What is the bill of rights really?

[Disir]

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

Ahhh................you're another intellectually disabled person.

and you seem to be the queen of that throne.

That's all you.

nice crown

It's yours.

 

[Spoonman]

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

Ahhh................you're another intellectually disabled person.

and you seem to be the queen of that throne.

That's all you.

nice crown

It's yours.

you're the queen

 

[Contumacious]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

Unfortunately James Madison BOR clashes with the welfare/warfare politician BOR.


The welfare/warfare state politician has a "right" to be considered electable
he knows that the parasites constitute a clear majority
the welfare/warfare politician knows that the members of the so-called federal judiciary are a bunch of spineless corrupt motherfuckers
so the 1787 BOR has been defacto abolished

.

 

[Clementine]

As Obama put it, our founding documents constrain him and doesn't allow him to do as he wishes. That was the whole point. Our founding fathers hated where they came from and understood the innate desire of the people to be truly free. It was only a matter of time before the dictators that they fled from followed to try and destroy this land of freedom. Many didn't want America to exist in the first place and there will always be those who find it wrong to have a country where people are supposed to hold the power. Of course, after decades of liberal presidents, like Wilson, our rights, liberty and freedom have been chipped away with every new administration.

Now, those who believe in staying firmly with the original documents are deemed as threats by Homeland security.

Of course, liberals constantly try to reinterpret things because that is what lawyers do. Most Dems are lawyers and possess the same sleazy mentality as the lowlife ambulance chaser. Only now they chase taxpayers and constantly demand that we pay their clients, who are the permanent Dem voters. They are sure that our founding fathers left some loopholes so they can get around our rights.

Of course, congress has already granted powers to itself and the president that extend beyond what was permitted by the constitution and bill of rights.

Now Obama has a phone and a pen and all else be damned. If Bush had said that, it would have been fun watching liberal heads explode.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those calling themselves conservatives in this thread are, for the most part, reactionary far right loony birds.

Like all such, they wish to prey on those who are weaker and cannot fend off their assaults socially, religiously, and economically to dominate and make their lives miserable.

The doctrine of incorporation is a fact and will not go away.

The general commerce clause and the general welfare clause are facts and will not go away.

The American public is far better off today constitutionally and legally in 2014 than 1814 or 1914.

The improvement in our lives have not resulted from any far right reactionary actions.

 

[Clementine]

Improvements in peoples' lives have come from their own efforts more than government. Lots of poor immigrants and others have started with nothing and built businesses. Some think they are better because government steals more on their behalf, but they couldn't sustain themselves if they had to. Able bodied people would be left with nothing if government didn't give them something. That is not better off, it's just being dependent. Real success comes from building your own life, not waiting for government to give you one.

Of course, we need to get rid of crony capitalism because that tilts the playing field in favor of politicians and their wealthy supporters. That is why our economy sucks. It's not the private sector, it's government corruption.

Our constitution didn't grant government the right to do a lot of what it does. The documents are good, but they have to be followed.

Now liberals act as if our rights are mere suggestions, subject to government approval. Rights are not gifts from government and the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect states, and therefore individuals, from an oppressive government. Our founders sought to keep government in check and keep the people in charge. Now many fear the government and that is the opposite of what was intended.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Spoonman said:

“A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.”


The only 'lesson' for liberals is further confirmation of your ignorance of the law, along with that of most other conservatives.

In addition to being wrong, this also fails as a straw man fallacy, as no liberal believes the Bill of Rights authorizes “the government...to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.” Indeed, such a notion is ridiculous nonsense.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)). When government seeks to limit, preempt, or restrict citizens' civil liberties, the burden to justify such an act rests solely with government, and when government fails to justify measures limiting citizens' rights, those laws are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the jurisprudence predicated on the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

Government isn't 'changing' or 'reinterpreting' anything. When government enacts measures citizens believe to adversely effect their civil rights, they are at liberty to challenge those measures in court to seek relief. And when the courts rule that a given measure passes Constitutional muster, it is done so in accordance with Constitutional case law, where the Bill of Rights is neither 'changed' nor 'reinterpreted.'

As for the linked op-ed, it's nothing more than ignorant demagoguery and hyperbole; the courts alone are authorized to determine if government is 'chipping away' at the rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment, or any of the other Amendments, for that matter.

 

[2aguy]

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The Bill of Rights doesn't "imply" anything, it clearly states the rights...but because the Bill of Rights limits the power of the collectivists they have to pretend that things are "implied" even when they are specifically stated.

 

[Disir]

Damn that 14th amendment.

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The Bill of Rights doesn't "imply" anything, it clearly states the rights...but because the Bill of Rights limits the power of the collectivists they have to pretend that things are "implied" even when they are specifically stated.

Nowhere in that document does it say right to privacy. There is no express right to privacy. Whence did it come?


Hence, it is implied.

 

[Rotagilla]

Spoonman said:

“A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.”


The only 'lesson' for liberals is further confirmation of your ignorance of the law, along with that of most other conservatives.

In addition to being wrong, this also fails as a straw man fallacy, as no liberal believes the Bill of Rights authorizes “the government...to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.” Indeed, such a notion is ridiculous nonsense.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)). When government seeks to limit, preempt, or restrict citizens' civil liberties, the burden to justify such an act rests solely with government, and when government fails to justify measures limiting citizens' rights, those laws are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the jurisprudence predicated on the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

Government isn't 'changing' or 'reinterpreting' anything. When government enacts measures citizens believe to adversely effect their civil rights, they are at liberty to challenge those measures in court to seek relief. And when the courts rule that a given measure passes Constitutional muster, it is done so in accordance with Constitutional case law, where the Bill of Rights is neither 'changed' nor 'reinterpreted.'

As for the linked op-ed, it's nothing more than ignorant demagoguery and hyperbole; the courts alone are authorized to determine if government is 'chipping away' at the rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment, or any of the other Amendments, for that matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the "courts alone" do not make the sole judgement about whether govt infringes on Americans' rights.

The states and voters make amendments that can infringe or grant rights.

 

[Spoonman]

Spoonman said:

“A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.”


The only 'lesson' for liberals is further confirmation of your ignorance of the law, along with that of most other conservatives.

In addition to being wrong, this also fails as a straw man fallacy, as no liberal believes the Bill of Rights authorizes “the government...to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.” Indeed, such a notion is ridiculous nonsense.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)). When government seeks to limit, preempt, or restrict citizens' civil liberties, the burden to justify such an act rests solely with government, and when government fails to justify measures limiting citizens' rights, those laws are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the jurisprudence predicated on the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

Government isn't 'changing' or 'reinterpreting' anything. When government enacts measures citizens believe to adversely effect their civil rights, they are at liberty to challenge those measures in court to seek relief. And when the courts rule that a given measure passes Constitutional muster, it is done so in accordance with Constitutional case law, where the Bill of Rights is neither 'changed' nor 'reinterpreted.'

As for the linked op-ed, it's nothing more than ignorant demagoguery and hyperbole; the courts alone are authorized to determine if government is 'chipping away' at the rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment, or any of the other Amendments, for that matter.

ok koolaid drinker. show me on thing in the bill of rights that authorizes the government to change anything. go one step further, change it on their own

 

[Spoonman]

Damn that 14th amendment.

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The Bill of Rights doesn't "imply" anything, it clearly states the rights...but because the Bill of Rights limits the power of the collectivists they have to pretend that things are "implied" even when they are specifically stated.

Nowhere in that document does it say right to privacy. There is no express right to privacy. Whence did it come?


Hence, it is implied.

so you agree the patriot act bush put into place is ok

 

[Spoonman]

Those calling themselves conservatives in this thread are, for the most part, reactionary far right loony birds.

Like all such, they wish to prey on those who are weaker and cannot fend off their assaults socially, religiously, and economically to dominate and make their lives miserable.

The doctrine of incorporation is a fact and will not go away.

The general commerce clause and the general welfare clause are facts and will not go away.

The American public is far better off today constitutionally and legally in 2014 than 1814 or 1914.

The improvement in our lives have not resulted from any far right reactionary actions.

jake, we all know liberals are weaker, but did you really have to call them out for it?

 

[martybegan]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

 

[bravoactual]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

The Bill of Right Spells Out Clearly and Succinctly the RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS.

The Bill of Rights Is For ALL AMERICANS...NOT JUST A CHOSEN FEW.

Which is something the RW Gas Bags forget

 

[2aguy]

There is no express right to privacy. Whence did it come?

When leftists on the Supreme Court got enough votes to "imply" it....

 

[Contumacious]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

The Bill of Right Spells Out Clearly and Succinctly the RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS.

The Bill of Rights Is For ALL AMERICANS...NOT JUST A CHOSEN FEW.

Which is something the RW Gas Bags forget

I see , so do I have AN absolute right to life and to defend the same using firearms and 20 round magazines?

.

 

[2aguy]

using firearms and 20 round magazines?

That is the part in the actual Bill of Rights 2nd ammendment that the right to keep and bear arms..."shall not be infringed" for some reason leftists can't read that word...it simply doesn't get processed in their brains...

 

[boilermaker55]

What would be nice, is for others like you to understand how this government has really evolved from the initial status to what it is now.
Finding out who really is in control. But when you continually deny the fact that it is becoming and will become nothing but an
Plutocratic/Oligarchic government.

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.