The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
1st Amendment:
The first amendment is limited strictly to Congress.
Case 1: This means that Congress cannot interfere with religious activity (nor any bureaucracy). Yet it seems that this has been reversed, that religious organizations cannot interfere (via speech/press/assembly) with government. The cage is around the Churches in modern American, not the Congress.
Case 2: It seems that "free speech" has been tightly regulated under "Political Correctness" laws and statutes, and is most conveniently is enforced on political material.
Case 3: The press is no longer free, it fears prosecution (AP/Fox/Guardian [UK paper facing pressure form US authorities]), blackmail (Tea Party/Constitutionalists/Libertarians) and outright assassination (DC Madam, Hastings).
Case 4: Right of Assembly died fast with Occupy Wall Street. The moment Ron Paul got involved and directed the OWS frustration towards Ending the Federal Reserve ("End the Fed") the FBI, with Obama's approval, labeled OWS a terrorist organization because a few troublemakers (probably planted) stirred some trouble. This means the Civil Rights Movement would also have been labeled a terrorist organization since the Deacons of Defense and Justice protected MLK's marches with Shotguns and semi-autos.
You can still petition and communicate privately with your government, so far as I know. The right to petition your government a redress of grievances remains intact --- for now.
2nd Amendment:
Object (Subject): A disciplined (well regulated) militia.
Purpose: Being necessary (not optional) to the security of a free (not police) state.
Means: The people shall not be deprived their natural god given right to own weaponry equal to that of the government itself.
Additional Means: Nor shall any other infringement (such as prohibitive taxation [Jim Crow Laws]) be tolerated that prevents the ease and acceptability of acquiring and using modern weaponry.
Case: Needless to say, on the federal, state and local levels of government this Amendment is taking a heavy beating.
Third Amendment:
The purpose of this amendment was to prevent the enforcement of a police state via massive armies taking lodge in cities/towns, as experienced under the rule of King George and many other times in history for centuries.
Today the government can circumvent the literal wording of this amendment by flying drones over our skies, which do not requiring lodging and can create an even more oppressive police state (if activated for that purpose) than any standing army could have in the 1700's. Do you think this is a violation of the Third Amendment?
Fourth Amendment:
It says that NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE, that means NONE --- unless they follow a specific process (due process), that a specific object or person, upon probable cause (not suspicion), can be seized upon the support of judge via his Oath.
Case 1: Do you think the Patriot Act and the NSA have greatly overstepped this boundary, using general search warrants for ANYTHING against EVERYONE in one swoop?
Case 2: Do you think that the government's stance on drone spying, that any information accidentally observed by drones can be used against you, even if you were not targeted by a Warrant, if a violation of the 4th Amendment?
The first amendment is limited strictly to Congress.
Case 1: This means that Congress cannot interfere with religious activity (nor any bureaucracy). Yet it seems that this has been reversed, that religious organizations cannot interfere (via speech/press/assembly) with government. The cage is around the Churches in modern American, not the Congress.
Case 2: It seems that "free speech" has been tightly regulated under "Political Correctness" laws and statutes, and is most conveniently is enforced on political material.
Case 3: The press is no longer free, it fears prosecution (AP/Fox/Guardian [UK paper facing pressure form US authorities]), blackmail (Tea Party/Constitutionalists/Libertarians) and outright assassination (DC Madam, Hastings).
Case 4: Right of Assembly died fast with Occupy Wall Street. The moment Ron Paul got involved and directed the OWS frustration towards Ending the Federal Reserve ("End the Fed") the FBI, with Obama's approval, labeled OWS a terrorist organization because a few troublemakers (probably planted) stirred some trouble. This means the Civil Rights Movement would also have been labeled a terrorist organization since the Deacons of Defense and Justice protected MLK's marches with Shotguns and semi-autos.
You can still petition and communicate privately with your government, so far as I know. The right to petition your government a redress of grievances remains intact --- for now.
2nd Amendment:
Object (Subject): A disciplined (well regulated) militia.
Purpose: Being necessary (not optional) to the security of a free (not police) state.
Means: The people shall not be deprived their natural god given right to own weaponry equal to that of the government itself.
Additional Means: Nor shall any other infringement (such as prohibitive taxation [Jim Crow Laws]) be tolerated that prevents the ease and acceptability of acquiring and using modern weaponry.
Case: Needless to say, on the federal, state and local levels of government this Amendment is taking a heavy beating.
Third Amendment:
The purpose of this amendment was to prevent the enforcement of a police state via massive armies taking lodge in cities/towns, as experienced under the rule of King George and many other times in history for centuries.
Today the government can circumvent the literal wording of this amendment by flying drones over our skies, which do not requiring lodging and can create an even more oppressive police state (if activated for that purpose) than any standing army could have in the 1700's. Do you think this is a violation of the Third Amendment?
Fourth Amendment:
It says that NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE, that means NONE --- unless they follow a specific process (due process), that a specific object or person, upon probable cause (not suspicion), can be seized upon the support of judge via his Oath.
Case 1: Do you think the Patriot Act and the NSA have greatly overstepped this boundary, using general search warrants for ANYTHING against EVERYONE in one swoop?
Case 2: Do you think that the government's stance on drone spying, that any information accidentally observed by drones can be used against you, even if you were not targeted by a Warrant, if a violation of the 4th Amendment?
