Is This An Example Of States Rights?

[Mustang]

Most people have probably heard about forfeiture laws.

Without doing any research (probably a mistake on my part, but I'm pressed for time), I think they originally started out as a way of seizing assets that were used in the commission of a crime. Often, those were criminal enterprises like when drug runners bought boats to use for transporting drugs into the US from outside our borders. But my understanding is that it would take a criminal conviction in a court of law to make that happen even if the gov't had already impounded the boat, ostensibly for a search and as evidence of the crime.

Over the years forfeiture laws have been expanded to include some things that seem pretty abusive and unnecessary to me. One that comes to mind is when LE can seize a man's automobile if and when he's caught engaging in a sex act with a prostitute. Some people may not have a problem with that, but a vehicle is also a means for getting to and from work as well as transportation for the entire family. I've even heard of cases where the vehicles of friends and relatives were seized under similar circumstance even when the person who owned the vehicle had no knowledge of the activities. That's clearly an abuse of power in my eyes.

But I've also heard of gov't seizing cash if and when they find it on a person who's traveling. The point is that forfeiture laws seem to have moved beyond their original intent and now it seems to have entered the realm of a revenue stream for some states and municipalities. Needless to say, the law is not equally applied if and when some people are better able to prevent it from happening because they're well-connected or better able to put up a legal challenge.

But, as with anything, it seems we're entering a new phase (or an expanded one) where state and local gov'ts are seizing assets without even the pretext of a criminal conviction to point to as a legal justification.

As in other times in our past when state or local gov'ts appear to be violating the rights of citizens, it looks like the federal gov't might just step in in an effort to put a stop to the practice.

So, what say you? Is this kind of civil forfeiture a violation of a citizens' rights, or is this an example of States rights that the federal gov't has no business interfering in?

Police Officers Using Controversial Network To Keep Tabs On Motorists
Critics question constitutionality of nationwide program
Posted: Sep 09, 2014
By: Pete Bigelow
648 Comments
See More Articles
from this Author
Follow
Google+
Law enforcement officers across the country have been using a private intelligence network to compile and share detailed information about motorists in the United States.

Despite warnings from state and federal officials that the system may be unconstitutional, the Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System hasgathered information about both criminals and innocent drivers alike, the Washington Post reported Monday. Information shared by approximately 25,000 police officers includes details like motorists' social security numbers, addresses, identifying tattoos and hunches about which drivers to stop.

Certain states prohibit law enforcement from using the system and a federal prosecutor in Nebraska has warned the program could violate civil liberties, as well as policies that govern how sensitive law enforcement information is passed.

The Post revealed the program's existence amid a detailed investigative report on how law enforcement has used civil forfeiture laws to seize millions of dollars from motorists, many of whom were never convicted of any crimes.

Police agencies linked to the Black Asphalt network saw their proceeds from forfeiture seizures increase by 32 percent from 2005 through today – three times the increase seen by other departments.

"A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network's chat rooms and sharing 'trophy shots' of money and drugs,"The Post reported. "Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities."

The need to use seizure money to fund otherwise cash-strapped budgets can lead to excesses. In a well-documented case in Tenaha, TX, local police officers illegally confiscated an estimated $3 million in cash and property between 2006 and 2008.

In targeting as many as 1,000 black and Latino motorists, police targeted victims who lacked the financial and legal resources to fight back. Motorists were often given a choice of either signing a form forfeiting cash and valuables or facing arrest, in which case children in the car could be taken and placed in the custody of protective services.

At the time, Vanita Gupta, the deputy legal director of the ACLU said that Tenaha was particularly egregious, but that these programs, "incentivize police agencies to engage in unconstitutional behavior in order to fund themselves off the backs of low-income motorists, most of whom lack the means to fight back."

In analyzing the civil forfeiture process, The Post reported that there have been 61,998 cash seizures made since September 11, 2001 without search warrants or indictments. Of those, only a sixth were legally challenged. But in 41 percent of the cases that were challenged, the government was ordered to return the money.

In July, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) introduced a bill in the US House of Representatives that would reform civil forfeiture laws, which were originally written to thwart drug dealers who operated multi-million operations. His proposed legislation would raise the level of proof needed to substantiate criminal activity before cash and property could be seized.

This article originally appeared on Autoblog.

Filed under: Driving, Speeding Tickets, Driving Laws, Traffic

Police Officers Using Controversial Network To Keep Tabs On Motorists

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

 

[Moonglow]

I have hated this law since the Reagan era, it is clearly a violation of your due process rights, which only goes to prove the Drug War is not about saving souls, but accumulation of property through disingenuous processes and the cops are at at the tip, raking in all they can get...

 

[Mustang]

I have hated this law since the Reagan era, it is clearly a violation of your due process rights, which only goes to prove the Drug War is not about saving souls, but accumulation of property through disingenuous processes and the cops are at at the tip, raking in all they can get...

It probably falls under the heading of what's commonly referred to as the law of unintended consequences.

With that said, it's a perfect example of how something that's started with the best of intentions can morph over time into something that's not even recognizable to the people who enacted the original laws. If anything, it should give everyone pause when thinking about how the NSA is currently collecting metadata on all Americans all the time under the premise that it's needed to fight terrorism. Certainly, that information could be used for purposes that don't have a thing to do with terrorism which is what has happened with a lot of the laws that were enacted in the aftermath of 9-11.

 

[Moonglow]

I have hated this law since the Reagan era, it is clearly a violation of your due process rights, which only goes to prove the Drug War is not about saving souls, but accumulation of property through disingenuous processes and the cops are at at the tip, raking in all they can get...

It probably falls under the heading of what's commonly referred to as the law of unintended consequences.

With that said, it's a perfect example of how something that's started with the best of intentions can morph over time into something that's not even recognizable to the people who enacted the original laws. If anything, it should give everyone pause when thinking about how the NSA is currently collecting metadata on all Americans all the time under the premise that it's needed to fight terrorism. Certainly, that information could be used for purposes that don't have a thing to do with terrorism which is what has happened with a lot of the laws that were enacted in the aftermath of 9-11.

All the organizations like DEA, ATF, NSA and cops have encoded forums to pass on info and brag about their busts and how much they are profiting with this illegal war on the people of the US..I never have trusted these components and their unlimited freedom to do as they please..

 

[Mustang]

I have hated this law since the Reagan era, it is clearly a violation of your due process rights, which only goes to prove the Drug War is not about saving souls, but accumulation of property through disingenuous processes and the cops are at at the tip, raking in all they can get...

It probably falls under the heading of what's commonly referred to as the law of unintended consequences.

With that said, it's a perfect example of how something that's started with the best of intentions can morph over time into something that's not even recognizable to the people who enacted the original laws. If anything, it should give everyone pause when thinking about how the NSA is currently collecting metadata on all Americans all the time under the premise that it's needed to fight terrorism. Certainly, that information could be used for purposes that don't have a thing to do with terrorism which is what has happened with a lot of the laws that were enacted in the aftermath of 9-11.

All the organizations like DEA, ATF, NSA and cops have encoded forums to pass on info and brag about their busts and how much they are profiting with this illegal war on the people of the US..I never have trusted these components and their unlimited freedom to do as they please..

According to the video that accompanies the story, since 2001, $2.5 Billion has been seized from 62,000 people without so much as a warrant or an indictment. Maybe they expect people to be grateful that they don't have to pay any court costs.

 

[Moonglow]

I have hated this law since the Reagan era, it is clearly a violation of your due process rights, which only goes to prove the Drug War is not about saving souls, but accumulation of property through disingenuous processes and the cops are at at the tip, raking in all they can get...

It probably falls under the heading of what's commonly referred to as the law of unintended consequences.

With that said, it's a perfect example of how something that's started with the best of intentions can morph over time into something that's not even recognizable to the people who enacted the original laws. If anything, it should give everyone pause when thinking about how the NSA is currently collecting metadata on all Americans all the time under the premise that it's needed to fight terrorism. Certainly, that information could be used for purposes that don't have a thing to do with terrorism which is what has happened with a lot of the laws that were enacted in the aftermath of 9-11.

All the organizations like DEA, ATF, NSA and cops have encoded forums to pass on info and brag about their busts and how much they are profiting with this illegal war on the people of the US..I never have trusted these components and their unlimited freedom to do as they please..

According to the video that accompanies the story, since 2001, $2.5 Billion has been seized from 62,000 people without so much as a warrant or an indictment. Maybe they expect people to be grateful that they don't have to pay any court costs.

Well I for one knew exactly what would be the end result of more power for the police and crime fighting organizations...corruption and making death/killing legal...Instead of drugz destroying lives, it those that claim to serve and protect that have become the enemy...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mustang said: ↑

So, what say you? Is this kind of civil forfeiture a violation of a citizens' rights, or is this an example of States rights that the federal gov't has no business interfering in?

Seizures are subject to due process, where those whose property was seized may challenge the taking of that property.

From the cited article:

In analyzing the civil forfeiture process, The Post reported that there have been 61,998 cash seizures made since September 11, 2001 without search warrants or indictments. Of those, only a sixth were legally challenged. But in 41 percent of the cases that were challenged, the government was ordered to return the money.

The problem is the seizure is against the property itself, not the owner, where property has no 'rights,' and the states and other jurisdictions maintain that the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause does not apply and therefore no violation of citizens' rights has occurred.

 

[Mustang]

Mustang said: ↑

So, what say you? Is this kind of civil forfeiture a violation of a citizens' rights, or is this an example of States rights that the federal gov't has no business interfering in?

Seizures are subject to due process, where those whose property was seized may challenge the taking of that property.

From the cited article:

In analyzing the civil forfeiture process, The Post reported that there have been 61,998 cash seizures made since September 11, 2001 without search warrants or indictments. Of those, only a sixth were legally challenged. But in 41 percent of the cases that were challenged, the government was ordered to return the money.

The problem is the seizure is against the property itself, not the owner, where property has no 'rights,' and the states and other jurisdictions maintain that the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause does not apply and therefore no violation of citizens' rights has occurred.

Not to mention that the burden of proof seems to have shifted from the State having to prove a crime to a judge or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt to the citizen now having to prove that he's not guilty of having engaged in any illegality. While I don't dispute that there are quite likely some criminals caught up in these stops and forfeitures who undoubtedly figure they're getting off easy by forfeiting only property while getting no time in prison or another mark on a criminal record, the whole system is set up in such a way that simply invites abuse if and when it looks like there's a lot to gain and very little downside for the authorities if and when they're wrong. On the occasions that someone has the wherewithal and/or the willingness to fight the forfeiture, the money is turned back over to the person who fought the forfeiture, and it's most likely done without so much as an apology or an admission of wrongdoing.

This whole thing actually reminds me of what I learned about landlords keeping renters' damage deposits back in the late 1980s as I was in the process of taking a former landlord to court to get my deposit back. I eventually won in court without a judgment in my favor because the judge encouraged us to go out in the hall and reach a settlement, which we did. But that merely saved my former landlord from having a judgment being rendered against them and quite possibly having to pay treble damages. Prior to the court date, I never even heard a word from them. But none of that is the point of the story. The point is that many shady landlords know that most people will not go to all the trouble to file in court. And out of all the ones who do file, many will very often not show up for a court date for one reason or another. Therefore, all things considered, the landlords have little to lose from keeping deposits as long as they show up in court. Then, in thise rare cases where someone files in small claims court and shows up on that day, as long as the landlord shows up as well, they can simply agree to pay the money back even as they've kept all the other deposits they weren't truly entitled to. This looks like pretty much the same thing except that the power of the state is being used to take away the assets of its citizens.

 

[Mustang]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

 

[bendog]

I have hated this law since the Reagan era, it is clearly a violation of your due process rights, which only goes to prove the Drug War is not about saving souls, but accumulation of property through disingenuous processes and the cops are at at the tip, raking in all they can get...

It probably falls under the heading of what's commonly referred to as the law of unintended consequences.

With that said, it's a perfect example of how something that's started with the best of intentions can morph over time into something that's not even recognizable to the people who enacted the original laws. If anything, it should give everyone pause when thinking about how the NSA is currently collecting metadata on all Americans all the time under the premise that it's needed to fight terrorism. Certainly, that information could be used for purposes that don't have a thing to do with terrorism which is what has happened with a lot of the laws that were enacted in the aftermath of 9-11.

I would not use "good intentions" in connection with a law with the purpose of making sure drug dealers wouldn't have access to money they possessed to hire legal counsel when prosecuted by the Feds.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It used to be that these items could only be seized if they were proven to be used in or gained from a criminal act.

The Government had to prove it.

I had no problem with that.

Now, it is such that it is automatically assumed to have been used in or gained from a criminal act and the person has to prove otherwise.

That is why I am now for repealing all forfeiture and seizure laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

 

[Mustang]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

 

[Mustang]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

 

[bripat9643]

Mustang said: ↑

So, what say you? Is this kind of civil forfeiture a violation of a citizens' rights, or is this an example of States rights that the federal gov't has no business interfering in?

Seizures are subject to due process, where those whose property was seized may challenge the taking of that property.

That isn't "due process," bub. According to the Constitution, government has to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The forfeiture laws require you to prove you are innocent. That's a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

From the cited article:

In analyzing the civil forfeiture process, The Post reported that there have been 61,998 cash seizures made since September 11, 2001 without search warrants or indictments. Of those, only a sixth were legally challenged. But in 41 percent of the cases that were challenged, the government was ordered to return the money.

The problem is the seizure is against the property itself, not the owner, where property has no 'rights,' and the states and other jurisdictions maintain that the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause does not apply and therefore no violation of citizens' rights has occurred.

The idea that only the rights of the property are involved is the most laughable rationalization I've ever heard. Of course property doesn't have rights. It's an inanimate object. However, the people who own the property still have rights. You have to be a moron to swallow the claim that their property rights aren't being violated.

I'm not surprised in the slightest that you would defend an obvious fascist law like this.

 

[Pennywise]

It has nothing to do with states' rights. This is all about the power of power to corrupt; the unceasing invasion of our individual liberty taken through force and threat of imprisonment.

This is the kind of sick shit you get when government becomes too large, and that is exactly how leftists and right-wing progressive types like it. Control. It's all about control.

We have barely even the most remote facsimile of freedom anymore. It's fucking sick.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly falls afoul of the Constitution as it is forfeiture of property without due process.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

 

[Mustang]

I'll take that as a tacit admission that the Federal not only has a legitimate role to play when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals, sometimes it's actually incumbent upon the Federal Gov't to step in when individual states operate contrary to the constitutional protections afforded the citizens of the United States.

Thanks for playing.

Dumbshit. You think you proved anythign but how stupid you are?
The Federal government guarantees Constitutional rights. No one argues that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Rabbi. The fact of the matter is that there's a simple truth that I've never heard any conservative openly acknowledge before when it comes to the concept of States rights. It's how certain states have historically used the concept of 'States rights' as a legalistic 'license' in order to continue the practices of historical discrimination which had the effect of abridging the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This tactic was little more than a transparent attempt to hold on to power and White privilege, mostly in the southern states, even though it was gussied up to look like a Constitutional argument.

So, YOUR acknowledgement that the States using this forfeiture law needed to be reigned in was and is a tacit admission that individual states can and do engage in an abuse of power from time to time, regardless of their rationale for their actions. Under such conditions, it's incumbent on the Federal Gov't to step in to rectify the abridgment of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of individual states.

Needless to say your ignorance and stupidity have led you to confuse apples and oranges.
There is no guarantee under the Constitution to eat in a particular restaurant, to stay in a particular hotel, or to attend a particular school. Ergo it is not a matter for the Federal government to dictate those things.
Your example of forfeiture is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, 5th Amendment. As such states and municipalities run afoul of an explicit right. The federal government too because they engage in forfeiture all the time.
So you look like an idiot. Again.

LOL! Does this ignorant argument of yours work on people? Stupid people, perhaps. Undoubtedly, bigots buy into it big time.

Yeah, there's also no guarantee under the constitution that allows you (or anyone, for that matter) to live where you want to live either. In fact, the constitution doesn't say much of anything about a lot of specifics since it's a general framework of rights and not a grocery list of rights.

Wanna try again? Next time try not to look like a simpleton.

Question: Have you actually read the Constitution? I am pretty sure the answer is no. Because your comments indicate you dont know anything about it. The Constitution is very specific in many places. The right to keep and bear arm is pretty specific. The right to freedom of speech etc is pretty specific. But there is no right to service by private entitites mentioned anywhere. Please show me where it is and I can agree the federal government should be enforcing that right, as it ought to against forfeitures.

Free speech is not all that specific considering all the possible ways to interpret what constitutes speech.

Is singing and expressing yourself late at night an example of free speech, or is it disturbing the peace?

Is expressing your opinion under any and all circumstances a protected right of your freedom of speech, or is what you can say and when you can say it restricted by circumstances and content (like when you're at work or when you offer unsubstantiated derogatory opinions that harm someone's reputation?)

Why is it that money being spent of political advertising is now considered an example of free speech if it's not spelled out in the constitution that you can pay money to have your views printed and disseminated as opposed to just speaking to a crowd of gathered people?

Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute since there are MANY places where you are legally prohibited from carrying firearms.

I won't even bother to start in on public accommodations.