Our Rights Are Being Continually Eroded

[ACPlayer]

Good points all.

However, the only thing that is really disturbing is the erosion of rights under the Patriot Act and the (related) open ended war on terror. The second thrust that is disturbing is the greater role of religious organizations in setting the political agendas.

The rest are on the margin and more debatable.

[US Conservative]

Blame it on the libs. I am proud that our President is working to protect our freedoms and even introducing freedom to the Middle East.

[lehighguy]

They are all related. See the following logic:

1) We need to limit rights under the patriot act because it will be in the "public good".

2) We need to take people's homes through eminient domain because it will serve the "public good" to have the land used more productively.

3) We need to tax the wealthy and the dead for the sake of the "public good".

4) We need to do XXX for the "public good".

Once you convince people that the "public good" is more important then individual rights is it really a surprise when your opponents use that idea to achieve thier own objectives.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally yes state rights are very important but state rights do not supercede the constitution. In the medical marijuana case I was very much against the court's descision because I felt they had no constitutional bases to interfear in this case it's the opposite the constitution demands that they should interfear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point to the article/amendment in the Constitution that demands the Supreme Court should ‘interfere’ in this case.

I don’t offer this challenge to be a jerk, only to set the record straight that no such demand exists.

Secondly, anyone that believes the Constitution 'demands' the judiciary intercede on behalf of an aggrieved minority against the will of legitimately elected officials sounds like a call for judicial activism - judicial activism, mind you, that the right so thoroughly and consistently derides.

[shots]

The Main purpose of the supreme court is to uphold the constitution if the constitution if a case is brought before them where the constitution is being violated it's their job to intercede. I didn't mean to say that the constitution specifically says the court must intercede just that the constitution says in the 5'th amendment that what these states are doing is wrong and therefore it's the courts duty to do something about it.

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
They are all related. See the following logic:

1) We need to limit rights under the patriot act because it will be in the "public good".

2) We need to take people's homes through eminient domain because it will serve the "public good" to have the land used more productively.

3) We need to tax the wealthy and the dead for the sake of the "public good".

4) We need to do XXX for the "public good".

Once you convince people that the "public good" is more important then individual rights is it really a surprise when your opponents use that idea to achieve thier own objectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

[ACPlayer]

Of course it is all for the "public good" which is why I posted it the way I did.

However, IMV, individual and privacy rights far outweigh property right concerns. And unlike some, I believe that some taxation is needed to run a govt.

[shots]

while I agree with you that some taxation is neccessary I'm not sure what rights could be said to be more important then property rights. You could make a case for equally as important maybe but not more.

[ACPlayer]

I place a higher premium on privacy rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion over property rights. Erosions in property rights (real or imagined, the New London case is mostly imagined) pale in significance to the intrusions of the patriot act, the intrusions of religion into our lives, or any limitations on freedom of speech.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I place a higher premium on privacy rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion over property rights. Erosions in property rights (real or imagined, the New London case is mostly imagined) pale in significance to the intrusions of the patriot act, the intrusions of religion into our lives, or any limitations on freedom of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with you on the patriot act and free speech being threatened, I think you are drastically minimizing the Kelo situation, and over-estimating the intrusions of religion.

How is Kelo "mostly imagined"? The city took their property in order to give it to a corporation to build a business park becuase the city wanted to collect more taxes. It's pretty straightforward. And, as the dissenting judges pointed out, the implications are obvious to anyone.

Regarding religious intrustions, unless you mean that those with religious beliefs want to legislate their morals (which is no different than secularists wanting to legislate THEIR morals, see tobacco, etc.) then I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "religious intrusions". I don't know of any laws that put citizens at a disadvantage because of their religion/lack thereof. Any examples? I'm open to hearing about them if you have any. As a staunch atheist, I am sensitive to the notion of religious intrusion by govt, I just really don't know of any.

natedogg