I like Obama, no secret there. But his comments regarding the issue were not all that smart IMHO. After doing a little reading on the case and the law I'm not sure he was even right. I didn't go to law school but it seems at best he's over reaching for political gain here. To do so in front of the justices, on national TV didn't impress me. To me it was one a few "low lights" in an otherwise very good SOTU address.

besides the rest of this thread which somewhat explains more about where I was headed, I will say that YES!!!! where it says that 'congress shall make no law' means EXACTLY THAT......congress shall make no law. Where it says 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be infringed'. 'no soldier shall' means that 'no soldier shall'. 'shall not be violated' and 'no warrants shall issue' means exactly that but upon probable cause and the other very specific exceptions.

the 'no right is absolute' is a bullshit ideologically driven theory supported by people that believe people can't be trusted with freedom, therefore they wish to have the ability to use 'reasonable regulation' of that freedom to make them feel safer. but we can't have slippery slopes, they don't exist except in our fantastical notions of nightmares.

How would you explain martial law?

so you're all for giving guns to prisoners and the mentally deficient, then?

that would be a subject fit for its own thread

Mentally deficient? No, I think liberals and progressives have a right to own guns.:)

Not really. You made the assertion that rights are absolute. Martial Law disagree's with you. So do all the other restrictions put upon most of the "rights" you feel are absolute.

Derwood, I know you're an intelligent person and have read the Bill of Rights. Do you remember the 5th Amendment?

This means that prisoners have minimal rights via due process of law. they've been tried and convicted and while serving a prison sentence, have the barest of rights.

same with mentally deficient individuals. They get their hearings and evaluations, then if they are deemed mentally unstable or deficient, they get placed somewhere in the system where they can be treated to get better, or if they can't get better, then for their own safety they need to be kept there.

It's not that difficult to understand.

---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

yes, really. I broached the subject in this thread because it touches on the first amendment. Martial law has nothing to do with the first amendment, unless it's being used to quell political dissent. If it is, would it be constitutional or legal?

and just because the USSC allows restrictions on our rights for 'reasonable' beliefs does not mean that they are actually legitimate, despite the feelings of those who wish to be subservient to state authority.

So your interpretation of the constitution should trump the USSC? WOW!

it's like dividing by zero. He opposes the judicial body that the constitution established to rule on matters of the constitution

the constitution is written in plain english. If one chooses to muddle it up with ideas of 5 words equates to paragraphs of interpretation, that is their cross to bear. It's not how the constitution was set up to begin with. The judicial branch was set up to rule whether laws or edicts violate the constitution. It doesn't take interpretation to deal with that, unless one chooses to ignore the precepts of the constitution in support of what they wish it said. All one needs to do is look at each amendment to determine exactly what we the people decided the government could and could not do. You can't get much simpler than that. If a straightforward view and reading of the constitution is something you think is beyond you, then maybe you should do something about that.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

when they are wrong, we all should

Sorry man but none of our rights are guaranteed or absolute. And the USSC does interprit the constitution, not just follow it's wording to the letter. Hence differing opinions from each of the justices.

yes, they are. otherwise constitutions, enumerated powers, and bills of rights are useless and toothless

no, they not supposed to interpret.....although the idea was contemplated by the founders. Their constitutional power exists only to judge congressional law against the plain text of the constitution, interpret the law alone to see if it violates the constitution, then render their decision. In all cases, they are supposed to favor the constitution over the law written by congress.

Let's be very clear, what you are saying is currently the way it happens to be now. That does not mean its according to the constitution, it's just blindly accepted by an ignorant populace.

Well reality disagrees with you. Japanese Internment in World War II — Infoplease.com
This was upheld by the USSC.

Further examples of limitations of your rights are you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, or bomb on a plane. So again rights aren't absolute.

And the last I checked, prison inmates no longer have the right to bear arms.

Maybe we aren't on the same page with regard to the meaning of absolute?

I don't know, do they still have the right to bear arms? It's a right that shall not be infringed, right? Is it absolute or not?

are you implying that the USSC is always 100% correct?

logical fallacies all. I can yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. I can yell bomb on a plane, especially if there is a bomb on the plane. I may be charged with endangering the public if there is no fire or bomb, but I do have the right to do so.

again, rights are absolute, otherwise constitutions mean absolutely nothing.

---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

did you miss the part of the conversation where I said that inmates lose certain rights while prisoners through the 5th Amendments due process of law?

I'm certain that we are because of ideological perspectives.

while they are inmates, they have very limited rights. This is because they've had the due process of law to lose liberties.

how about machine guns for 4 year olds? no due process there

So...rights aren't absolute?

Definition of absolute: having no restriction, exception, or qualification.

Yes you can yell fire in a theatre, but not if there isn't one. Nor bomb on a plane if there isn't one. Those are exceptions to free speech, negating the absolute part.

The president can declare a state of martial. All of these fly in the face of absolute rights "guaranteed" by the constitution. And since the supreme court is the final legal authority, yes they are always correct, legally speaking.

The best argument against the absolute right of free speech is defamation/libel. If i publish an article in the local newspaper in which I accuse John McCain of having a homosexual affair (and play it off as serious), they should have every right to legal recourse because I am using free speech as a weapon to attack someone in a way where there could be significant consequences.

Consequences are not the same thing as not having the freedom. You do not have the freedom from consequences, but you can say what you want. There is the burden of responsibility and consequences with any freedom.

But the problem with this is that you could say that for just about anything. "Your right is not being infringed; you're just suffering a consequence of using it." So if a law is passed tomorrow outlawing gun ownership, can we just say that you still have the right to bear arms, but the consequence of exercising that right is having them promptly removed and melted down into dog bowls?

I know, bad illustration....but do you see the problem with that?

There is a difference between the government infringing and a person infringing.

The government is not supposed to infringe, private citizens can and do all the time.

I have no idea what this means. dk likes to say the govn't is of the people. So there shouldn't be any difference between the govn't and people.

you can't come into my house and spout off your mouth anymore than you can come to TFP and have us delete your comments.

People say that battle cry all the time, "First Amendment, my right to free speech..."

you can speech all you want, just not here. I'm not infringing on your ability to free speech at all.

That not only doesn't make sense, it's just not true. I am prohibited from yelling bomb on a plane. If I choose to, I will go to jail. That is a restriction. The consequence enforces the restriction, not invalidate it.

now THAT is a damned fine strawman. congrats.

---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

this is what we call obtuse.

rights ARE absolute.

from the 5th Amendment - "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

this means that rights are absolute and can ONLY be denied or restricted through due process of law.

let's not go the route of intellectual dishonesty by trying to twist words and phrases in to meanings that have no relevance.

Please see above examples that prove rights are not absolute.

what stops me?

what stops me?

a totally incorrect assumption on your part. do you get fitted with a gag that has a smoke detector in it so that you can only yell fire in a theater when it senses fire?

is martial law a specific enumerated power granted to the federal government in the constitution?

if that is true, then nobody has any legitimate argument concerning any single ruling coming down from the USSC. Therefore, Kelo was completely correct, so was cruikshank and dred scott, and now this latest one.

You get your own plane, and you shout whatever you want at the top of your lungs. Your freedom of speech is not impinged. You can yell bomb all you want.

If you don't understand that, well, it's just too trollish for my blood, I'm out.

that is not what i've been saying. not sure where you got that from.

The law

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

The restriction is in the consequence.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

If I'm in my own plane, then I can yell bomb. But I can't if I'm on a commercial airliner. If I do I go to jail, once again this negates the absolute right.

really? does the 'law' stop murder?

the consequence only restricts those that don't want to deal with it. It does nothing to stop someone from actually doing it.

what specific law says you can't yell fire in a theater?

It certainly stops me from killing alot of people I'd otherwise like to.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Your's using a play on words. You refuse to acknowlege that the consequence constitutes the restrictio. I can't help you if you willfully refuse reality.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Here's just a few examples. Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is getting ridiculous. There is no such thing as "absolute, except when...." Either it's absolute or it's not. If you have laws and due process of the law that just may, I don't know, limit your rights...then rights aren't absolute.

Rights are conditional. You have rights to do this or that as outlined in documents, but you must act in accordance to the law or your rights are revoked or otherwise "impinged." There are excpetions, many of which would be considered "natural laws," which include such things as the right to life and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and all that, but even then you still have nations who use capital punishment.

So what are we getting at here, ultimately?

We have rights, but we also have laws. Laws trump rights?

Okay, so let me get this straight (I'm not being obtuse):

• Rights are absolute except when they are limited, revoked, or otherwise "impinged" by the due process of the law?

Again, do we all agree on what the word absolute means?

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

Let me recontextualize.

Given that rights are absolute, but those rights can be taken away, if there could be a law instituted that put a cap or a ban on corporate/union contributions to political parties or the purchasing of political ads during campaigns, would this not indicate that a corporation's freedom of speech is not infringed? They're have the right to exercise free speech, but they would have their right removed or would otherwise be penalized by exercising it outside of the law.

Does this make sense?

Okay, let's test this line of thought:
Do I have the freedom to murder someone? Should I commit murder (and be found guilty) there are certainly consequences, but as you say consequences are not the same thing as not having the freedom. If that's the case, what is unfree or the opposite of freedom, in practice?

more troll bait. murdering someone removes their rights. that was the whole suggestion for the OJ civil trials.

Answer the question please

No, I'm taking your position and applying it to something more extreme to illustrate my issue with it. If you're unwilling or unable to respond, so be it, but please don't accuse me of trolling without taking a moment to even consider that you could have misunderstood what I posted or could even be wrong.
If a woman accuses you of rape, you could very easily end up in jail where your rights are taken from you. The accusation of rape isn't as serious as murder, but the point, which you avoided, was that consequences and freedom are linked, and that in turn applies directly the freedom of speech.

Defamation is an exception to our freedom of speech. I cannot (in theory) be persecuted because I espouse radical beliefs which I voice because the First Amendment protects me. The spirit of the freedom of speech is I can speak out against those in power without fear of legal consequences. If, however, I commit defamation, or speaking directly harmful untruths with ill-intent, I should have a fear of legal consequences as defamation, while clearly speech, is not totally free. That was my point.

baraka---i think that works if you believe in that quaint notion of natural law.

the pope does. this afternoon he used it to make the fine argument that laws which assure equal access/treatment to things like adoption or marriage impinge on freedom of religion, which that fine fellow the pope defined for a minute around the possibility of discriminating against people the community of the faithful don't like.

anyway, natural law is a strange thing. it makes most sense as a reaction against the last phases of monarchical legal theory according to which all law emanated from the person of the king. well one of them. maybe not the material one. the other one. read kantorowicz and it'll all make sense.

but outside that context, what the fuck is natural law?
but without it the idea that there *Are* rights that kinda float around somehow that only need be shaped or limited makes no sense.
but i digress.

loquitors posts are really interesting in this thread. stuff to consider.