View Full Version : Bill of Rights - Status

October 13th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Tally to date:

1st Amendment: de facto in serious trouble. Protestors often arrested for no reason; looming Imperial Presidency could make dissent illegal, just like in Nazi Germany.

2nd Amendment: Your right to bear arms recently came into doubt as paid mercenaries confiscated the lawfully owned weapons of American citizens while forcing them at gunpoint out of their own homes.

3rd Amendment: American citizens have not YET been required to quarter soldiers. However if Chimpus Maximus has his way, the U.S. will be under full military lockdown by the end of next year.

4th Amendment: No search is unreasonable under the New World Order. The Patriot Act has rendered the 4th amendment irrelevant. Searches and siezures of you and your property can now be conducted WITHOUT WARRANTS and behind your back while you are away from your home.

5th Amendment: You have no right to refrain from incriminating yourself under the Cheney Administration. If you don't talk, you'll be tortured till you do or die. (see discussion of 8th Amnd. below)

6th Amendment: Right to counsel is
D-E-A-D under the Patriot Act and under the new Imperial Rule of the Chimperor. He now has the SOLE discretion to arrest, imprison, torture, even murder you. He only has to say the magic words "enemy combatant" and VOILA! You have NO rights, including any silly Due Process rights.

7th Amendment: Your right to a civil jury trial is waning with "tort reform" dedicated to close the courts to all but the wealthy.

8th Amendment: The prohibition against cruel and unusual treatment has become "quaint". Lest you believe this torture of prisoners only goes on abroad, let me remind you all that the commandantes of the concentration camps at Abu Garaib and Gitmo came STRAIGHT OUT OF THE U.S. PRISON SYSTEM.

9th Amendment: The so-called rights "reserved" (read not conferred upon the federal government explicitly, implicitly or inherently) to the soverign states...D E A D. The NCLB act invades a traditionally state run education system, the Cheney administration has trumped efforts by states to regulate environmental hazards within their own borders; day by day the federal government invades the so-called soverign right of states by a calculated plan to bankrupt them and place us all under one government.

10th Amendment: Alas individual rights which are actually prescient in this Republic (at least in theory) have all but disappeared. The American population is being transformed into an ignorant, impoverished, unarmed herd of sheep who will soon find out firsthand what it is to be a slave.

Courtesy of Marblex | Posted to Rawstory 10.13.05 - 6:12 pm |

Discuss amongst yourselves...

October 13th, 2005, 08:11 PM
No Need To Worry ...

This new guy, Jose, is now in charge of spying on those who threaten our freedoms:

US setting up new Spying Agency

"The director of the new agency, whose identity will remain secret and is simply known as "Jose", will report directly to the head of the CIA, Porter Goss."


The US has announced the creation of a new intelligence agency led by the CIA to co-ordinate all American overseas spying activities.

The National Clandestine Service (NCS) will oversee all human espionage operations - meaning spying by people rather than by technical means.

The move is the latest in the post-9/11 reforms of US intelligence agencies.
Analysts say the NCS restores some authority to the CIA after it lost overall control of US intelligence.

'Expression of confidence'

The chief of the new service will supervise the CIA's espionage operations and co-ordinate all overseas spying, including those of the FBI and the Pentagon.

The director of the new agency, whose identity will remain secret and is simply known as "Jose", will report directly to the head of the CIA, Porter Goss.

"This is another positive step in building an intelligence community that is more unified, co-ordinated and effective," National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said.

Setting up the NCS was one of more than 70 recommendations made by a commission on weapons of mass destruction in March, which was highly critical of the US' intelligence capabilities.

As part of reforms following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the CIA lost overall control of US intelligence to the newly created National Director of Intelligence.

Mr Goss said the new service represents "an expression of confidence in the CIA" from President George Bush and Mr Negroponte.

"No agency has greater skill and experience in this difficult, complex, and utterly vital discipline of intelligence," Mr Goss said.

Published: 2005/10/13


TLOZ Link5
October 13th, 2005, 08:46 PM
So long as we can post things like this without fear of recrimination, then we have nothing to fear.

If one of us suddenly stops posting, however, then there's something to worry about.

TLOZ Link5
October 14th, 2005, 09:10 PM
Hee hee, clever.

October 14th, 2005, 10:34 PM
So long as we can post things like this without fear of recrimination, then we have nothing to fear.
I hear the gov't has software that tracks all the keystrokes that go across the internet and can pull out specific phrases and words and figure out -- to some degree -- where the keystrokes are coming from (part of what they call "chatter").

Who knows what sequence of keystrokes might get their interest up? If not tomorrow, then at some point in the future?

Luckily recruitment is down, so I doubt those who might be interested have the manpower to follow-up and track down every pc-user that sends up a flag.

But pretty soon they won't need actual bodies to come and get us -- they'll just fry your pc from some place far removed.

btw: Can they really watch us through our cable boxes?

October 14th, 2005, 11:12 PM
...they are the ones who can watch you stop through your monitor.
So, it's the monitor? And not the cable box???

Who are they? And how do they do that?

TLOZ Link5
October 15th, 2005, 09:38 PM
If that's the case, then I just gave my computer monitor the finger and will make certain to type obscene messages occasionally for no good reason.

October 21st, 2005, 11:18 PM
Wacko Coulter to Florida Republicans:

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Coulter courts Gainesville

By JESSICA RIFFEL (jriffel@alligator.org)
Alligator Writer


Ann Coulter, an outspoken Republican pundit and author, energized and entertained more than 800 UF students and Alachua County residents Thursday night at the third annual Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ.

The audience, decked out in patriotic garb and cowboy boots, fanatically surrounded Coulter before dinner, asking her to pose with them for pictures.

One woman caught Coulter's attention by begging for a picture, saying, "my husband loves you."

The Republicans got in the spirit of the night while enjoying an SUV-size trailer full of Budweiser beer.

Attendees paid between $25 and $75 to attend the event; the latter price included dinner. The money went to the Alachua County Republican Party, which paid $30,000 to have Coulter speak.

Megan Schaub / Alligator
Conservative author and speaker
Ann Coulter autographs a book after
speaking at the Ronald Reagan Black Tie
and Blue Jeans BBQ on Thursday evening.

Coulter mainly addressed weaknesses she saw in the Democratic party.

"The Democrats complain about the Republican base being nuts," Coulter said. "The nuts are their entire party."

She warned attendees to not allow Democrats anywhere near foreign policy, "not even to keep them away from domestic policy."

Coulter defended the war in Iraq and chastised Democrats for "demoralizing America."

"The war was a magnificent success," she said. "We're a few years into the rebuilding."

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Her statements received applause, and many attendees said they enjoyed her speech, but some added that they think she's somewhat extreme.

"She's not very subtle, but I always enjoy her talks," Republican Senate candidate Travis Horn said. "They're very hard hitting, but the truth hurts."

The vice chair of the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee Bryan Harman said the unexpectedly large turnout was wonderful, and he enjoyed Coulter's fiery speech.

"I thought it was very funny," Harman said. "She used a lot of humor and good political satire to make people laugh. She would take serious issues and make fun of them a little, but she still got her point across."

UF students received a $30 discount, and UF College Republicans President Ashlee Black said the club sold about 100 tickets.

"We had a good turn out of UF students and College Republicans," Harman said. "They were very instrumental in pulling this all together."

Black enjoyed Coulter's speech, and said she felt special when Coulter called UF Republicans "beautiful" at the beginning of her speech.

"I think that she's incredibly intelligent and outspoken," Black said. "She's a little raw, but I think she balances the left's Michael Moore."

Copyright 19962005 Alligator Online (http://www.alligator.org/) and Campus Communications

October 21st, 2005, 11:45 PM
I'd take care of Annie.

Feed her eclairs. Make her scream.

March 22nd, 2006, 10:15 PM
High Court Cuts Police Power to Search Homes
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 23, 2006; A01

The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both partners present agree to let them in.

The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women.

The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had previously said that police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.

Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives, or boyfriends and girlfriends, keep police busy around the country; in the District, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved alleged domestic violence.

Justice David H. Souter's majority opinion said that the consent of one partner is not enough, because of "widely shared social expectations" that adults living together each have veto power over who can come into their shared living space. That makes a warrantless search based on only one partner's consent "unreasonable" and, therefore, unconstitutional.

"[T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders," Souter wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since joining the court in October, said the ruling's "cost" would be "great," especially in domestic dispute situations.

Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court had previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday's decision.

Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts noted.

"The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.

But Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying that the police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger.

"[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists."

Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that "the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."

Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion noting that his decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that Souter's analysis applies to cases such as this one, Georgia v. Randolph , No. 04-1607, in which the police were searching for evidence of a crime, rather than intervening in a violent dispute.

"[T]oday's decision will not adversely affect ordinary law enforcement practices," Breyer wrote.

The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived, she told them where they could find his cocaine. An officer asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house. He refused, but Janet Randolph said yes -- and led them to a straw covered in cocaine crystals. Scott Randolph was arrested and indicted for cocaine possession.

Georgia's Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the evidence should be suppressed because it was gathered without a warrant.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not vote because he was not yet on the court in November, when the case was argued.

The main battle between Souter and Roberts was accompanied by a skirmish between Stevens and Scalia, who used the case as an opportunity to make points in the court's long-running dispute over Scalia's view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the Framers' original intent.

In a brief concurring opinion, Stevens noted that the court's ruling was based on the concept that neither a husband nor a wife is "master" of the house in the eyes of the law. But at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, he wrote, only a husband's consent or objection would have been taken into account.

Thus, he wrote, "this case illustrates why even the most dedicated adherent to an approach . . . that places primary reliance on a search for original understanding would recognize the relevance of changes in our society."

Scalia fired back at "Justice Stevens' 'attempted critique' of originalism,' " arguing that the court's ruling would probably not benefit women.

"Given the usual patterns of domestic violence," he noted, "how often can police be expected to encounter the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home while a woman simultaneously demands they stay out?"

2006 The Washington Post Company

July 6th, 2015, 07:19 AM
Could someone please explain exactly what this means...Zippy? TIA.

No civil rights can be violated on religous/worship grounds?
No national religion is allowed?
Full and equal rights cannot be violated on any pretext? What's "of conscience" mean in this context?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11096658_10153244555269255_6458818501382474319_n.p ng?oh=b3db9b4068f2d5442ca3e8e6b94e03f9&oe=5614FB08&__gda__=1443957036_8808ad2b6231c0792b7311674d6e806 c