uncle Sam's involvement in that war.

There was a German immigrant who had a small homestead near Billings. One day a rally was held in town to support the war effort. Everyone was getting all wound up over this, and someone had the great idea of going out to this German's farm and making him buy some Liberty Bonds. So, a gang of these "do gooders" went out to his farm and threatened the poor guy.

When he refused to buy any war bonds, they started to hang him. This was broken up when the German's wife came out of the house with a baby in her arms, pleading for her husbands life.

But, this wasn't the end of the story. The poor guy was later locked up in Prison for several years because he was still complaining about the war. His baby son later died of dysentary, and he was not allowed to attend, because he was in the state pen.

So, at any rate, all this get you thinking about our present rights as Americans versus the past.

What's your opinion....Steve1

Guess when it was that people of different racres couldn't legally marry?...................

You would be surprised to know that it was 1968 when the US Sup Ct struck down laws that were present in 16 states that made illegal the marrying of people of different races.

They were called intimiscegenation laws. The case is Loving v Virginia. The couple went to D.C. to get married, came back hone and were arrested. They were sentenced to 1 year prison -or- promise to leave Virginia for 25 years. They opted for the latter and then appealed, it took 9 years until 1968 before they successfully appealed.

_________________________________________________________

Unfortunately we don't have to go back to WWI to find times where we had few rights. Although this was fixed and we gained rights, it never should have come to this. Our founding fathers and other lawmakers weren't the most adorable people on many levels.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We have more rights than we had in the past. We also have less rights than we had in the past.

There were sedition laws that were designed to curtail speech against government policies. There was slavery, etc.

The Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. The states did not have to obey the Bill of Rights. In 1833, the SCOTUS specifically held that the Bill of Rights only applied to the general government, and not state of local governments. States were free to ban what they wanted to ban.

One of the things that changed things was the Civil War. The 14th Amendment stated, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So after 1968, the states had to guarantee Constitutional protections, right? Not really. In 1925, the SCOTUS held in the Gitlow case that the 14th Amendment made certain parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Over the years, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" to the states. Not until 1949, for example, did a SCOTUS case hold that state police had to comply with the 4th Amendment requirements for unreasonable searches and seizures.

Note that not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the States. The 2nd Amendment is a big one. So we actually have far more rights from LOCAL government intrusion than we did even 50-70 years ago, most of these findings of incorporation having happened in the 60's with the Warren Court.

Still, it seems that we can do less now than we could before. There is much to be said for that - rights are a double-edged sword. The right to be free from slavery means there is no right to own slaves.

And my personal beliefs tend to be that there is a slow infringement on other rights. While the decisions of the progressive courts granted more rights to the people, many decisions of the courts seem to be reeling those rights back in due to government interests.

It's a two way road.

I'm thinking the 14th was driven by the reluctance for Southern states to obey the 13th. I realize the 13th isn't incorporated into the BOR, but the timing makes me think that's teh origin.

How about this for decay of rights. Katz v US. Has to do with privacy and phone/wiretaping. In the 1960's Katz was recorded via a device placed in the phonebooth, he was making sports wagers, the lower court supported the conviction, the US Sup Ct reversed - People have rights to privacy, not places. Now we have Bush advocating wiretaps.........

Mapp v Ohio. (1960's) Ms. Mapp was suspected of having Communist propaganda, so the cops barged in w/o invite, gave her a piece of paper and said it was a warrant, she put it down her chest, they then grabbed it back and didn't find Communist literature, but only adult pornography. She was arrested for that and teh US Sup Ct fixed it all.

So we gained several areas of rights in the dreaded liberal 60's, but Bush is ensuring they are rectified to days of old.

Quote

And my personal beliefs tend to be that there is a slow infringement on other rights. While the decisions of the progressive courts granted more rights to the people, many decisions of the courts seem to be reeling those rights back in due to government interests.

Really nice Cliff-notes explanation here. Seriously.

But the above made me switch parties, realizing, "progressive" means liberal and current "government interests" mean conservative.

[Channman 2]

> Bwahahaha...Oh this is just too much. Coming from you....

And I was just getting use to the girl with tape over her month. OK OK was just pocking fun.

Amazon get back to what you do well, Entertainment.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Thanks for the PI's. Seems to be your strong suit. Honest open debate sure is not........

Awwwwwwwww isnt that precious.. and coming from you Mr. Pot.

You posted about how the PC police have destroyed your ability to make slurs against people.. SWEEEET. Whenever I hear one of you guys talkin bout dem good ole days....I basically believe the good ole boys lamenting the good ole days when you could call a N$%@#% a N@#$@#$ or one of the other slurs from that very long list. Hell I still hear plenty of people making racial slurs.. sexual innuendo.. in inappripriate places and times... and they wonder WHY they should be reprimanded or fired for being such a good outstanding inclusive american citizen.

Quote

Names of sports teams are called "offensive".

In Florida the name Seminole is used for the team name of Florida State University. The university went to the tribe and asked if the use of the name was offensive. The tribe decided that no on the contrary it would be good for the tribe. This si what is known as cooperation for the benefit of all. I guess you would label that as PC.
So.. who decides... how about the people who would otherwise be hurt by the slur.. if its a slur.

How about a name for the University of Iowa sports teams be changed to the Iowa Low Life Trailer TRashers.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How about a name for the University of Iowa sports teams be changed to the Iowa Low Life Trailer TRashers.

I like it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I like it

Gee I would expect that from a guy from Minn E SEW TAH

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for the PI's. Seems to be your strong suit. Honest open debate sure is not........

Awwwwwwwww isnt that precious.. and coming from you Mr. Pot.

You posted about how the PC police have destroyed your ability to make slurs against people.. SWEEEET. Whenever I hear one of you guys talkin bout dem good ole days....I basically believe the good ole boys lamenting the good ole days when you could call a N$%@#% a N@#$@#$ or one of the other slurs from that very long list. Hell I still hear plenty of people making racial slurs.. sexual innuendo.. in inappripriate places and times... and they wonder WHY they should be reprimanded or fired for being such a good outstanding inclusive american citizen.

Quote

Names of sports teams are called "offensive".

In Florida the name Seminole is used for the team name of Florida State University. The university went to the tribe and asked if the use of the name was offensive. The tribe decided that no on the contrary it would be good for the tribe. This si what is known as cooperation for the benefit of all. I guess you would label that as PC.
So.. who decides... how about the people who would otherwise be hurt by the slur.. if its a slur.

How about a name for the University of Iowa sports teams be changed to the Iowa Low Life Trailer TRashers.

Have you ever thought of taking anger management classes. sshhhheeeessh

Have you ever made a post with some insult?

So much for honest debate and oh

You are putting words in my mouth I never said or inferred. Nice try

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

I like it

Gee I would expect that from a guy from Minn E SEW TAH

nope still wrong. Former ISU Cyclone. I know first hand how obnoxious the Trailer Trashers really are.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Former ISU Cyclone.

OHHHH so that is why there are so many tornados in that part of the world..... they are pissed about the name being used with such.... uh.. less than outstanding performance


And you know if there is a trailer park within 50 miles of a storm front... it will draw the tornados right to the trailer park...Trailers are like tornado bait.