Sunday Open Thread: Rights Edition

VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Amen

From a friend. http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/...

When the wheels come off the Obama bandwagon, it will not be pretty. Fun to watch though. Thanks to AB we'll have great seats.

GF,

Excellent point!

If you add to this theory that "a Man is only as good as his word" Please see the text of this "Day by Day" cartoon I follow http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/06/12/ then you have a complete picture.

I feel strongly each of men and women should be granted our full individual rights to "life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" but that ALSO we should be held 100% accountable for OUR WORDS and DEEDS.

As a Man, I am only as good as my word, and I can only stand firmly upon my individual rights when I ACT in accordance.

How's Zat?

I was always taught "Your word is all you well ever own and once you lose that you have nothing".

Let's point out "the inherent rights of men" women did not have rights when this was written. Women were not allowed to vote or have property. Unless a man provided for the woman she had nothing. How does that notion sound to you now? Please be candid and tell us how you really think.

And you exist because of God.

I know, there will be atheists among us. That's fine. Don't get your panties in wads.

And don't worry – I'm not here to save your soul. Too busy trying to save my own. This wasn't posted for your benefit but a clarification for those of us that do believe in God.

Double AMEN!

AMEN!

Actually, out "Rights" come from God..

The Bill of Rights:

So far our best foreign policy,…….

if only we can stay true to it domestically.

It was written by George Mason. He deserves the credit. God Bless him!

New report: America's 10 Freest and Least Free States….interesting…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/freest-lea...

Would you like a tissue for all that whining and crying you're doing…?

http://biggovernment.com/cmuir/2011/06/12/word/

There, there…

Enjoying the chaos now…??

And today the Lib's are gnashing their teeth because we reminded them our rights come from a higher source than that of Govt.

You have a right to food, if you grow it or otherwise collect that property. What folks don't have is a right to compel another to provide it to them.

You have a right to a home, if you build it after you buy the property on which to build it. Again, there is no right to compel another to provide it for you.

You do have a right to your own welfare, just not provided by another who is unwilling to give it.

Healthcare is a right also, everyone has to be free to contract with healthcare providers of their own choice. So too must they pay their own bills for it – or the insurance policies that assume the risk of generated bills.

All these rights are found within the right to privately contract. ( The Judiciary would not have been empowered by enumeration to settle disputes between private party's contracts were there no right to contract privately.) Pretty simple, really.

The other day, my wife and I were sitting in our favorite coffee shop. I looked outside and saw an unarmed, uniformed man walking around a parked car, whose owner had just come in to buy some coffee. I watched the man, while he pulled out a tape measure, and measured the distance from the fron of the bumper to the front parking line (it sems the car was about a foot over the hash lines in front of the car).

I walked out and told the man that the owner was just inside getting some coffee, and would be right out. He turned on me with a vengeance and said, "Are you interfering with the administration of justice?", to which I replied, "I don't see any justice here."

While the uniformed man (a "meter maid", as it turned out) was writing the ticket for the car, the woman who owned it came out, and I told her that I will go to court and testify in her behalf, if she so wishes."

She replied, "Thanks, but don't bother. The fine's only 50 cents."

The fine's only fifty cents didn't appear to be the issue, to me …

Illinois.

Drifted? I would say intentionally led astray……

Strip out these Socialist Democrats from our Government! Pare down the size of this obama Regime! Chop out most of the Government Agencies and Regulations. Return to the essence of America, with a strong Defense, law and order, peace and individual Rights!

Under Law we Americans have Rights, but somehow this toxic twisted Administration has refused to acknowledge them. All I have to say is "nice try Socialists" but we now know WHO you really are and what you really want to do to our United States, and it's Un-American. You have violated our Rights and you have to go!

I have lived in the state of VA for 8 years. I'm thankful my children get to grow up in a state so rich with history.

Thanks for posting this today.

Yep. The first institution the Feds took over was the public school system led by the atheist John Dewey.

Do those same Individual Rights apply to sinners? We have free will. We all agree on certain laws, murder, theft etc. (those are frequently refered to as "Natural Laws") It is where we DO NOT agree where we have problems. Jefferson knew laws could be used to deprive people of that Individual Liberty.
Personally I do NOT want all the Pope's laws or the Baptists laws (which at one time condemned Papism), as "The Law", The less law the more Liberty.
Those basic thoughts were why the founders loved & Praised God but feared man's fallibility for interjecting their tyrannny theological views upon the dignity & "Individual Rights" of others.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

Everything that has a beginning; has an end.

You have a right to stop making a living as a doctor if you don't like being screwed by the government.

"It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders' motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and the semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary—that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian workers marching through the streets [in the 1962 Civil War] and shouting the demand: "Work, not blood!"—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it. In the same way, in 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got. In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler. In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon. In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man"—and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it. No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal." – Ayn Rand

VA_R,

One of the crimes committed by the Left many decades ago was to sever "responsibility" from the concept of "rights". They also perverted the terms "freedom" and "liberty".

What of my "rights" if I can be physically compelled to surrender my earnings (property) so some politician can support the "needy"? Do they have "freedom" or "liberty" in their state of dependence? Where is the morality in any of that?

If you are not "as good as your word" then you are a fraud, and have surrendered your moral claim to have rights. It is through our words and deeds toward others and ourselves that we properly express our rights and responsibilities in order to rightfully enjoy the blessings of Liberty. The Leftists evade this concept and trash it with all of their "newspeak" BS…

Have we been conned? Yes, we've been conned, big time…
The 14th Amendment was never ratified, and yet legislation was/is being passed as if it were law!
"Anyone who has knowledge to the contrary, come forward and present your evidence."
http://i56.tinypic.com/15wyvj8.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/7239xs.jpg

Come on Publius, do an article on this issue…

Rights are inherent while priviliges are given.

My point is, If you've ever noticed, that most. if not ALL Constitutional courts cases are against the Amendments to the Constitution and none ever against the Articles. Most of the courts chipping away, and restricting have been against the Amendments. If a citizen attempts to bring a grievance against the Articles, the courts simply dismiss, citing you don't have standing.

You mean George Mason with James Madison.

Part of Article V gives the President and the Senate unlimited power to overturn any and all of our rights:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not with-standing."

That is why Ohammed and Sir Hillary want to ratify the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty"…

The reason most cases refer to the Amendments and not the Articles of the Constitution is because the Articles refer to vanishingly few things that apply to individuals.
You can challenge a Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or sue for Habeas Corpus;
You can challenge a punishment for treason of an ancestor being applied to you.
You can challenge extradition to another state.

That is a rather short list.
Habeas Corpus requests and extradition hearings are essentially pro forma nowadays.
Bills of Attainder and Corruption of Blood are simply non-existent.
Ex Post Facto laws are just plain rare, but have come up now and again.

Just what other individual rights in the Articles would you bring a court case under?

James Madison George Mason for the State level, but Thomas Jefferson took it a step further and enunciated the core values in the Declaration of Independence. According to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson not only illuminated the reasons for the seperation, but outlined the rights of all mankind in that document. And who is to say that he didn't have input at the state level?

You got that right, Kevin. And women have few to no rights today in most of the Middle East, especially among the Muslim sect–have the liberal knaves any comment to make about that actuality–or is that Bush's fault, too??

Well stated above, and a nice, short follow-up… Ever endeavor to read any of the Papal Encyclicals? Quite informative – and scary… I love (most) of my Christian brothers and sisters, but some of that doctrine is still down-right medieval…

"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say 'I'." – The Fountainhead – Ayn Rand

Just because someone wants to bring a case doesn't mean they have a valid point.
Do we need even more clowns like Westboro "Baptist" spamming the courts with claims their "rights" to act like scumbags have been "infringed"?
Do we need even more ambulance chasers suing segments of the medical profession out of existence?
Do we need even more Islamist lawfare?

The question is not how many cases are brought, but which ones are won.
I would rather only 10 cases per year were heard if they are all like McDonald v. Chicago than 10,000,000 cases per year were heard and they all like Kelo v. City of New London.

What everday working slobs?
Who are all these people that are being denied justice?
And I don't mean just losing their cases – that's not the same thing.

WBC is not an anomaly. There are plenty of lawyers out there willing to clog the courts with nuisance cases just to get paid to go away.
And that is what Islamist lawfare, not warfare, is about – suing anyone and everyone in hopes that the court costs will be too great to finish the case.
I certainly hear a lot from people like that about how the "everday working slob" has been denied justice.

And yes, cases like Kelo are very bad, I am not dismissing them. But where is this systemic denial you are talking about?
I certainly hear rhetoric like that on a regular basis – from Obama, Media Matters, ACORN, and their allies – it is their entire shtick. I see no evidence for such claims from them either.

John Quincy Bush, I believe it was. )

That little pseudo-rhetorical construct they use is soooooo phony . . . irritating. Who can't come off like a genius when history begins, essentially, when you say it begins?

Morning brother, I fear that it may come without an option.

Good morning, K. Controlling the measure of history and the interpretation of what happened in that time–hmmm, sounds familiar.

BTW, the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Silly tax protester and separatist claims that have been rejected repeatedly do not get to overthrow the Constitution.

You're full of hot air. Again, you talk, with zero supported facts.
The 14th Amendment WAS NOT ratified.
Is this Law Library a lie: http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm

I've concluded, you're full of sh*t. You produced NOTHING to support your argument…absolutely ZERO. You're pitiful bullsh*t!

Your fear is not unfounded.

Well actually yes, you do.
You made an assertive statement, it is therefore on you to prove it before I need do anything to rebut it.

But that's okay, you repeat those Obama talking points that there is no justice for the "common man", and think that you are any different.

It was proven, over and over. You're the dope that can't search links.

Obama Talking points my ass. GFY…got it!

Ha. Good analogy.

Yes you've convinced me, that you're clueless babbling moron.

BTW, I don't give these away easy…you earned it: http://i51.tinypic.com/30c6mab.jpg

Richard Bland, Theoderic Bland, Patrick Henry, Thomas Adams, John Banister, Carter Braxton, John Dawson, John Brown, Edward Carrington, William Fitzhugh, William Fleming, Cyrus Griffen, Samuel Hardy, Benjamin Harrison, William Grayson, James Henry, John Harvie, Jospeh Jones, Arthur Lee, Francis Lee, Henry Lee, Richard Lee, James Mercer, John Mercer, James Monroe, Mann Page, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Nelson, Edmund Randolph, Peyton Randolph, Meriwether Smith, John Walker, George Washinton and George Wythe, in addition to the aforementioned James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Ironically, George Mason never attended the constitutional or Continental congresses. Let us give praise to them all, so we do not omit and "pass them over" either.

I agree.