Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

[Maximus Zeebra]

simple question really..

Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights". No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

what do you think?

 

[Goshin]

Obsolete? No. Wrongfully infringed upon? Yes.

 

[jamesrage]

simple question really..

Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights". No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

what do you think?

The bill of rights applies to today just just as it applied back then the day they were written. The fact we have internet, machine guns, more mega-churches other than the catholic church, high speed printing presses,color magazines, telephones, listening devices, x-ray machines and so are are irrelevant. Advancements in society and technology do not make these rights go away or become obsolete. There will always be a need for them because the government is always trying to infringe on your rights and become more and more oppressive.

If an amendment is truly obsolete or not needed then it should go through the amendment process. If they want to make something a actual right then they should go through the amendment process. Not try to use blatantly fraudulent interpretations in order to play the lets let them fight it out in court for years or decades game. Our rights are so imported that politicians who try to infringe on our rights with this bull**** lets create a unconstitutional law and let it be fought in the courts for decades should be tossed in prison with the worst rapists and murders and then later exiled to the worst country possible.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The Bill of Rights hasn't been rendered obsolete, but it has been significantly watered down by a combination of bad law and bad court decisions.

 

[Kandahar]

simple question really..

Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights". No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

what do you think?

To some extent, yes. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The US Constitution was written for a totally different kind of country than the one we live in today. And since amending it is almost insurmountably difficult, a loose interpretation of the Constitution is a necessity. If our government actually operated today the way that it did in 1789, it would be laughably impractical. More modern interpretations, although far from perfect, at least make the government functional most of the time.

For the most part, the rights are still in place, although we do not (and should not) define them the same way that they did in 1789. In some cases this was plainly the intent of the writers of the Constitution. For example, the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishment" without specifying what that entails. We certainly have a different view of cruel and unusual punishment than people in 1789 did, and I have no doubt that in fifty years people will find OUR view to be outdated. And that's fine.

 

[Councilman]

Some are under attack some subtle some not so much, and it is up to "We the People" to hold our ground on:Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms, Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

We also need to scream until Obama obeys the Constitution as in Article 4 Section 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The bill of rights applies to today just just as it applied back then the day they were written. The fact we have internet, machine guns, more mega-churches other than the catholic church, high speed printing presses,color magazines, telephones, listening devices, x-ray machines and so are are irrelevant. Advancements in society and technology do not make these rights go away or become obsolete. There will always be a need for them because the government is always trying to infringe on your rights and become more and more oppressive.

But if so many laws has been made that goes against the rights granted in the bill of rights, and if none or few people are willing to protect their given rights. then the bill of rights are in practice obsolete, right?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The Bill of Rights hasn't been rendered obsolete, but it has been significantly watered down by a combination of bad law and bad court decisions.

at what point can you declare them practically obsolete?

where is the line in the sand between watered down and ignored vs practically obsolete?

In my opinion the first law that goes against the rights given attempts to make the rights invalid, if approved, the law is illegal, but has also invalidated the rights. A legal limbo indeed. problem is most courts would grant favour to new laws over constitutional rights, unfortunately those judges decide.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The Bill of Rights hasn't been rendered obsolete, but it has been significantly watered down by a combination of bad law and bad court decisions.

at what point can you declare them practically obsolete?

where is the line in the sand between watered down and ignored vs practically obsolete?

In my opinion the first law that goes against the rights given attempts to make the rights invalid, if approved, the law is illegal, but has also invalidated the rights. A legal limbo indeed. problem is most courts would grant favour to new laws over constitutional rights, unfortunately those judges decide.

 

[jamesrage]

But if so many laws has been made that goes against the rights granted in the bill of rights, and if none or few people are willing to protect their given rights. then the bill of rights are in practice obsolete, right?

No. As I said before politicians like to play the lets make it a law and let it be fought out in courts for years and possibly decades game. For example DC vs Hellar, it took 30 years for it to get struck down.Eventually the patriot act and a whole bunch of other unconstitutional laws will be struck down.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

at what point can you declare them practically obsolete?

where is the line in the sand between watered down and ignored vs practically obsolete?

I think what's happening here is we're disagreeing over a choice of words, so let me try and state my position a little more clearly.

"Obsolete," to me, indicates something which has been replaced by something else -- preferably something which is superior. The touch-tone phone rendered the rotary-dial phone obsolete. Color television rendered black-and-white television obsolete.

Terms like "watered-down" and "ignored" suggest, to me, that rather than being replaced with something superior the thing in question has become less symbolic and more binding.

So-called "free-speech zones" are an example of something which water down our First Amendment protections.

The Third Amendment (no quartering of troops) is the only one which is honestly obsolete -- mainly because of practicality more than any law. If the military ever did opt to house troops in a private citizen's home, it'd be a sign that the collapse of the government is imminent -- civilian homes simply aren't secure enough to store the gear, equipment and vehicles of war, much less the soldiers themselves.

In my opinion the first law that goes against the rights given attempts to make the rights invalid, if approved, the law is illegal, but has also invalidated the rights. A legal limbo indeed. problem is most courts would grant favour to new laws over constitutional rights, unfortunately those judges decide.

Even if a new law directly contradicts one of our Constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) freedoms, it's not the law that does the damage. Such a law would inevitably be challenged in court. It's the upper-level bench that makes the decisions which ultimately decide between the law and our liberties.

 

[Paschendale]

In many ways, constitutional rights have been expanded just as much as narrowed, such as implied rights to privacy, or Miranda warnings, or safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures in casual encounters with police (Terry v Ohio). The bill of rights, and subsequent amendments, are very general, and while some ought to be taken more literally (like the first), some are a little vague. The comma in the second amendment comes to mind, as does defining exactly what is or is not a reasonable search or seizure.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The expansions you're talking about are roughly 40 years old. My impression of case law over the last 20 years or so is that judges have become more likely to interpret law and precedent in ways that give the government a lot more leeway.

Take, for example, a guy with a laptop that has an encrypted partition. The government got the laptop during the execution of a lawful search warrant, and it wants the contents of the partition for evidence against the owner -- but it's not a national security issue, and it doesn't want to admit in open court it's got the resources to brute-force it in short order.

The obvious solution, from their perspective? Ask a judge to order their target to give up his password so they can unlock the partition at will.

I don't know about you, but my first impression on a situation like this is that the judge would laugh at the prosecution -- how does forcing someone to give up a password not constitute compelling them to give evidence against themselves?

Even so: United States v. Boucher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The expansions you're talking about are roughly 40 years old. My impression of case law over the last 20 years or so is that judges have become more likely to interpret law and precedent in ways that give the government a lot more leeway.

Take, for example, a guy with a laptop that has an encrypted partition. The government got the laptop during the execution of a lawful search warrant, and it wants the contents of the partition for evidence against the owner -- but it's not a national security issue, and it doesn't want to admit in open court it's got the resources to brute-force it in short order.

The obvious solution, from their perspective? Ask a judge to order their target to give up his password so they can unlock the partition at will.

I don't know about you, but my first impression on a situation like this is that the judge would laugh at the prosecution -- how does forcing someone to give up a password not constitute compelling them to give evidence against themselves?

Even so: United States v. Boucher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a good example... Mostly because in some European countries it has become law that people who have encrypted something have to give the password when told so by the courts, otherwise they risk adding to their penalty. we however in the European charter of fundamental rights have no right saying we have the right not to be witness against ourself. we can ofcourse shutup and have no practical obligation, but no protection by right.

I think the give your password law is absurd.

 

[earthworm]

simple question really..

Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights".Opinion, not fact No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

what do you think?

...
Why is it that so many cannot accept the fact that "rights" must be limited ??
The new laws define these limits, the basic rights remain.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I think the give your password law is absurd.

I completely agree.

I remember the key escrow debate back in the 90s -- key escrow being the process by which the government would've been handed a copy of any encryption key generated, so that if they got a warrant they could use their copy of the key to decrypt whatever is covered by the search warrant. When the fledgling Internet community balked, the retort was predictable -- if we can't have everybody's encryption keys, child pornographers will murder your children and get away with it because all their bragging e-mails will be encrypted!

Ultimately, I'm a big fan of advances in technology, technique and procedure that make it easier (and safer!) for our law enforcement professionals to do their jobs. Their role in society is a noble and necessary one. All the same, I'm not about to sell out my basic freedoms to that end. The law is supposed to serve as a tool for the protection of my rights, so it seems a little counterproductive to sacrifice my rights to the law.

 

[jamesrage]

...
Why is it that so many cannot accept the fact that "rights" must be limited ??

Why is it that so many fail to understand that constitutional rights is a restriction on what the government do? Being ruled by some inbred little dictator from across the ocean left our founding forefathers with a serious mistrust of governments. This is why the constitution was written the way it is. This is why they wrote the first ten amendments ensuring that the people can speak their minds, practice their religion without government interference, have the means to overthrow the government should it become tyranical, not have the government unreasonable search you or your property(houses, papers, and effects) and so on.

The new laws define these limits, the basic rights remain.

The only thing that can alter,add or remove constitutional rights is new amendment. No fraudulent interpretation or playing the lets pass a unconstitutional law now and let them fight it in courts for years or decades.

 

[ronpaulvoter]

simple question really..

Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights". No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

what do you think?

The 200 new laws DON'T make the Bill of Rights obsolete.

The Bill of Rights makes the 200 new laws INVALID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

REPEAL THEM!!!!!