• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your Rights

H

Hayduke

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
27
Reaction score
9
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have not been on here for a while but while trying to catch up I have noticed a common misconception that our constitutional rights are absolute. They are not and never have been. The govt can regulate any of our rights whether it be speech, right to bear arms or religion if they meet the the requisite scrutiny. This has been used in such instances as regulating religious actions, gun control laws, free speech zones and loose warrant requirements. I just wanted to put this information out there so people actually take a look at what your are promised instead of what you think you are entitled to.
 
Hayduke said:
I have not been on here for a while but while trying to catch up I have noticed a common misconception that our constitutional rights are absolute. They are not and never have been. The govt can regulate any of our rights whether it be speech, right to bear arms or religion if they meet the the requisite scrutiny. This has been used in such instances as regulating religious actions, gun control laws, free speech zones and loose warrant requirements. I just wanted to put this information out there so people actually take a look at what your are promised instead of what you think you are entitled to.
Click to expand...
You should take another vacation from here and go learn about the constitution. You are sorely lacking.
 
My vacation from here was to teach American Law in Asia. How exactly am I wrong or do you just make broad statements?
 
You made broad statement too, with no sources or links. I don't have to prove anything, you do. You taught law, hahahah what a joke.
 
American said:
You should take another vacation from here and go learn about the constitution. You are sorely lacking.
Click to expand...

American said:
You made broad statement too, with no sources or links. I don't have to prove anything, you do. You taught law, hahahah what a joke.
Click to expand...

What part of what he said is in any way inaccurate?
 
American said:
Congress can regulate anything.
Click to expand...

I don't see where he said "Congress can regulate anything" as in "Congress has absolute plenary authority." His point (to me at least) is that none of the rights included in the BoR are immune to all Congressional abrogation.
 
I was unaware you needed links, I was assuming that anyone who considers themselves as being well versed in the constitution wouldnt need google searches. I did make a broad statement because the abilit to limit your rights covers a broad area of con law. You want specifics on how and when it has been done see Employment Division v Smith (religion), US v Flores (limit 4th or in general read the exigent circumstances doctrine, Madsen v Womens Health (time, place, manner restriction on speech)...want me to keep going?
 
My statement was they can regulate IF they meet scrutiny. Here are the requisite scrutiny tests to save you from a google search:

Strict Scrutiny: Must be a compelling govt interest, law that is narrowly tailored to achieve govt goal and it must be the least restrictive means possible.

Intermediate Scrutiny: Law furthers an important govt interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

Ration Basis: Law must be rationally related to legitimate govt interest.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I don't see where he said "Congress can regulate anything" as in "Congress has absolute plenary authority." His point (to me at least) is that none of the rights included in the BoR are immune to all Congressional abrogation.
Click to expand...
You want to believe that, be my guest. Congress shall make no law.... Is that clear enough for you?
 
You have 200 years of jurisprudence to argue your case against american. So if you believe that they can make absolutely no laws then you can believe that if you wish. You will be living in a constitutional fantasy land you created though.
 
American said:
You want to believe that, be my guest. Congress shall make no law.... Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

Then why is it illegal to yell fire in a theater? The amendment may say no law but some laws are necessary. Another example is its legal for police to keep two protest or activist groups apart on the streets if they are marching. So say they keep them across the street of 20-30 feet apart, thats denying them their right to free speech in that small zone. The reason of course to prevent violence and property damage.
Its all a regulation of speech on some level and its all legal.
 
Wiseone said:
Then why is it illegal to yell fire in a theater? The amendment may say no law but some laws are necessary. Another example is its legal for police to keep two protest or activist groups apart on the streets if they are marching. So say they keep them across the street of 20-30 feet apart, thats denying them their right to free speech in that small zone. The reason of course to prevent violence and property damage.
Its all a regulation of speech on some level and its all legal.
Click to expand...
The yelling fire argument is in every socialist's playbool. It's specious, and has nothing to do with rights. Sure, socialists want to argue that Congress has the authority to infringe on the rights of the people when nothing in the Constitution says so.
 
American said:
The yelling fire argument is in every socialist's playbool. It's specious, and has nothing to do with rights. Sure, socialists want to argue that Congress has the authority to infringe on the rights of the people when nothing in the Constitution says so.
Click to expand...

Why dont you take a minute and read over the cases I posted.
 
Hayduke said:
I was unaware you needed links, I was assuming that anyone who considers themselves as being well versed in the constitution wouldnt need google searches. I did make a broad statement because the abilit to limit your rights covers a broad area of con law. You want specifics on how and when it has been done see Employment Division v Smith (religion), US v Flores (limit 4th or in general read the exigent circumstances doctrine, Madsen v Womens Health (time, place, manner restriction on speech)...want me to keep going?
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me with these cases. The first was about the state of Oregon, and was primarily about unemployment benefits. The second was about bring illegal drugs into the US.
 
American said:
The yelling fire argument is in every socialist's playbool. It's specious, and has nothing to do with rights. Sure, socialists want to argue that Congress has the authority to infringe on the rights of the people when nothing in the Constitution says so.
Click to expand...

It wasn't socialists who got in a tizzy over Janet Jackson's nipple slip on network TV.
 
American said:
The yelling fire argument is in every socialist's playbool. It's specious, and has nothing to do with rights. Sure, socialists want to argue that Congress has the authority to infringe on the rights of the people when nothing in the Constitution says so.
Click to expand...

Actually Congress does, the article was never intended to mean absolute, total, and unabridged free speech. If that were the case there would be no such thing as libel or slander laws, or perjury wouldnt be a crime, these laws have existed forever.

Fact of the matter is the Constitution is law and like all law in a common law system, is open to a defined by interpretation. And don't act like I'm suggesting something new here, this has gone on since 1776 and since the thing was written.

For example, African Americans didnt have the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights until the Constitution changed... The Death penalty wasn't considered cruel and unusual in any state until recently, neither by the way was death by hanging or firing squad which are no longer practiced.


Let me ask you a question. Is it acceptable to limit an individual's rights when doing so prevents the limitation of rights of another? Like in my example about how police set up protest areas and keep different groups from getting too close to avoid violence and property damage. They are denying freedom of movement, freedom of speech in certain areas. And in some cases freedom of assembly when the groups get too big to handle and they flat out dont allow some to protest because they cant control them all.
The idea is that limiting their rights in this regard is acceptable because their message gets out and they save the property and health/lives of some people who may be caught up in violence by more violent individuals in the crowd, not to mention people who are just there to riot not protest.

I'm sure you've seen the kind of rioting that can go on at major events like a WTO meeting for example. People's property gets destroyed and people get hurt, and the police take the stance that its better to regulate the protesters freedom of speech that allow property destruction and violence to go unchecked.

So whats the right answer? Either way someone's rights get stepped on
 
American said:
Are you kidding me with these cases. The first was about the state of Oregon, and was primarily about unemployment benefits. The second was about bring illegal drugs into the US.
Click to expand...

Ohh man, I should never have assumed you were smart enough to brief a case and take a rule of law from it. Ill play along for a minute though. The "unemployment" case you are misreading, or not getting what you should out of, is about state regulating religious practice, peyote use. The "bringing illegal drugs into the US" case you slaughtered is about the the govt ability to limit your protection under the 4th amendment in certain circumstances. I am not sure what it is you do but dont enter the legal arena.
 
Last edited:
Hayduke said:
I have not been on here for a while but while trying to catch up I have noticed a common misconception that our constitutional rights are absolute. They are not and never have been. The govt can regulate any of our rights whether it be speech, right to bear arms or religion if they meet the the requisite scrutiny. This has been used in such instances as regulating religious actions, gun control laws, free speech zones and loose warrant requirements. I just wanted to put this information out there so people actually take a look at what your are promised instead of what you think you are entitled to.
Click to expand...

You'd be on better footing if you said that rights are slightly less broad than they appear in the Constitution instead.
 
Hayduke said:
I have not been on here for a while but while trying to catch up I have noticed a common misconception that our constitutional rights are absolute. They are not and never have been. The govt can regulate any of our rights whether it be speech, right to bear arms or religion if they meet the the requisite scrutiny. This has been used in such instances as regulating religious actions, gun control laws, free speech zones and loose warrant requirements. I just wanted to put this information out there so people actually take a look at what your are promised instead of what you think you are entitled to.
Click to expand...

The rights are specifically reserved. So yes, they are absolute so long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others in the process. That's the one and only limitation. The government is forbidden from interfering past that, each and every time it does overstep that boundary is an act of treason.
 
Ikari said:
The rights are specifically reserved. So yes, they are absolute so long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others in the process. That's the one and only limitation. The government is forbidden from interfering past that, each and every time it does overstep that boundary is an act of treason.
Click to expand...

Ok. From what I can tell, that would mean that a substantial amount of the American population are committing treason and should be sentenced to death. :shock:
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Ok. From what I can tell, that would mean that a substantial amount of the American population are committing treason and should be sentenced to death. :shock:
Click to expand...

Government officials, such as congressmen, are the one's responsible as they pass the unconstitutional laws in the first place. And I think death sentences would depend on the severity of the infringement.
 
Ikari said:
Government officials, such as congressmen, are the one's responsible as they pass the unconstitutional laws in the first place. And I think death sentences would depend on the severity of the infringement.
Click to expand...

What about the people who voted those officials in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom