- Aug 22, 2015
- Reaction score
- 38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Another Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence school "gradiate"?
Near v. Minnesota, 1931 “The liberty of the press … is safeguarded from invasion by state action.”
Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near’s Saturday Press for publishing vicious antisemitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in “prior restraint”; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from publishing or expressing a thought.
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 “You have the right to remain silent …” After police questioning, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. The Court struck down his conviction, on grounds that he was not informed of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Hereafter, the Miranda warnings have been a standard feature of arrest procedures.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Defendants in criminal cases have an absolute right to counsel.
Too poor to afford a lawyer, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted for breaking into a poolroom—a felony crime in Florida. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government must provide free counsel to accused criminals who cannot pay for it themselves. At first, the ruling applied to felonies only. It was later extended to cover any cases where the penalty was six months imprisonment or longer.
Who were the authors, that gave people god-given "rights"?
If these rights were "god-given" why didn't colonists have these "rights' before the constitution was written?
The government, claims they are "god-given", so why don't other countries have these rights?
So, the states already had all these rights before 1789?
Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing. You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.
Some emaciated Jew, in the 1940s, taking his last breath in one of Auschwitz's gas chambers—did he have a right not to be treated as he was?
By your apparent [lack of] logic, we would have to say that no, he did not have any such right. What was done to him was done in accordance with the laws and policies of the government under which jurisdiction he fell; was entirely legal under that government, and therefore, was ethically right as well.
That's kwanzaa, of course.
He did have a right not to be so treated. God created him, as He created all of us, with certain inherent rights, which include the right not to be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exterminated because of our religion or our ancestry. The Nazis did not rightfully remove this right. The right still existed, even as the Nazis, in defiance of God, violated this right.
Governments do not create rights. They do not have the authority to grant or to remove rights. They have the duty under God to recognize, uphold, and protect rights; and wherever they fail to do so, their actions are illegitimate, and Godless. Those who hold positions in government, who use those positions to violate the rights of others, who fail to fulfill their duty to protect rights, will one day stand before God, and will very harshly be held by Him to answer for it. The worst parts of Hell will probably be populated mostly by politicians.