We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world.--President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress, January 6, 1941
So spoke FDR seventy-five years ago. We have accepted these essential freedoms up until recently. Now a fifth freedom has become a popular buzz word in some parts of this country. Apparently the holier than thou citizens of some states like Mississippi and North Carolina have taken it upon themselves to blatantly discriminate against the LGBT community. Of course they have had a lot of practice in denying civil rights to anyone that is "different".
Before this fifth freedom gains more steam, I propose that we start a movement for the adoption of yet another freedom. It is essential that the freedom from religion be made part of the fabric of The United States of America. One should worship whatever God or idol one pleases but do it in a church, temple or mosque - not in a legislative chamber. The separation of church and state must be preserved if this nation is to reap the benefits of the Bill of Rights.
Showing posts with label Bill_of_Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill_of_Rights. Show all posts
6/11/14
Our Achilles Heel?
Glad to see President Obama taking a more vocal stand on gun control. Unfortunately, I doubt that his call for effective gun control will move too many Congressmen off their asses. Not only are they in the NRA's pocket (or should I say dipping into the NRA's pockets) but with the defeat of Eric Cantor in the Virginia primaries we could have the spectacle of more Republican Congressmen ( and shamefully some Democrats) trying to convince the Tea Party how conservative they are by wrapping themselves in the Second Amendment. As far as wrapping goes, there is a company that has developed a bullet proof blanket which they claim is the solution to protecting our children during school shootings. Unbelievable that massacres have almost become an expected event. At least someone is developing protective devices while others develop more lethal guns.
Sad indeed that mass shootings have now defined the society of this country. Shameful that legislation for gun reform always ends up on the back burner. Frightful that a very conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment may very well become this country's Achilles heel.
Sad indeed that mass shootings have now defined the society of this country. Shameful that legislation for gun reform always ends up on the back burner. Frightful that a very conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment may very well become this country's Achilles heel.
6/30/13
Bill of Rights: Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment addresses powers, not rights. It is much like amending a bill dealing with healthcare, with money to build a bridge to nowhere in some Senators state, in order to get the bill passed. Passage of Article X also kept alive the states right debate. Why the “or to the people” option? After the federal government and states harvest all the powers, are there any left for the people other than the power of protest? Perhaps the Tenth is a haven for lobbyists such as the NRA and political activists such as the Tea Party. For sure, it is a stepchild of the Bill of Rights. For sure, it is like that bridge to nowhere.
The Tenth Amendment addresses powers, not rights. It is much like amending a bill dealing with healthcare, with money to build a bridge to nowhere in some Senators state, in order to get the bill passed. Passage of Article X also kept alive the states right debate. Why the “or to the people” option? After the federal government and states harvest all the powers, are there any left for the people other than the power of protest? Perhaps the Tenth is a haven for lobbyists such as the NRA and political activists such as the Tea Party. For sure, it is a stepchild of the Bill of Rights. For sure, it is like that bridge to nowhere.
6/29/13
Bill of Rights: Article IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a disclaimer for the Bill of Rights. The framers of this amendment wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding concerning the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights. The first eight amendments are not all inclusive concerning people's rights. For instance, we have the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to procreate, the right to vote. How we exercise these rights however, is fodder for legislative debate and deliberations in court. In my opinion, intentionally or unintentionally, the Ninth Amendment guaranteed that the judicial branch of the federal government would be kept busy interpreting what rights are retained by the people and to what degree they can be regulated if at all. I believe this would have happened without the benefit of a Ninth Amendment. Still, emphasizing that there are rights retained by the people besides those enumerated in the Constitution can be a deterrent to the abuse of power by government.
The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a disclaimer for the Bill of Rights. The framers of this amendment wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding concerning the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights. The first eight amendments are not all inclusive concerning people's rights. For instance, we have the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to procreate, the right to vote. How we exercise these rights however, is fodder for legislative debate and deliberations in court. In my opinion, intentionally or unintentionally, the Ninth Amendment guaranteed that the judicial branch of the federal government would be kept busy interpreting what rights are retained by the people and to what degree they can be regulated if at all. I believe this would have happened without the benefit of a Ninth Amendment. Still, emphasizing that there are rights retained by the people besides those enumerated in the Constitution can be a deterrent to the abuse of power by government.
6/27/13
Bill of Rights: Article VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
As far as I’m concerned, the Eighth Amendment is all about capital punishment and torture. Beheading, hanging, lethal injection, water boarding, sad to say, may not be unusual, but they are cruel. Capital punishment is the height of hypocrisy for a civilized society.
The debate about capital punishment revolves around rhetoric as to the most humane way to take a life. An answer to the latter question has not been forthcoming and never will be - there is nothing humane about taking a life! The number of condemned “murderers” declared innocent by virtue of DNA testing have all served to highlight the pitfalls of the death penalty.
Torture in recent years has been justified as a means to get information vital to national security. Once again, we are asked to turn our heads the other way as the intelligence agencies compromise the Bill of Rights for our own good.
Fortunately, capital punishment and torture no longer get a free ride. The day will come when both will be found in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
As far as I’m concerned, the Eighth Amendment is all about capital punishment and torture. Beheading, hanging, lethal injection, water boarding, sad to say, may not be unusual, but they are cruel. Capital punishment is the height of hypocrisy for a civilized society.
The debate about capital punishment revolves around rhetoric as to the most humane way to take a life. An answer to the latter question has not been forthcoming and never will be - there is nothing humane about taking a life! The number of condemned “murderers” declared innocent by virtue of DNA testing have all served to highlight the pitfalls of the death penalty.
Torture in recent years has been justified as a means to get information vital to national security. Once again, we are asked to turn our heads the other way as the intelligence agencies compromise the Bill of Rights for our own good.
Fortunately, capital punishment and torture no longer get a free ride. The day will come when both will be found in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
6/25/13
Bill of Rights: Article VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Founding Fathers were obsessed with the need to protect the people against injustices such as those imposed by the British monarchy and with the Seventh Amendment they made sure that “trial by jury” was the law of the land. The 7th re-emphasizes the right of the people to a trial by jury and protection against double jeopardy. In legal action involving the violation of someone‘s “private rights” (rights that exist between private citizens). The 7th Amendment makes sure that justice in cases involving common law will be in the hands of twelve jurors rather than a judge “with an ax to grind”. There is a catch. As I understand it, in the wisdom of the Supreme Court, the 7th is the only Bill of Rights amendments, which has never been ruled to apply to states as well as the federal government. I must admit that trying to understand the reasons for this was trying. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. So how did the 7th end up not being applicable to states? Only the lawyers know and they are not going to put it into English.
The Founding Fathers were obsessed with the need to protect the people against injustices such as those imposed by the British monarchy and with the Seventh Amendment they made sure that “trial by jury” was the law of the land. The 7th re-emphasizes the right of the people to a trial by jury and protection against double jeopardy. In legal action involving the violation of someone‘s “private rights” (rights that exist between private citizens). The 7th Amendment makes sure that justice in cases involving common law will be in the hands of twelve jurors rather than a judge “with an ax to grind”. There is a catch. As I understand it, in the wisdom of the Supreme Court, the 7th is the only Bill of Rights amendments, which has never been ruled to apply to states as well as the federal government. I must admit that trying to understand the reasons for this was trying. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. So how did the 7th end up not being applicable to states? Only the lawyers know and they are not going to put it into English.
6/22/13
Bill of Rights: Article VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
I would call Article VI of the Bill of Rights a no nonsense amendment. Little if anything is left for interpretation but implementation does not always receive commendations. The wealthy can take full advantage of Article VI while the disadvantaged must sometimes be satisfied with table scraps. Then again, disparity in wealth is a factor in all of life’s events. Rich or poor, Article VI gives everyone a shot at a fair trial. Rich or poor , everyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would call Article VI of the Bill of Rights a no nonsense amendment. Little if anything is left for interpretation but implementation does not always receive commendations. The wealthy can take full advantage of Article VI while the disadvantaged must sometimes be satisfied with table scraps. Then again, disparity in wealth is a factor in all of life’s events. Rich or poor, Article VI gives everyone a shot at a fair trial. Rich or poor , everyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
6/21/13
Bill of Rights: Article V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I should take the Fifth on this one but since the First Amendment protects me, I will chance some comments.
The first thing that pops into my mind is that the provision concerning double jeopardy turned out to be a screenwriter’s dream (1999 film Double Jeopardy). Having said that, dare I ask if there is any relief in this amendment for the Gitmo detainees? After all the Article starts out with “No person ---”, not “No citizen----”. It seems to me that it may be telling us that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law be it civil or military. Just asking.
In a Supreme Court 1833 ruling (Barron v. Baltimore), Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Fifth Amendment was intended "solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states." I must admit that this ruling confuses me. I guess that is why we have lawyers. I should have taken the Fifth.
I should take the Fifth on this one but since the First Amendment protects me, I will chance some comments.
The first thing that pops into my mind is that the provision concerning double jeopardy turned out to be a screenwriter’s dream (1999 film Double Jeopardy). Having said that, dare I ask if there is any relief in this amendment for the Gitmo detainees? After all the Article starts out with “No person ---”, not “No citizen----”. It seems to me that it may be telling us that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law be it civil or military. Just asking.
In a Supreme Court 1833 ruling (Barron v. Baltimore), Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Fifth Amendment was intended "solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states." I must admit that this ruling confuses me. I guess that is why we have lawyers. I should have taken the Fifth.
6/19/13
Bill of Rights: Article IV
The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When it comes to differentiating between a democratic and a totalitarian state, the rights afforded us by the Fourth Amendment separate “the men from the boys”. The government busting through my front door to see what I’m up to is a no-no in a democracy but routine in a dictatorship. Unfortunately, technology has given governments sophisticated tools, which make intrusions into our privacy almost indiscernible. The meaning of unreasonable searches, even in a democracy, is being challenged like never before. The latest is the surveillance by the National Security Agency of telephone and internet activity, all in the name of national security. The NSA would have us believe that in order to protect our democracy, we have to look the other way as far as the Fourth Amendment goes. We have to trust that the government will bend our rights a little and not bust through our front door. They would also have us believe that when it comes to security, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Personal view? Either we have a right to privacy or we do not. Circumventing the Fourth Amendment is not acceptable. There is no ambiguity in the Fourth Amendment. Surveillance can be accomplished within the bounds of the Constitution. There is no need for subterfuge.
Any way you spin it, we are all screwed no matter how the Fourth Amendment is massaged by intelligence agencies. Rape is rape, regardless of the degree of sexual penetration.
ed note: BREAKING NEWS - FBI using Drones in surveillance of persons of interest!!! Little did I know when I posted "About Drones".
When it comes to differentiating between a democratic and a totalitarian state, the rights afforded us by the Fourth Amendment separate “the men from the boys”. The government busting through my front door to see what I’m up to is a no-no in a democracy but routine in a dictatorship. Unfortunately, technology has given governments sophisticated tools, which make intrusions into our privacy almost indiscernible. The meaning of unreasonable searches, even in a democracy, is being challenged like never before. The latest is the surveillance by the National Security Agency of telephone and internet activity, all in the name of national security. The NSA would have us believe that in order to protect our democracy, we have to look the other way as far as the Fourth Amendment goes. We have to trust that the government will bend our rights a little and not bust through our front door. They would also have us believe that when it comes to security, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Personal view? Either we have a right to privacy or we do not. Circumventing the Fourth Amendment is not acceptable. There is no ambiguity in the Fourth Amendment. Surveillance can be accomplished within the bounds of the Constitution. There is no need for subterfuge.
Any way you spin it, we are all screwed no matter how the Fourth Amendment is massaged by intelligence agencies. Rape is rape, regardless of the degree of sexual penetration.
ed note: BREAKING NEWS - FBI using Drones in surveillance of persons of interest!!! Little did I know when I posted "About Drones".
6/17/13
Bill of Rights: Article III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I’m sure that in the eighteenth century this was a coveted right. Nowadays only lawyers find it useful. Although a stretch, I imagine it can be cited in cases of unlawful entry into a home or defense of a home to protect an owner’s privacy.
Historically, the government has never attempted to quarter troops in a private home since the American Revolution. It did happen in the Civil War but I suppose it was rightly reasoned that the rebels were the enemy and therefore not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment.
Why is Article III still around gathering dust? Nostalgia might be one reason. So many rights these days are going down the toilet, that there is little appetite to mess around with the Bill of Rights. I would venture to guess that if it were repealed, the neocons would attempt to put an army tank in my garage.
I’m sure that in the eighteenth century this was a coveted right. Nowadays only lawyers find it useful. Although a stretch, I imagine it can be cited in cases of unlawful entry into a home or defense of a home to protect an owner’s privacy.
Historically, the government has never attempted to quarter troops in a private home since the American Revolution. It did happen in the Civil War but I suppose it was rightly reasoned that the rebels were the enemy and therefore not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment.
Why is Article III still around gathering dust? Nostalgia might be one reason. So many rights these days are going down the toilet, that there is little appetite to mess around with the Bill of Rights. I would venture to guess that if it were repealed, the neocons would attempt to put an army tank in my garage.
6/14/13
Bill of Rights: Article II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The National Rifle Association owns the Second Amendment lock stock and barrel. It will take many more massacres before Congress has the guts to bring interpretation of this amendment into the twenty-first century. In my 1/17/13 post, “We should not be intimidated by the Second Amendment”, I referred to Walter Shapiro's article "Repeal The Second Amendment", which appeared in Salon after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. His words are as appropriate now as they were then.
“Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries’ hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans — liberal or conservative — writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to “freedom to drive” was more far important than the “right to bear arms.” The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).”
A majority of Americans favor legislation that provides more gun control. Too bad their elected representatives are ignoring their wishes.
ed note: More on the Second Amendment - Cherry Picking Constitutional Rights.
6/10/13
Bill of Rights: Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article I is perhaps the most important of the Bill of Rights. It bundles a number of rights which makes me wonder if this was a tactic to insure its passage. In my humble opinion, these are the rights which have made the United States great. They are constantly challenged but fighting off those challenges make the country stronger.
With the growth of Islam in this country there have been cries to declare the United States a Christian country. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists as well as liberal Christians are justified in viewing this as a gross violation of the First Amendment.
There are already practices which have chipped away at the concept of the separation of church and state such as the revision to the Pledge of Allegiance which tells the world we are one nation under God (the implication is that this is a Christian God). If we testify in court we promise to tell the whole truth with the help of God. Our coins proclaim that in God we trust; as the value of a coin diminishes, does it mean that God is not to be trusted? God exists for the personal affairs of people of all colors and nations, not for the affairs or agenda of a government entity.
If the movement to declare the United Sates a Christian nation gains strength, I am glad that the we have the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The key word is peaceably. Carrying weapons to a demonstration is not a right! Petitioning the government for protection against religious zealots is a right!
No matter what ones position is on the separation of church and state we are indebted to the founding fathers for making it clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The ability to peaceably debate an issue, without fear of incarceration, is a right we should cherish. It would of been astute if the crafters of Article I had somehow made it clear that these freedoms were not to be abridged by the executive branch of government. The thinking may have been that the judicial branch would be our safeguard against abuses of power by the President. A President using the dangers posed by terrorists as justification for the infringement of the freedom of speech and the press is in danger of violating the First Amendment. As more than one President has learned, Father does not always know best.
I must admit that there limitations on the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a questionable excuse for slander, libel, intimidation and lies. That is what keeps the Supreme Court busy.
Now if only there was some way to take the politics out of Supreme Court appointments. Until then an informed citizenry remains as the best tool to protect our democracy. Freedom of speech and of the press are the best tools we have for an informed citizenry. Any encroachment of these rights should be viewed with alarm.
With the growth of Islam in this country there have been cries to declare the United States a Christian country. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists as well as liberal Christians are justified in viewing this as a gross violation of the First Amendment.
There are already practices which have chipped away at the concept of the separation of church and state such as the revision to the Pledge of Allegiance which tells the world we are one nation under God (the implication is that this is a Christian God). If we testify in court we promise to tell the whole truth with the help of God. Our coins proclaim that in God we trust; as the value of a coin diminishes, does it mean that God is not to be trusted? God exists for the personal affairs of people of all colors and nations, not for the affairs or agenda of a government entity.
If the movement to declare the United Sates a Christian nation gains strength, I am glad that the we have the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The key word is peaceably. Carrying weapons to a demonstration is not a right! Petitioning the government for protection against religious zealots is a right!
No matter what ones position is on the separation of church and state we are indebted to the founding fathers for making it clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The ability to peaceably debate an issue, without fear of incarceration, is a right we should cherish. It would of been astute if the crafters of Article I had somehow made it clear that these freedoms were not to be abridged by the executive branch of government. The thinking may have been that the judicial branch would be our safeguard against abuses of power by the President. A President using the dangers posed by terrorists as justification for the infringement of the freedom of speech and the press is in danger of violating the First Amendment. As more than one President has learned, Father does not always know best.
I must admit that there limitations on the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a questionable excuse for slander, libel, intimidation and lies. That is what keeps the Supreme Court busy.
Now if only there was some way to take the politics out of Supreme Court appointments. Until then an informed citizenry remains as the best tool to protect our democracy. Freedom of speech and of the press are the best tools we have for an informed citizenry. Any encroachment of these rights should be viewed with alarm.
6/8/13
The Bill of Rights: My Take
Most unpopular actions of the executive branch of the Federal government stir up speeches on the floor of Congress, editorials in our newspapers and commentaries on TV, warning the American people that that their rights are being infringed. The rights referred to, are those framed in the Bill of Rights.
It has been a long time since I looked at the history of the Bill of Rights. Decades ago I read “MIRACLE AT PHILADEPHIA” by Catherine Drinker Bowen (I still treasure the book) which vividly took me through the debates which eventually led to our Constitution. One of the most contentious debates concerned whether or not the document should include articles defining the rights of the people. Remarkably, the Constitution as adopted did not include a Bill of Rights.
Many delegates at the convention believed that spelling out the rights of the people was unnecessary and redundant. As the debate raged on, it became apparent that passage of the Constitution would be in doubt if a Bill of Rights was included. The solution; compromise. The constitution was adopted with the understanding that it would be immediately amended with a Bill of Rights. Surprisingly the compromise held up (a feat which would be next to
impossible in today’s politics).
The Bill of Rights was born out of controversy (a good summary can be found in The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance) and to this day fosters controversy. In some respects that may have been the intent of our founding fathers. James Madison viewed a Bill of Rights as a vehicle rallying people against a future oppressive government. Although not a delegate, Thomas Jefferson argued that a declaration of rights would make the judiciary the guardian of individual rights against the other branches of government. What they did not foresee was that a declaration of rights would promote the growth of powerful lobbies bent on usurping the powers of all branches of government.
I would like to take advantage of the right given to me by the first amendment to blog about it and the other nine amendments. It is a bit ambitious, but than again, blogging is not for sissies. One thing for sure: it will be fun and will keep my blog alive for awhile.
It has been a long time since I looked at the history of the Bill of Rights. Decades ago I read “MIRACLE AT PHILADEPHIA” by Catherine Drinker Bowen (I still treasure the book) which vividly took me through the debates which eventually led to our Constitution. One of the most contentious debates concerned whether or not the document should include articles defining the rights of the people. Remarkably, the Constitution as adopted did not include a Bill of Rights.
Many delegates at the convention believed that spelling out the rights of the people was unnecessary and redundant. As the debate raged on, it became apparent that passage of the Constitution would be in doubt if a Bill of Rights was included. The solution; compromise. The constitution was adopted with the understanding that it would be immediately amended with a Bill of Rights. Surprisingly the compromise held up (a feat which would be next to
impossible in today’s politics).
The Bill of Rights was born out of controversy (a good summary can be found in The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance) and to this day fosters controversy. In some respects that may have been the intent of our founding fathers. James Madison viewed a Bill of Rights as a vehicle rallying people against a future oppressive government. Although not a delegate, Thomas Jefferson argued that a declaration of rights would make the judiciary the guardian of individual rights against the other branches of government. What they did not foresee was that a declaration of rights would promote the growth of powerful lobbies bent on usurping the powers of all branches of government.
I would like to take advantage of the right given to me by the first amendment to blog about it and the other nine amendments. It is a bit ambitious, but than again, blogging is not for sissies. One thing for sure: it will be fun and will keep my blog alive for awhile.
4/20/13
Cherry Picking Constitutional Rights
Dzhokhnar Tsamaev, the alleged Boston Marathon bomber, is being held by the FBI and apparently has not been Mirandized. Just as the Second Amendment gives American Citizens the right to bear arms, the Constitution provides rights for those accused of a crime. They have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The right to bear arms is interpreted literally by those opposing legislation intended to curb gun violence. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney is treated more liberally. If public safety is involved, these Miranda rights can be waived in an effort to get information from the accused. This smells of hypocrisy. Massacres involving guns do not warrant the passage of legislation limiting the right to bear arms. Massacres involving bombs do warrant a delay in reading the accused his rights. If limiting the rights of an accused American citizen in the interest of public safety is justified, why is it not justified to implement meaningful background checks in order to reduce gun violence in the interest of public safety? Was the Boston Marathon massacre anymore heinous than the Newtown massacre? It made more noise, but that is hardly a reason for it receiving more attention. The Newtown dead are as dead as the Boston dead. Picking and choosing what rights we are willing to compromise is a dangerous game. I do not disagree with delaying Miranda rights to gain information on the source of bomb materials and the whereabouts of possibly additional bombs. I do not agree that the right to bear arms is infringed by efforts to limit their possession to responsible citizens.
1/17/13
We should not be intimidated by the Second Amendment
The NRA constantly wraps itself in the Second Amendment when any effort to place restrictions on guns is mounted. In getting effective gun control for this country, we should not be intimidated by the Second Amendment. After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, Walter Shapiro wrote in Salon:
Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries’ hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans — liberal or conservative — writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to “freedom to drive” was more far important than the “right to bear arms.” The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).
In his article, "Repeal The Second Amendment" (which he points out is a daunting task), Mr. Shapiro provides plenty of food for thought which applies to our latest massacres as well as the Virginia Tech massacre.
Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries’ hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans — liberal or conservative — writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to “freedom to drive” was more far important than the “right to bear arms.” The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).
In his article, "Repeal The Second Amendment" (which he points out is a daunting task), Mr. Shapiro provides plenty of food for thought which applies to our latest massacres as well as the Virginia Tech massacre.
8/23/10
Freedom To Hate
Implicit in the Bill of Rights is the freedom to hate. How else can one justify the hate spewing demonstrations on the proposed Islamic center in Manhattan. The Bill of Rights gives us the freedom of speech and the exercise thereof includes hate demonstrations.
Whether it be religious issues, racial issues, immigration issues and more, we tend to exercise our lungs by shouting out epitaphs. We warm our bodies by wrapping ourselves with the stars and stripes. We would tear apart the fabric which gives us the right to demonstrate. We demonstrate to the world that we can be as stupid as any other nation. We prove to the world that our leadership can be suspect and even hypocritical.
We can hate and ask God to bless America at the same time. Our religious leaders stand idly by as hatred takes its course , except to fan the flames as they start to ebb. Our political leaders can't help since hate is so much a part of their agenda.
Perhaps our founding fathers should have been more explicit when they guaranteed us the freedom of speech. Then again, how could they have foreseen such a dysfunctional United states of America.
Oops! As the high primal informs me , this country was dysfunctional at its founding. It was also much easier to manage (as Obama has found out).
So where does that leave me? I must conclude that we are in a mess and hope that there is a God, Allah, or some other supreme being to help us rise above the crap of patriots who would have us embrace hate as a means of solving issues.
(Was this post hateful! Probably, but it is my right. The founding fathers said so.)
Whether it be religious issues, racial issues, immigration issues and more, we tend to exercise our lungs by shouting out epitaphs. We warm our bodies by wrapping ourselves with the stars and stripes. We would tear apart the fabric which gives us the right to demonstrate. We demonstrate to the world that we can be as stupid as any other nation. We prove to the world that our leadership can be suspect and even hypocritical.
We can hate and ask God to bless America at the same time. Our religious leaders stand idly by as hatred takes its course , except to fan the flames as they start to ebb. Our political leaders can't help since hate is so much a part of their agenda.
Perhaps our founding fathers should have been more explicit when they guaranteed us the freedom of speech. Then again, how could they have foreseen such a dysfunctional United states of America.
Oops! As the high primal informs me , this country was dysfunctional at its founding. It was also much easier to manage (as Obama has found out).
So where does that leave me? I must conclude that we are in a mess and hope that there is a God, Allah, or some other supreme being to help us rise above the crap of patriots who would have us embrace hate as a means of solving issues.
(Was this post hateful! Probably, but it is my right. The founding fathers said so.)
8/4/10
Cherry Picking The Bill Of Rights
The Second Amendment to our Constitution has the words " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Our society prefers a strict interpretation of these words and with the aid of the powerful NRA , thwarts all attempts to implement any meaningful gun control legislation. The First Amendment has these words, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Many in our society prefer to ignore the words " the free exercise thereof" when it comes to Islam. Specifically protests are being raised concerning plans to build a mosque close to the 9/11 Ground Zero site.
In one case we stoutly defend a freedom. In the other, we are quick to deny a freedom. If we are going to cherry pick the Bill Of Rights, a stronger case can be made for allowing a place of worship to be built, than allowing the proliferation of guns in our society.
I hate guns and the loss of human life that they cause. I do not hate Islam. The loss of human lives in the 9/11 attack was not due to the Muslim religion ; it was due to some demented religious leaders. I prefer not to exercise my so called right to bear arms and I do not respect those who bear arms with mayhem in mind. I prefer not to be a Muslim, but I do respect the right of others to be Muslims. I do condemn the gun bearer and the Muslim who chooses to abuse the laws of human decency.
In one case we stoutly defend a freedom. In the other, we are quick to deny a freedom. If we are going to cherry pick the Bill Of Rights, a stronger case can be made for allowing a place of worship to be built, than allowing the proliferation of guns in our society.
I hate guns and the loss of human life that they cause. I do not hate Islam. The loss of human lives in the 9/11 attack was not due to the Muslim religion ; it was due to some demented religious leaders. I prefer not to exercise my so called right to bear arms and I do not respect those who bear arms with mayhem in mind. I prefer not to be a Muslim, but I do respect the right of others to be Muslims. I do condemn the gun bearer and the Muslim who chooses to abuse the laws of human decency.
8/5/07
“Rights Given Away Are Not Easily Regained”
The Congress has approved legislation to temporarily expand the government's power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects. The Bush Administration badgered Congress claiming the measure was needed in order to protect the nation from attacks that are being planned today to inflict mass casualties on the United States. This is the weapon which is constantly wielded by the Executive branch of government when it wants its way with the Legislative branch. Faced with being branded weak on security legislators take the easy way out, wave the flag and become subservient to the White House. The office of the President is constantly accumulating executive powers which erode the foundations of our democracy. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, who opposed the bill issued a wake up call when he said, "Sadly, Congress has been stampeded by fear-mongering and deception into signing away our rights."
"With the President set to sign this bill into law, I do not believe we will soon be able to undo this damage," Nadler said. "Rights given away are not easily regained."
"With the President set to sign this bill into law, I do not believe we will soon be able to undo this damage," Nadler said. "Rights given away are not easily regained."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)