Constitutional rights

[stonebreakerwasgod]

After the supreme court ruling on partial birth abortions, Mrs. Clinton came out and spoke about the erosion of our constitutional rights. I find that curious. Is it ok that our constitutional right to own guns is being assailed every time one wacko uses a gun?
How about the constitutional right of freedom of speech? The legislation concerning the 'Fairness Doctrine' is an attempt to curb speech on the radio waves, what is predominantly seen as a conservative stronghold. It seems like freedoms are ok only if they are in line with an 'appropriate' agenda. God forbid that the govt uses technology to go after terrorists, because many on the left were crying foul due to privacy concerns. So..we can 'protect' our citizens by taking away guns from the law abiding, but not protect citizens by restraining legal intelligence gathering? The forefathers, I believe, never intended the constitution to in essence become a death warrant. In any case...
Let's not pick and chose our constitutional rights. Whether you like a particular one or not, it is there for good reason, not to further political agendas. I'm ok with people who have concerns about privacy, but that goes both ways.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Gee, and I thought Hillary was a moderate.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I'm not bashing Hillary per se, it's more of a complaint about picking and choosing which constitutional rights be protected. I don't own a gun, but it seems that it is fundamentally an American right, as much as baseball and apple pie.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I'm not bashing Hillary per se, it's more of a complaint about picking and choosing which constitutional rights be protected. I don't own a gun, but it seems that it is fundamentally an American right, as much as baseball and apple pie.

Damn right it's an American right. What was one of the first things that Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot & other dictators did while establishing their reigns of terror? Outlaw guns. It's hard to fight tyranny when the people are unarmed.

As much as I appreciate what our local police does for us, they can't be everywhere at anytime. BTW, it's not "bashing" Hillary or any politician when you call out their hypocrisies. That goes for pols on both sides of the aisle. Remember when (or right before) she announced her presidential candidacy & she started moving toward the center regarding abortion & years of staunch support for partial-birth abortion? Her hubby vetoed it twice, if I recall.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

BTW-The so-called right to 'privacy' was created by the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench. It was altered as needed by the leftist judges to create law and bypassing congress. But the same types who becry our freedoms are the same ones who want to do away with those that they disagree with. It is hypocrisy. If they attempt to pass the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine', that should be proof enough for anyone that our constitutional rights are in true jeopardy. If anyone is not familiar with that, I suggest that research is in order. What a bunch of baloney that is.

 

[Zorro50]

The same SCOTUS who interfered with a state recount to give Dubya the election in 00. Legislating from the bench isn't nearly as bad as electing from the bench.

 

[onenybrother]

I'm not bashing Hillary per se, it's more of a complaint about picking and choosing which constitutional rights be protected. I don't own a gun, but it seems that it is fundamentally an American right, as much as baseball and apple pie.

Stonebreaker I couldn't agree with you more. I just wish them Columbine kid's, that Virginia Tech maniac and the youth of my race didn't make that constitution so out of date.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

The same SCOTUS who interfered with a state recount to give Dubya the election in 00. Legislating from the bench isn't nearly as bad as electing from the bench.

They did not want to be involved at all. Elections don't belong in courts...Mr. Gore! It was the state that was being overruled. Gore could have acted with class and gone away quietly. Blame who was responsible. There is actually a process ya know.

Big difference between deciding on a specific case and CREATING NEW precedents and privacy laws. Legislating from the bench IS the number one problem in America. This is why the 9th circuit court (most liberal) keeps being overruled. They want to enact what America does not.

 

[Zorro50]

They did not want to be involved at all. Elections don't belong in courts...Mr. Gore! It was the state that was being overruled. Gore could have acted with class and gone away quietly. Blame who was responsible. There is actually a process ya know.


If they didn't want to be involved they could simply decline to review the matter. The SCOTUS does have that ability. Gore was elected by the people and had the election stolen by the bench. The State was handling the process, but the matter was corrupted by the Court.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Gore was elected by the people?? NO, in manual recounts he lost anyway, at least according to just about every liberal newspaper who bothered to "assist" on the recount. Can't you people GET OVER one election??? After all the years of federal judges writing new laws, you would think that people would get upset over all that, not just one incident that doesn't go their way. Be consistent!

 

[Akron Irish]

http://www.funny-tshirts.biz/customer/product.php?productid=16386

For you Stoney

Click on picture to enlarge

 

[notredomer23]

our founding fathers gave us the right to arm. nuff said

 

[TexasDomer]

"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 debate around this amendment stems from whether the founders included it in order to enable militias to form (like the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord) or not. If the point was to allow arms so that militias could form to ensure security (rather than a standing army, which they weren't fans of), and militias are no longer required for the security of the US, then the right is no longer a necessary and "absolute" one.

That's the argument. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the argument.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I don't recall the media saying one thing after all the mess in new orleans. I guess it's ok for some people to rampage with guns, but not one wacked out college dude. I don't get it.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

"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 debate around this amendment stems from whether the founders included it in order to enable militias to form (like the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord) or not. If the point was to allow arms so that militias could form to ensure security (rather than a standing army, which they weren't fans of), and militias are no longer required for the security of the US, then the right is no longer a necessary and "absolute" one.

That's the argument. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the argument.

"...from my cold, dead hand"

 

[IRISHDODGER]

They did not want to be involved at all. Elections don't belong in courts...Mr. Gore! It was the state that was being overruled. Gore could have acted with class and gone away quietly. Blame who was responsible. There is actually a process ya know.


If they didn't want to be involved they could simply decline to review the matter. The SCOTUS does have that ability. Gore was elected by the people and had the election stolen by the bench. The State was handling the process, but the matter was corrupted by the Court.

Kinda like how JFK stole the 1960 election from Nixon, right? Oh yeah, Nixon wanted to keep America undivided, so he didn't cry like a little girl b/c the election didn't go his way. Nixon even had a more credible reason to investigate the wrongdoing that went on in Chicago.

Gore initally conceded like a man...then he changed his mind & cried like a little girl. Of course, before that he invented the internet & since then claims that the CO2 that we exhale will cause the world to explode. And they say Bush is the idiot?

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I love how people cry about one election, when there are a ton of judges out there applying their own agendas. Letting rapists off, giving no time or probation to those who do horrible things. Allowing illegals with three strikes against them out of any jail time so that they can break more laws. I guess that is ok. Makes me wonder if anyone has principles at all, or if it is only about advancing their version of what our culture should be.
What should we expect when we aren't supposed to say 'illegal immigrants' OR 'global war on terror'. America has a whole lot to worry about aside from one election, or whether our constitutional rights should be taken away.

 

[cclanofirish]

They did not want to be involved at all. Elections don't belong in courts...Mr. Gore! It was the state that was being overruled. Gore could have acted with class and gone away quietly. Blame who was responsible. There is actually a process ya know.


If they didn't want to be involved they could simply decline to review the matter. The SCOTUS does have that ability. Gore was elected by the people and had the election stolen by the bench. The State was handling the process, but the matter was corrupted by the Court.

If I recall correctly, the SC had to step in because of the unconstitutional practices of the Florida Supreme Court and the Federal District Courts reluctance to issue warnings aginst the state court. The 2000 election debacle is solely the problem of the illegitimate ruling of the Florida Supreme Court in trying to hand Gore the election, through multiple, and of highly dubious legality, recounts.