Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
will, DK is consistently right about this - rights don't have to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be considered "rights".
DK, I guess I don't see what your point is. There is no right which is not regulated by the government in some way. And whether that regulation is "reasonable" is determined by law - made by legislators who are elected by the public, and subject to revision by later versions of those legislators.
Name a right that exists absolutely and without restriction.
|
ALL rights are supposed to be absolute and without restriction.
'congress shall make no law'
'shall not be infringed'
'no soldier shall'
'shall not be violated'-'no warrant shall issue'
'no person shall be held to answer'-'nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy'
'the accused shall enjoy'
'the right of trial by jury shall be preserved'
'excessive bail shall not be required'
'shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'
In the first 9 amendments they are extremely specific that these rights are absolute and SHALL NOT be restricted EXCEPT for VERY SPECIFIC criteria that the government MUST show exist.
the 10th amendment is VERY SPECIFIC that only those powers specifically enumerated to the federal government are all that they have and that all else resides to the states or the people.
The very fact that we accept that rights can be regulated by the government has already turned them in to privileges. There is only so much we can say or so much we can print. There are very few things anymore that we can be redressed from grievances caused by the government. There are certain weapons we cannot possess and only certain people can possess them. There are only a few things that are private anymore and limits on the expectations of those privacies. We can only possess property so long as a majority of our fellows in our community don't decide that they can increase the tax base of the city by seizing it and turning it over to private developers. We can be put in detention centers simply be being declared a national security threat, even though we've committed no crime. We can be denied a trial for years, denied right to counsel, and not be allowed to examine evidence or question witnesses against us in 'highly classified' instances. We can be levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties without a trial and be denied the use of proper defenses at trial because of the simple term 'stare decisis'. We can be held for millions of dollars of bail and worst of all, we can be told that this or that isn't a right because it isn't specifically designated a right even though the 9th amendment clearly states even though a right isn't mentioned as a right, it shall not be construed that the right does not exist.
We've allowed this tyrannical crap to exist because some people think that because they feel something is dangerous, that it should be taxed, regulated, and licensed....sometimes out of existence.
I repeat, the founding fathers would be thoroughly disgusted with what their bold idea has become.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I've read the rest of the Constitution, but I still see nothing about driving. I am aware that freedom to travel within our borders is protected, but that does not translate to the mode of transportation. Again, driving is not a right. Just because you think it should be a right doesn't make it a right.
I agree. They probably wouldn't throw up at you saying driving is a right, but they might laugh a bit. Because there is no right to ride a horse in the Constitution, you can bet they didn't intend a right to drive.
|
do you really think that because there is no right specifically written in to the constitution that you can ride a horse, that they didn't believe you had the right to ride a horse? They would laugh at you for merely suggesting that they didn't.