Comments on: First Amendment Decision Unrelated to the First Amendment

By: Len

Len — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:22:00 +0000

And as I said above, it's a matter of practicality, but not something that actually happens in practice.

What I said…So it is practical to allow justice to happen through the government rather than pursue it oneself

What you said..A classic example being the right to kill in all circumstances. Which I'm assuming that you mean kill in defense or pursuit of justice, otherwise such a right does not exist.

Assuming I understood you correctly, as I said it's matter of practicality and not actual consent or cession, but in practice the same thing. Sure Locke's social contract THEORY sounds nice and he even tries to give a few supposed legitimate examples, but the truth is that most governments happen in a manner contrary to his theory.

Plain and simple, anything that a government does that a person cannot do in nature is tyranny. That means government education, welfare, control of the issue of money. As an individual can defend himself, government doing the same without taking away the ability of the individual to do so is legitimate. As the individual can seek justice, then laws and a justice system is legitimate.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:36:48 +0000

If we are to define rights as something non-arbitrary but rather all encompassing it must be defined as all that would be possible if goverment never existed as a mere product of our creation.

Then to contrast such rights with the evils of goverment we must accept the possibility that we did indeed agree to the cession of some of them "rights"/abilities in the interest of peace between us. A classic example being the right to kill in all circumstances.

From this ability and need to cede a portion of our rights comes the necessity of limited goverment apply them secessions and exclude those who refuses to honor their cession.

By: Len

Len — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:58:48 +0000

Here's what I see as a problem, expression (carrying signs) is not speech, speech is consensual interaction, as is the press. This extends naturally to TV, radio, the internet, they are all private property being used for consensual exchange of ideas or information. To say that someone can appropriate public property set aside for specific purposes and have one sided "speech" is absurd.

By: Len

Len — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:54:36 +0000

First of all no one really cedes their rights, that is a nice theory, but in practice people decide what is practical. So it is practical to allow justice to happen through the government rather than pursue it oneself, but it would be ridiculous to ever give up/cede the right to self defense or even be restricted in what is needed for self defense which would mean that the government can just walk over the people.

Anything that government does that the people could not do in nature is wrong.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:43:45 +0000

The States cannot remove our rights Miran, but we can cede them to our States in our State Constitution just as we ceded other rights to the Federal government in the Federal Constitution.
The Amendments to the Federal Constitution known as “The Bill of Rights” were specifically intended to apply only to the Federal Constitution and thus Federal Government. To impose them from that Constitution upon the States would give the Federal Government a dangerous additional powers (as we have observed first hand) of defining them rights upon others, rather than simply being prohibited from exercising authority over said domain.

The rights that are inalienable are the core rights of secession/revolution from which Constitutions and the unions of men under them are formed, broken, and reformed. Anything more and we are getting too specific, anything less and we are laying grounds for self-perpetuating tyranny.

By: JMB

JMB — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:44:57 +0000

I have invested much time reading three recent federal laws, the Federal ID act, it’s National health care act, and it’s Patriot act, and never have I read such blatant disregard for amendments of every constitution.

By: Miran

Miran — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:08:55 +0000

Partially correct… but consider this: The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) outlines the rights of the People that the Federal government cannot infringe upon. These rights are natural, i.e. bestowed by God, and to let the individual state governments remove them would again expose us to tyranny. If these rights were only recognized by the Federal government, then the states could still remove our rights to free speech, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in our property, persons, papers, etc…. It would render these rights impotent!

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:10:02 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly that the Supreme Court got this one wrong.

When you say that "during the 19th century the Court correctly held that the federal Bill of Rights controls only the federal government." I then have an issue. If the Bill of Rights only controls the Federal government, then that would mean the Court was also wrong when it incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states.

In the overall scheme of things, personally, I would rather see the 2nd Amendment incorporated than to see people sue over picketing at funerals, regardless of how wrong said picketing is.

By: JMB

JMB — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:17:59 +0000

It's the old bait and switch, where one federal department is constitutionally denied, another is sure to advance itself, as it's proper replacement.

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:46:48 +0000

The Court has taken a denial of power and transformed it into a grant of power i.e., the power to determine the scope and extent of the rights enumerated in the Amendments.