What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Without Due Process

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated at all? or

Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated without due process?

This is just something I have started considering recently. Is there even a difference between these two concepts? To me one says your Constitutional rights can never be violated. One says that your Constitutional rights can only be violated by a judge. Has anybody ever considered what "without due process" actually means?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,592
Reaction score
4,730
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Of course your rights can be violated ... it's call "crime" ... but I know what you mean ...

First is the reasonableness test ... is a restriction on, say Speech, have a reason ... can government prohibit yelling and screaming in a government owned hospital? ...

Second is the onerous test ... is the restriction onerous to the right of Free Speech? ... can we yell and scream on a government owned playground? ...

Due Process is where the government writes you a ticket for yelling and screaming ... you have a due process right to have a judge rule on the legality of the ticket ... if on the playground = not guilty ... in a hospital = guilty ... we have the right to this process ...
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
Of course your rights can be violated ... it's call "crime" ... but I know what you mean ...

First is the reasonableness test ... is a restriction on, say Speech, have a reason ... can government prohibit yelling and screaming in a government owned hospital? ...

Second is the onerous test ... is the restriction onerous to the right of Free Speech? ... can we yell and scream on a government owned playground? ...

Due Process is where the government writes you a ticket for yelling and screaming ... you have a due process right to have a judge rule on the legality of the ticket ... if on the playground = not guilty ... in a hospital = guilty ... we have the right to this process ...

So if is ok for a judge to make a bad ruling and subsequent judges to use that bad ruling to make future bad rulings? or is the judge obligated to only consider the constitution and ignore those past bad rulings?

Nobody taught us in school about the great power of case law that apparently has more power than the words of the constitution.
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
My opinion is that the freedom of speech means something different today than it did in 1789.

This would be the same for all Constitutional amendments. On the day the constitution was written it was never measured on practicality. The purpose of the courts is to bring our traditions and beliefs into real world situations. Then our law adjusts to be more realistic and workable.

I think my previous belief system was that the constitution was more powerful than any law. Now I believe case law to be more powerful than the constitution. Was I wrong then or am i wrong now?
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated at all? or

Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated without due process?

This is just something I have started considering recently. Is there even a difference between these two concepts? To me one says your Constitutional rights can never be violated. One says that your Constitutional rights can only be violated by a judge. Has anybody ever considered what "without due process" actually means?
It don't believe either is true. Anyone who is an adult knows (or should know) that just because something is forboden doesn't mean that it can be prevented from happening.

For example, laws don't prevent crimes from occurring, they simply specify which behaviors/acts/things are not lawful and the punishment for violating them.

Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights that "the people" [of the United States] have that the government is expressly prohibited from violating. Does our government violate our rights anyway? Everyday. But since these violations are prohibited then there is supposed to be recourse for those violations if you can afford to pay someone (an attorney) to hold the government accountable and enforce the protection of your rights.

Your reference to due process though refers to a person not being subjected to loss of property, liberty or life without due process of law. This specifically refers to "the/those accused" in the 5th and 14th Amendment

Due Process Introduction​

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this article concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law.
due process

In other words, some rights that we have we don't lose just because someone else is violating them. But our government has a slew of exceptions when it comes to violating our rights under the criminal code, even our constitutional rights.

For example, our government can determine that a search it wants to conduct without a warrant is "reasonable" and not a violation of the 4th Amendment. If a court agrees then the only thing that comes of the search being challenged is that any evidence obtained during that violation of the 4th Amendment has to be thrown out (cannot be used as evidence in that case nor any other if I recall correctly). Finding that the police/government violated the 4th amendment doesn't really compensate you for the privacy violations or any other harm that you may have endured.

Lastly, I am not an attorney so please validate any information relayed here to ensure my interpretation is accurate. Or not ;-)
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
43,801
Reaction score
24,780
Points
2,615
Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated at all? or

Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated without due process?

This is just something I have started considering recently. Is there even a difference between these two concepts? To me one says your Constitutional rights can never be violated. One says that your Constitutional rights can only be violated by a judge. Has anybody ever considered what "without due process" actually means?
the judge isnt violating your rights,, he takes them away/ you loose them after youve gone through due process,,

as for case law,, its a tactic the progressives use to side step the constitution,,
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
4,695
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
I think my previous belief system was that the constitution was more powerful than any law. Now I believe case law to be more powerful than the constitution. Was I wrong then or am i wrong now?
Laws are not supposed to be passed that violate the U.S. Constitution but of course they are. And the thing you have to remember is that those individuals who have the power to state what the Constitution says control the narrative.
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
just because something is forboden doesn't mean that it can be prevented from happening.

Of course. I would just expect a judge to follow the law. So I would think the incidence of constutional violations would be rare but they are abundant. The Supreme Court throws out cases all the time where a lower level judge violated the law. It is common for judges to piggyback off of case law when they disagree with the law. That's why I am led to believe these judges do have the authority to violate constitutional rights of individuals since being afforded a trial is due process. Your rights can be violated but not without the court's approval.

I don't know. I guess I have seen too much in life and spent too much time believing in the constitution. I'm pretty sure the constitution is only good for toilet paper when you run out. It's a fantasy.
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
the judge isnt violating your rights,, he takes them away/ you loose them after youve gone through due process,,

as for case law,, its a tactic the progressives use to side step the constitution,,

In a real world scenario I was convicted of a crime solely based on words I texted on a phone. My previous belief system led me to believe that a government could not punish me for saying things. Boy was I wrong. I was punished. I paid over $1,400 in fines, did 8 months on supervised probation, had to pay $95 for an anger management course, and $200 for a mental health evaluation. Either my first amendment rights were violated or they weren't. I am leaning towards that they weren't. I have a hard time believing a judge would break the law just because I didn't. I think freedom of speech in 2022 meant something different than freedom of speech in 1789 due to 2 centuries of case law that shaped the first amendment into what it means today.

People are punished by the government all the time for saying things. I don't think that is ever going to stop. Freedom of speech is a fantasy in its purest form. Bad laws do not change the constitution but court rulings do.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
43,801
Reaction score
24,780
Points
2,615
In a real world scenario I was convicted of a crime solely based on words I texted on a phone. My previous belief system led me to believe that a government could not punish me for saying things. Boy was I wrong. I was punished. I paid over $1,400 in fines, did 8 months on supervised probation, had to pay $95 for an anger management course, and $200 for a mental health evaluation. Either my first amendment rights were violated or they weren't. I am leaning towards that they weren't. I have a hard time believing a judge would break the law just because I didn't. I think freedom of speech in 2022 meant something different than freedom of speech in 1789 due to 2 centuries of case law that shaped the first amendment into what it means today.
what were the words you texted??
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
what were the words you texted??

I wish I still had access to all of them. I was convicted because she asked me to stop texting but I kept texting. The legal definition of harrassment is two or more unwanted contacts. Since the contact was over cell phone it was considered cyber harrassment aka cyberstalking.

I was saying some awful stuff but it wasn't threatening if that is what you mean. I'm sure I used curse words though.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
43,801
Reaction score
24,780
Points
2,615
I wish I still had access to all of them. I was convicted because she asked me to stop texting but I kept texting. The legal definition of harrassment is two or more unwanted contacts. Since the contact was over cell phone it was considered cyber harrassment aka cyberstalking.

I was saying some awful stuff but it wasn't threatening if that is what you mean.
so you werent convicted of a speech crime but a harassment crime that caused another person to loose their rights,,
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
so you werent convicted of a speech crime but a harassment crime that caused another person to loose their rights,,

It is called cyberstalking. It is not called cyber talking. The law also includes monitoring people electronically without their knowledge. It includes a lot of stuff. It is basically up to the judge's discretion. My lawyer told me it was ridiculous and was an easy win. He was wrong.

She was an elected official. So was I.
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
43,801
Reaction score
24,780
Points
2,615
It is called cyberstalking. It is not called cyber talking. The law also includes monitoring people electronically without their knowledge. It includes a lot of stuff. It is basically up to the judge's discretion. My lawyer told me it was ridiculous and was an easy win. He was wrong.

She was an elected official. So was I.
consider yourself lucky,, in a time before all the litigation the common response to someone like you doing what you did was to just kill you,,
 
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
OP
presonorek

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
consider yourself lucky,, in a time before all the litigation the common response to someone like you doing what you did was to just kill you,,

She was a politician. So was I. My lawyer thought that the political motivations would. e obvious to the judge. She still might kill me.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top