Our rights as defined by the Constitution

[MissTaken]

A piggy back thread intended to help answer a few of my novice, lousy history student type questions and perhaps generate discussion.

Are any of the ammendments truly promising us "rights", unbridled and unconditional?

Or do we have these rights, "as long as......"

If there are conditions placed on our rights, doesn't them render them "privileges?"


I am off to work now and look forward to any input or discussion I may find upon my return.

 

[SINthysist]

You have the right to say that as long as I'm armed...

 

[iwmggw]

You have the right to remain silent........................

 

[SINthysist]

...so A_J won't shoot you!

 

[MissTaken]

Let's try this again....

A_J wouldn't shoot me,



at least, not with a gun!

 

[70/30]

The Constitution clearly states that I hold the title "Major Pimp".

 

[MissTaken]

the Count de Toqueville was full of shit.



or of Tokeville.

Or whomever gave you that crap for your sig line

 

[ksmybuttons]

Amendment 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.


Amendment 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.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the 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.


Amendment 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.


Amendment 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.


Amendment 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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment 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.

 

[swtbethie]

my mediocre understanding of te constitution is that the only way an amendment can be added, changed, or removed is by a 2/3 vote in Congress passing it. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought to the Constitution, many of the states only agreed to sign because there was an understanding it would be added.

Or you could always check out the School House Rock on the Constitution

feel free to correct me if i am wrong (it's highly probable)

 

[TWB]

They are rights. Either for persons to enforce or government to be restrained by. Sometimes, their meaning is not all that clear, however.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by swtbethie
my mediocre understanding of te constitution is that the only way an amendment can be added, changed, or removed is by a 2/3 vote in Congress passing it. ... feel free to correct me if i am wrong (it's highly probable)

There is also the requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the states' legislatures for an amendment to be added.

And you are correct in your appraisal that rights are inviolable for the very reason that you stated; if they are not inviolable, then they are not rights, they are privileges.

As the founders stated, rights are innate (endowed by the Creator). Some were opposed to the Bill of Rights because they feared this would become presumed as an enumeration of those rights possessed by the citizenry. Amendments IX and X were specifically crafted to preclude that likelihood.

From a philosophical perspective, there is only one fundamental right. That is the right of ownership of one's life. All those things enumerated in the Bill of Rights are merely specific attributes derivative of that fundamental right.

On another thread, I illustrated explicitly the direct and specific connection between property rights and the right to one's life. Similarly, all other aspects of one's rights are connected to and dreived from that very fundamental concept of one's right to their life. These include aspects not cited in the Constitution but include a right to privacy, i. e., to not be subject to government scrutiny so long as one does not behave criminally.

 

[Byron In Exile]

There is also the requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the states' legislatures for an amendment to be added.

And you are correct in your appraisal that rights are inviolable for the very reason that you stated; if they are not inviolable, then they are not rights, they are privileges.

As the founders stated, rights are innate (endowed by the Creator). Some were opposed to the Bill of Rights because they feared this would become presumed as an enumeration of those rights possessed by the citizenry. Amendments IX and X were specifically crafted to preclude that likelihood.

Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of Rights for that very reason. In his words, from The Federalist No. 84:

"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

 

[A Desert Rose]

Amendment IV
The right of the 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.

This one has been tampered with a great deal.

This is why DUI checkpoints are allowed, although I see them as an enfringement of my rights. "Unreasonable searches" and "probable cause" are the two phrases that are the sticking points for me. If I am driving in a lawful manner, there is no reason for the police to question me. And furthermore, I do not have to prove I am innocent, (in this case, innocent of driving under the influence.) It is the state's burden to prove I am guilty.

 

[SINthysist]

You don't own your car or property, hence you have no rights of privacy on either.

How can I say that?

Because we have ALLOWED the government, via property tax, to place a permanent lein on all major forms of property. Buy some land, don't pay the tax, you get the boot. Same with your auto.

That's why I argue for duties, tarriff, and sales taxes.

 

[The Heretic]

Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of Rights for that very reason. In his words, from The Federalist No. 84:

And to a certain extent those that argued this point were correct; eventually with the distance of time and corruption of the meaning of "Constitutional Rights" by those who probably knew better, the majority of the populace just do not understand the concept of Natural Rights, and:

1) The fact that just because a right isn't explicitly delineated in the Consitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

2) That the rights are innate and inalienable, even though it explicitly states this in the Constitution. That therefore these rights cannot just be taken away or granted arbitrarily.

3) That we do have certain Natural Rights, but by definition we don't have other "rights" that conflict with our Nautral Rights. For instance, we do have the right to pursue happiness, but we don't have the right to demand that happiness be given to us without us earning it by forcefully depriving others of the happiness they have earned - i.e., you do not have the right to demand that I provide for your happiness when you are down on your luck by taking my wealth (via taxes) that I earned, so that you can have a "safety net".

 

[A Desert Rose]

You don't own your car or property, hence you have no rights of privacy on either.

How can I say that?

Because we have ALLOWED the government, via property tax, to place a permanent lein on all major forms of property. Buy some land, don't pay the tax, you get the boot. Same with your auto.

That's why I argue for duties, tarriff, and sales taxes.

I disagree. The Supreme Court has said citizens do have the right and expectation of privacy in their homes.

 

[The Heretic]

Are any of the ammendments truly promising us "rights", unbridled and unconditional?

Your Natural Rights are unconditional except when they conflict with my Natural Rights. For example, you have the right to pursue happiness, as long as that pursuit means you do not infringe on my right to life or any other Natural Right I possess. In short, you can do whatver makes you happy as long as that action does not harm, injure, endanger or kill me. You can become intoxicated all you want, but if you get in your car and drive on a public thoroughfare, a reasonable person would say you are endangering other people. You may own and bare any firearms, but if you start shooting them in my direction then you are endangering my life. You may seek to gather possessions and property, but if you gather them by theft, then you are infringing on the owner's right to possess his/her property.

In theory, that is how it works. There are grey areas, and areas of controversy when society and judiciary must decide where to draw the line, but there are also clearly delineated areas where logic dictates that a right has clearly been infringed, or doesn't exist, or must be upheld. We are pretty good about political speech here in the US, but there have been not so recent times when we clearly infringed on a lot of people's rights to free speech, and there are still areas where laws still infringe on our rights.

Or do we have these rights, "as long as......"

As long as we do not infringe on other's rights. There is a certain point, where a citizen can present such a danger to other citizens rights, that society is justified in expelling the citizen who is abusing his/her rights. This is why we have jails and prisons. People who chronically and greivously infringe on other's rights, by harming them, or stealing from them, may be justifiably be incarcerated, to protect society, and to punish/reform the criminal.

If OTOH, someone is just doing something that harms no one else, or does not infringe on any one else's rights, then that person should not be placed in prison. Possessing illicit drugs or firearms harms no one, and infringes on no person's rights, and such people should not be incarcerated, but they are everyday and make up the majority of people in prison.

If there are conditions placed on our rights, doesn't them render them "privileges?"

Not necessarily. If the condition is that you can enjoy/exercise your rights as long as that exercise does not infringe on other's rights, then that doesn't make the rights priviledges, it makes them consistent and logical.