Show me where they say that the Second Amendment is a mistake. The Tenth Amendment states that any rights not reserved to the government are, by default, given to the people. Seems to me like the ACLU is preventing the government from exercising "rights" that weren't delegated to it in the first place. And the "consitutional right to privacy" you speak of is the law of the land right now, right on par with the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court makes new law all of the time, that's their job. They interpret the Tenth Amendment to show which unenumerated rights you possess. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be read your rights before interrogation, but you're guaranteed it because the Supreme Court gave you that right through a combination of the Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Amendments. You are woefully under-informed about the Constitution, so come back when you actually have something informed to say about this matter.
Show me where they say that the Second Amendment is a mistake. The Tenth Amendment states that any rights not reserved to the government are, by default, given to the people. Seems to me like the ACLU is preventing the government from exercising "rights" that weren't delegated to it in the first place. And the "consitutional right to privacy" you speak of is the law of the land right now, right on par with the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court makes new law all of the time, that's their job. They interpret the Tenth Amendment to show which unenumerated rights you possess. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be read your rights before interrogation, but you're guaranteed it because the Supreme Court gave you that right through a combination of the Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Amendments. You are woefully under-informed about the Constitution, so come back when you actually have something informed to say about this matter.
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Yes, it is still required, but this is pure bullshit, as is 100% of the Patriot Act. We had everything in place to deal with terrorism, the Patriot Act was a kneejerk reaction to something that needed to just be tweaked with, not totally blown out the window. Now we have Patriot Act II on it's way and I have this constant image in my head of John Ashcroft, Bush, and the rest of the boys up in Washington passing the Bill of Rights and Constitution around and wiping their asses with it. This stuff is really scaring me and hopefully everyone else wakes up to what's going on before this turns into the United Fascist States of America.
OK, perhaps I didn't word that exactly the way that I wanted to, so I'll clarify. The Supreme Court regularly makes decisions that are unique, in that there is no precedent in the area. In that respect, the Supreme Court is there to define exactly what the specific rights are and create law. Congress and the Consitution can't foresee every single situation. They create general laws, the Supreme Court creates specific laws based on specific interests, based on Congress's general laws. The Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, reserves many rights for the people. It doesn't define specifically a right to privacy, but the Supreme Court makes it so based on existing law. They don't really create new law (I know I said they do earlier, but as I have said I didn't clarify myself properly), they instead interpret law to define specific rights. In this respect, basing Roe v. Wade on a previously-nonexistant "right to privacy" is well within their bounds, because even though it's not spelled out specifically in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment strongly implies such a right. (This is what's called the "founder's original intent" style of interpretation, which has been the prevalent view throughout history).
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
IMHO, the Tenth Amendment would rather imply that it's none of the federal government's business, but rather a state matter. And previous to Roe v. Wade, it was... California could have relatively light abortion restrictions, whereas Texas might have tougher restrictions. Having the USSC decide the issue essentially took it off the political table by fiat. I don't really hold a strong position on abortion, pro or con, but think that it is a perfect example of how the federal government has been encroaching on what are matters for the voters to decide through the political process.
I can agree with this as a statement of the current situation, although i don't particularly care for it. It lends itself to the thought process that rights are something which are granted to the peoples by the government, rather than the other way around. In the way i think of things, my rights are completely independent of the government and infinite. Well, infinite up to the point that they do not infringe on the rights of others, but otherwise limited only in that i be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of my actions. Laws are an extension of this, basic shorthand for situations we've already agreed as a nation in societal contract fashion how to handle. They are typically standardization models (drive on the right not left) or proscribed behaviors that we agree to as a body public for the purposes of keeping order. So in that sense the Supreme Court does nothing to grant or define rights, those were mine and every other citizens' already, as the Declaration of Independence states, endowed to me and all persons by our Creator.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter