Our Rights Are Being Continually Eroded - Page 3

shots · #21 06-28-2005, 01:20 AM

If you have no property rights all your other rights are affected if the government could take your house anytime they want who would dare speak out against them? Were would free speech be then? And freedom of religion does not just mean freedom from religion I don't know exactly what you're talking about here has someone told you that you must become a christian because the Bush admin. is now mandateing it? As for the patriot act that requires it's own thread and has been debated many times before but I've yet to see one case were the patriot act was used innaproprietly sure they could look at your library records but have they ever actually done that? I don't think the counter-terrorist people have the time to go looking through private citizens lives digging for dirt they're too busy trying to nail the real terrorists.

natedogg · #22 06-28-2005, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you have no property rights all your other rights are affected if the government could take your house anytime they want who would dare speak out against them? Were would free speech be then? And freedom of religion does not just mean freedom from religion I don't know exactly what you're talking about here has someone told you that you must become a christian because the Bush admin. is now mandateing it? As for the patriot act that requires it's own thread and has been debated many times before but I've yet to see one case were the patriot act was used innaproprietly sure they could look at your library records but have they ever actually done that? I don't think the counter-terrorist people have the time to go looking through private citizens lives digging for dirt they're too busy trying to nail the real terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shots, think of this way.

Would you feel safe if the Patriot act were in effect and the administration was being run by closet hardline socialists?

The litmus test for any granting of power to the state is not whether or not you want your guy to have that power, but do you want to have your worst nightmare wielding that power when THEY are in charge.

Will you *really* sleep well at night if Hillary wins in 2008 and she re-appoints Janet Reno as AG and the PATRIOT act hasn't expired? I won't.

natedogg

lehighguy · #23 06-28-2005, 01:49 AM

"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."

By saying one set of rights isn't as important you open the door for the other side to say the rights you believe in aren't important. Once you've established that its okay to violate certain rights you open pandora's box.

Think of the filibuster. Rep are going to try and eliminate it, but when they are out of power you can sure as hell bet they'll regret the decision. Dems had majority control of the country from FDR until 2000. The things they did during that time, the political culture they built, have allowed the religous right to carry out thier plans.

lehighguy · #24 06-28-2005, 01:55 AM

I believe the exact opposite. I dislike the Patriot Act and the religous right, but I don't see them effecting me on a daily basis. I've never had my civil rights threatened, nor do I know anyone that has. And while I'm sure there have been incidents, they probably effect a small portion of the population.

Taxes, eminient domain, and the variety of other economic policies have PROFOUND effect on my life and the life of every American. I can see the effect the Dems have had on my life every single payday. I have yet to see the religous right have an effect on my life.

The power of the religous right worries me. Tome Delay speaking at a mega-church to get support for judicial nominees scares me. But at this time they are still the lesser of two evils in my mind.

lehighguy · #25 06-28-2005, 01:58 AM

The court decided that the 5th amendment allowed it. It didn't ignore the fifth ammendment, it simply interpreted it in such a way. The constitution, like the bible, can be interpretated in a number of different ways and a good enough rational can be put up to justify anything.

The supreme court did its job, I just disagree with thier interpretation.

[censored] · #26 06-28-2005, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Will you *really* sleep well at night if Hillary wins in 2008 and she re-appoints Janet Reno as AG and the PATRIOT act hasn't expired?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Not tonight, thanks for the nightmares [censored] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

shots · #27 06-28-2005, 02:44 AM

But what increased rights will Janet Reno have over me? The patriot act does not say that you can pull any american off the street at any time for no reason. If wire taps are easier to get now so what? If someone in government has reason to believe I'm a terrorist I want them to be able to tap my phone so it'll quickly be proven I'm not and they can leave me alone.

shots · #28 06-28-2005, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Think of the filibuster. Rep are going to try and eliminate it, but when they are out of power you can sure as hell bet they'll regret the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the Republicans never tried or will ever try to eliminate the fillabuster.

shots · #29 06-28-2005, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The court decided that the 5th amendment allowed it. It didn't ignore the fifth ammendment, it simply interpreted it in such a way. The constitution, like the bible, can be interpretated in a number of different ways and a good enough rational can be put up to justify anything.

The supreme court did its job, I just disagree with thier interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The meaning of the fifth amendment is pretty clear the court twisted it to suit there purposes just like they did with definition of interstate commerce during the medical marijuana ruling. I don't see this as having a different interpratation I see it as doing whatever you want despite the clear definition to the contrary in the constitution which they're supposed to be upholding.

lehighguy · #30 06-28-2005, 04:35 AM

Twisting for your purposes and having an interpretation are the same thing.

I believe they are wrong too. But I'm sure that legally they are right. I'm sure there is enough leway in the actual words of the constitution that they can justify it. Just as they did with interstate commerce. It doesn't matter what the intent of it was in the constitution, all that matters is that they can get what they want within the confines of the actual words.

The only case I've seen were they clearly and undeniably ignored the constituion flat out was the recent Bakke case on affimritive action. After reading the decision and dissents I'm convinced they don't even care if they outright violate the constitution and then say they're doing it in the decision.