Constitutional Rights Have Limits

[meaner gene]

If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for
causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant
giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence. His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.

All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.

BUT YOU CAN'T

No matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of words

 

[BackAgain]

The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence. His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.

All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.

BUT YOU CAN'T

No matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of words

So, to summarize: you lie. You deflect. You can’t stay on topic. And you can’t coherently make your point, if you even have one.

That’s ok, meager. I realize now that you truly are that much of a coward.

 

[MisterBeale]

The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.

The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.

The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.

These limits set forth in statutes or case law.

The Constitution was written in such a way, as to protect natural rights. In the end, it fails to do so, it only protects those who marshal the most strength and capital in society.


The right to judicial review, was one of the first powers that the ruling elites read into the Constitution, and this, then, has subsequently given them the power to constrain natural rights in anyway they see fit.

If you believe that they have the right to restrict your natural rights through "judicial review," that is your right. But, it is an erroneous reading of the Constitution, IMO.

It is also my right, to believe that the ruling elites are full of shit. They can only enforce their will through a monopoly on "legalized," violence.

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No Treason - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[meaner gene]

If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for
causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant
giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence. His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occurred, and your claim to have disproved it, is just another of your long string of endless lies.

Watching you twist and turn like that is just sad.

 

[Delldude]

I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.

At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper government acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.

This is akin to the right to free speech. The Government isn’t allowed to deny us our right to free speech (with some very limited exceptions). But that doesn’t mean that the idiots at Twitter can’t deny you free speech on their service.

So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”)

The sections concerning our rights are from intrusions from the government to us.
Do 'peaceful' protestors violating noise ordinances and so on fall under that, I doubt it.
Even the protesting justices statute, probably would be unconstitutional.
I could see blockades somewhat, above and below the houses under protest, letting very small groups to go by..that would be following the 1st. Or, designate specific protest areas, like the SS does with presidents.....usually blocks away from where he is going.

 

[bripat9643]

The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.

The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.

The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.

These limits set forth in statutes or case law.

I'd have to say that you're wrong. the 1st and 2nd are limited only where exercising them would violate someone else's rights. Taking drugs doesn't violate anyone's rights. Having multiple wives doesn't violate anyone's rights. Human sacrifice does violate someone's rights. Perjury, extortion and obstruction of justice do violate someone's rights, but obscenity and slander don't.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution was written in such a way, as to protect natural rights. In the end, it fails to do so, it only protects those who marshal the most strength and capital in society.


The right to judicial review, was one of the first powers that the ruling elites read into the Constitution, and this, then, has subsequently given them the power to constrain natural rights in anyway they see fit.

If you believe that they have the right to restrict your natural rights through "judicial review," that is your right. But, it is an erroneous reading of the Constitution, IMO.

It is also my right, to believe that the ruling elites are full of shit. They can only enforce their will through a monopoly on "legalized," violence.

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No Treason - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lysander Spooner was a great man.

 

[MisterBeale]

Lysander Spooner was a great man.

He is a tad on the radical side for my tastes, but indeed, he is a great man. He does call it like it is, not as we wish it to be.

Second only to Jefferson on thoughts about American government.

Jefferson is the idealist, Spooner is the realist.

If the individual and family control their education, commerce, and spirituality? We can have a government like Jefferson imagines. . .

. . if the government does? It will be the nightmare that Spooner foresees.

 

[Viktor]

I'd have to say that you're wrong. the 1st and 2nd are limited only where exercising them would violate someone else's rights. Taking drugs doesn't violate anyone's rights. Having multiple wives doesn't violate anyone's rights. Human sacrifice does violate someone's rights. Perjury, extortion and obstruction of justice do violate someone's rights, but obscenity and slander don't.

Taking illegal drugs is agaianst the law and polygamy is illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

Taking illegal drugs is agaianst the law and polygamy is illegal.

You're such a dumbfuck. What authority does the constitution give the the federal government to make either one of those things illegal?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'd have to say that you're wrong. the 1st and 2nd are limited only where exercising them would violate someone else's rights. Taking drugs doesn't violate anyone's rights. Having multiple wives doesn't violate anyone's rights. Human sacrifice does violate someone's rights. Perjury, extortion and obstruction of justice do violate someone's rights, but obscenity and slander don't.

This is both ignorant and wrong.

Government is at liberty to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with Constitutional case law.

Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech do not violate the First Amendment.

The NFAs restrictions concerning the regulation of fully automatic firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.

Our rights are neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’

 

[bripat9643]

This is both ignorant and wrong.

Government is at liberty to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with Constitutional case law.

Another way of saying that is that the government can simply ignore the Constitution. I seriously doubt any of the founding fathers would swallow that idea.

Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech do not violate the First Amendment.

That is so vague it's meaningless.

The NFAs restrictions concerning the regulation of fully automatic firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.

It sure as hell does.

Our rights are neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’

Meaningless.

 

[App'z]

Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?

( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely ruled Nada, due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !

 

[westwall]

Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?

( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely ruled Nada, due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !

The separation of church and state means there is no state sponsored religion.

That's it. All the rest of the silliness done by the progressives is not constitutional.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.

The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.

The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.

These limits set forth in statutes or case law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?

( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely ruled Nada, due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !

Nonsense.
Going to a building to vote does not mean you are forced to believe in the things represented in that building.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" What Is Ours By Informed Consent "

* How To Over Populate A Planet And Numerically Overwhelm Others *

Polygamy was common in the ancient world, but not anymore. I suspect its a morals question.

A social civil contract between multiple individuals can be established as a matter of principle for negative liberties .

Having that social civil contract recognized for either negative liberties of protection and especially for positive liberties of endowment is a different issue .

The qurayshism religion institutionalizes polygamy as does mormonism as a principle to perpetuate genetic identity in the context of a family .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Consequence Examples Of The Pitiful "

* Informed Consent of The Governed Circumvented *

Roe v Wade was a bad ruling. The Constitution does not even mention abortion. A Texas law which ignored it was upheld by the Supreme ct and a direct challenge to it is now before the court.

Roe v Wade was perfect and it is disappointing that it was not ever explained to the public for it to be understood .

The constitution specifies that birth is a requirement for equal protection - includes a wright to life - as birth is a requirement for citizenship , therefore a fetus does not have constitutional protections .

* Texas Law Is Mostly Fluff *

The texas law relates to private prosecution and SCOTUS returned it to texas because it wanted to rule on a decision issued by texas supreme court .

The SCOTUS response included that if a practitioner performed an abortion consistent with Roe v Wade that practitioner would be entitled to relief and that a plaintiff must have valid damages .

The SCOTUS also ruled that texas courts could not be prevented from accepting cases as it would break the judicial process and it further inquired about the process of civil prosecution.

The only valid claim of damages would come from a parent against a practitioner if the practitioner failed to receive parental consent , as otherwise other claims would not be valid .

Because of the nature of legal representation attorneys fees are only available when one has entered into a social civil contract with informed consent , with a prearranged agreement to provide goods and services being the only one in texas law , where a plaintiff can only collect actual valid damages ( not a fatwa bounty ) and SCOTUS admonished the law as being out of the norm from standard law .

Private prosecution has existed in the united states since its inception and in answer to SCOTUS inquiry into the process , private grand juries must be convened ( 12 to 22 ) which is separate from the court and expected to root out frivolous lawsuits .

Private prosecution falls within the realm of civil suits and expectations of the law that defendants are not entitled to tort for frivolity is debase as civil suits are a free for all and even a grand jury can be counter sued for frivolity .

The texas law for civil prosecution admitted that it did not include a challenge as to whether a ( sic ) right to privacy exist .

Unfortunately the aclu and center for productive rights is forwarding attorneys based on pro-bono who are significantly lacking in , as related , a competent understanding of the constitutional basis for abortion .

What else would one expect when competent debate is estoppel by the fee press and its public representatives hold the public in low regard , dismissed as ignorant plebeians ?

 

[flan327]

What is a woman?

Grow up

PLEASE

 

[flan327]

So, to summarize: you lie. You deflect. You can’t stay on topic. And you can’t coherently make your point, if you even have one.

That’s ok, meager. I realize now that you truly are that much of a coward.

John Belushi died of a drug overdose

I’m always curious to know the reason behind a poster’s avatar