Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Loss of Freedoms List (Vanity Post)
Cornpone | 25 Jan 2005 | Cornpone

Posted on 01/25/2005 4:37:42 PM PST by Cornpone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-265 next last
To: Cornpone
...attempts to prevent school children from gathering to worship during recess.

Did the opponents of the gathering cite federal law? If not, then they didn't violate the first amendment of the federal constitution.

51 posted on 01/25/2005 6:33:04 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

Does the first amendment of the federal constitution prohibit cities from requiring permits for rallies?


52 posted on 01/25/2005 6:35:44 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: secretagent

Surely it doesn't, but it is not a freedom or a right if you have to pay for it. I can see parade permits being necessary, but it is so easy to stop protests from spontaniously forming by passing permit laws. Sounds more like government making you buy your rights.


53 posted on 01/25/2005 6:42:00 PM PST by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: agitator
It started with mandatory auto license and registration laws

LOL! I think it started before that! At least back as far as the War Between the States. That's where the concept of unlimited national government was set in motion once and for all.

54 posted on 01/25/2005 6:44:07 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (The Compassionate Troll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
"Did the opponents of the gathering cite federal law? If not, then they didn't violate the first amendment of the federal constitution."

No they did not. They cited the popular pseudo-law of 'social stigmatization.' Because 85 percent of the parents in the school district allowed their children to participate in free time religious activities the other parents felt their children were being 'stigmatized' because they didn't allow them to participate. I'm not sure I understand your argument. If the constitution gives us a right I don't believe it is necessary to site a non-existent federal law to justify its contradiction. The constitution supersedes federal law as it is the foundation of our law. There can be no federal law that contradicts the constitution in my simple understanding of how we are to be governed unless a lawyer can explain it to me. Are you a lawyer?

55 posted on 01/25/2005 6:44:11 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514

You just stand on the tracks and you don't hear the train coming do you.


56 posted on 01/25/2005 6:46:25 PM PST by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
Not a lawyer here. Just trying to understand.

As I currently understand, the first amendment only refers to the federal government. It doesn't protect the civil liberties of Americans from the encroachments of individual states.

For example, several states had established state religions (Christian). That didn't contradict the first amendment, which only prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion.
57 posted on 01/25/2005 6:53:15 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
A man invents a widget. He decides to manufacture and sell it from his home. Codes and zoning says no. He moves his process to a rental building across town, and has to install tens of thousands of dollars worth of environmental, OSHA, ADA, Fire, and safety equipment to be in compliance. His teen age children have special knowledge and skills particular to the manufacturing process, but he is unable to hire his family and pay them sub-minimum wage. He must pay a diverse group of people without those skills and pay them twelve dollars an hour plus benefits. His widget is safety related and must pass several levels of government testing at great expense before it is allowed to be marketed to the public. He shortly runs out of capitol and goes belly up. He reports to the unemployment office to apply for benifits and is promptly told he does not qualify. The lady at the counter tells him " How do you expect to get unemployment benefits after miss managing your own business?"
58 posted on 01/25/2005 6:54:42 PM PST by Boiling point (If God had not meant for man to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

I mostly agree with your post, perhaps entirely.

Control the riots when they materialize, and leave it at that.


59 posted on 01/25/2005 6:57:35 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

I just heard from my friend that a guy she knows had 20 acres here in Washington near a rural town called Roy. The guy chopped quite a few large fir trees down and some county official came out and told him that he was not allowed to cut the trees on his property.

Then he ordered him to replace them all. Also in King County which is north of where I live, land owners can only use 1/3 of their land. They cannot cut trees, clear blackberries, etc. Honestly I think we are becoming a communist society.


60 posted on 01/25/2005 7:00:51 PM PST by Vicki (Truth and Reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
"Not a lawyer here. Just trying to understand. As I currently understand, the first amendment only refers to the federal government. It doesn't protect the civil liberties of Americans from the encroachments of individual states.

Friend,

I hope I didn't offend but it seems every time I bring these issues up I get confronted with someone that sounds like a lawyer trying to argue against what I consider common sense interpretation of our rights. Unfortunately it seems we almost have to have a lawyer just to conduct our everyday affairs...like going to the doctor.

Anyway, I'm afraid you have it backwards. The constitution explicitly establishes that which cannot be breached by any government entity. Anything that is not explicitly protected by the constitution is at the discretion of the States...or so it was until about 100 years ago. The constitution gives us the right of assembly. No inferior government entity can deny that. Many of our laws today are unconstitutional. Its just that no one cares to challenge them.

61 posted on 01/25/2005 7:04:07 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

I don't think many of the young so-called conservatives are going to agree with you.


62 posted on 01/25/2005 7:04:09 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CBart95

Dear CBart95,

You wouldn't recognize freedom if it kicked you in the b*lls. What are you 15?


63 posted on 01/25/2005 7:08:44 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
"I don't think many of the young so-called conservatives are going to agree with you."

Perhaps that explains why I take such pleasure in growing old and increasingly find myself immersed in the memories of my childhood and what America was 50 years ago. While I truly enjoy this forum it would perhaps be better if I just let the past entertain me.

64 posted on 01/25/2005 7:10:11 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514

"You bunch of whiners need to grow up. WE HAVE MORE FREEDOM THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!"

So just because we get beat up less than the other poor socialist jerks around the world, we're supposed to feel good about it? Would it be to much to ask for a little of the freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or would that be whining?


65 posted on 01/25/2005 7:12:10 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Boiling point

I understand your argument. I've often thought of starting a family business but the cards are stacked against me. Free enterprise is now questionable.


66 posted on 01/25/2005 7:19:13 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

ping...thanks for being so kind...thought you might be interested in joining this string...or maybe not...pass it on if you are...regards...cornpone


67 posted on 01/25/2005 7:24:00 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
Anyway, I'm afraid you have it backwards. The constitution explicitly establishes that which cannot be breached by any government entity.

In some cases, as in the second Amendment.

Anything that is not explicitly protected by the constitution is at the discretion of the States...or so it was until about 100 years ago.

I'd phrase it differently. The constitution constrains the federal government to specific enumerated powers. Anything else it leaves to the states and the people.

One of the things left to the states: the power to establish state sponsored religions.

68 posted on 01/25/2005 7:28:13 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
Did you include the one that required a flagman to walk in front of horseless carriages to warn pedestrians, horseback riders and buggies that a horseless carriage was on the way (to keep from frightening or startling them). And also that horseless carriages were restricted to speeds under 5 miles per hour to protect the citizenry?
69 posted on 01/25/2005 7:30:06 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
"I'd phrase it differently..."

Dear Secretagent,

Phrase it anyway you want as long as it is true. Just pick up the torch and carry it. I may not say it right but I try to make as much sense as I can with an aging mind. At least I got your attention. Keep the flame of freedom alive.

70 posted on 01/25/2005 7:35:38 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

Thank you for caring enough to speak out.


71 posted on 01/25/2005 7:47:38 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Radix

When clintoon won the first time I walked into a saloon and one of the guys I know asked me my opinion about "gays" in the military. I said great (which just about floored him) and then said ya never have to dig a "grenade sump" in your fighting hole again.

If a grenade comes in you just throw the fag on it.


72 posted on 01/25/2005 7:58:31 PM PST by stumpy (M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
"You wouldn't recognize freedom if it kicked you in the b*lls. What are you 15?"

Dear dljordan,

I could not find the post that prompted your reply but I'm sure it justified such an eloquent response from you. Freedom reigns.

73 posted on 01/25/2005 7:58:34 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: texasreb

The Kennedy's live off of the money in their "Foundations."

Just as do the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Fords, the Rothschilds, and numerous others. Many of these foundations are controlled by people involved in the media such as the New York Times. It is a rigged game.

These hypocrites tend to support the death taxes which they are immune from. Taxing succesful dead people is one way that the elites maintain their status quo!


74 posted on 01/25/2005 8:11:25 PM PST by Radix (Free snow. All you can handle. You haul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
75 posted on 01/25/2005 8:12:54 PM PST by farmfriend ( Congratulations. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
As I currently understand, the first amendment only refers to the federal government. It doesn't protect the civil liberties of Americans from the encroachments of individual states.

For example, several states had established state religions (Christian). That didn't contradict the first amendment, which only prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion.

In theory, at least, the 14th amendment extended the US Constitution's protections, which is why no states have established religions any more, nor do they restrict voting rights or take property, etc...

76 posted on 01/25/2005 8:16:27 PM PST by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Creates soscila pathologies that inspire calls for more government programs


77 posted on 01/25/2005 8:17:56 PM PST by radicalamericannationalist (The Senate is our new goal: 60 in '06.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

The right to discriminate. Or, if you prefer, the right of free association.


78 posted on 01/25/2005 8:43:55 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514
How can we live in such a Draconian nation. I think we should all go to a place where we have more freedoms. Like...uh let's see... uh.../sarcasm

If there is no where else to go to then the only other alternative is to stand and fight.

79 posted on 01/25/2005 8:46:01 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
"The right to discriminate. Or, if you prefer, the right of free association."

I'm not absolutely sure of your meaning but I will say the following. Many words in our language have been perverted in our culture of PC correctness and doublespeak. I used to be a student of the English language many years ago. Discrimination implies the right to choose..nothing more. We should all have the right to choose our associations in our private lives.

80 posted on 01/25/2005 8:50:25 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514
You bunch of whiners need to grow up. WE HAVE MORE FREEDOM THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!

That may be, but we're not making this stuff up. The fact is, we lose more freedom every single year. You should take your head out of the clouds.

81 posted on 01/25/2005 8:55:53 PM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: secretagent

A few days ago a bunch of Christians protested at a gay rally and they were jailed for no good reason:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42337


82 posted on 01/25/2005 9:00:44 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G; Cornpone; Lazamataz; rdb3; mhking
"The fact is, we lose more freedom every single year."

In 1910, it was illegal for women to vote.

In 1920, it was illegal for men to buy beer.

In the 1930's, gold was illegal to own ($100 limit).

In the 1940's, our military was racially segregated and the government mandated at gunpoint how many ounces of sugar you could have in your pantry.

In the 1950's, Blacks were being beaten by policemen, hosed by firemen, bitten by sheriffs' dogs, as well as prevented from even *registering* to vote by Jim Crow laws.

In the 1960's, it was *legal* to pay women less than men for the same job.

In the 1970's, it was illegal to drive more than 55 miles per hour.

In the 1980's, it was illegal to use the Internet for profit.

In the 1990's, it was illegal in most states to carry a concealed handgun.

Up until 2004, it was illegal to have a folding stock, flash hider, and 30 round clip in your assault rifle.

Today, none of those restrictions on our freedom apply.

83 posted on 01/25/2005 9:08:58 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mrfixit514
You bunch of whiners need to grow up. WE HAVE MORE FREEDOM THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!

Listen sonny. After you grow up, own property, own a business and have children you will understand that freedom is more than just the freedom to party. It is more than the freedom to be a deviant and ruin your life. It is more than the freedom to be obnoxious.

One of these days you'll understand.

84 posted on 01/25/2005 9:09:05 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PhatHead
In theory, at least, the 14th amendment extended the US Constitution's protections, which is why no states have established religions any more...

But didn't they stop establishing state religions well before the 14th? Later.

85 posted on 01/25/2005 9:11:04 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

California has banned silver dragees.Its ridiculous for a state to ban cake decorations. Yet, in California its happened.


86 posted on 01/25/2005 9:11:33 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

How about the right to travel without being forced to submit to a search? Strip searches at airports. DWI checkpoints on highways.

Also, at one time we could carry handguns on airlines. Now you can't carry a penknife.


87 posted on 01/25/2005 9:14:18 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Does the first amendment of the federal constitution prohibit cities from requiring permits for rallies?

If the permit process interferes with the right of free assembly, yes.

88 posted on 01/25/2005 9:18:40 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Southack
In the 1990's, it was illegal in most states to carry a concealed handgun.

Up until 2004, it was illegal to have a folding stock, flash hider, and 30 round clip in your assault rifle.

Are you actually trying to imply that we have more gun rights now than before? Prior to 1934, there were no gun control laws whatsoever.

89 posted on 01/25/2005 9:20:34 PM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Thanks for the info. From a link from your link:

The ethnic intimidation charge stems from Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" law – to which the newest "victim" category of "sexual orientation" was recently added. The protesters say a Philadelphia police officer told them that because they were on a public sidewalk they were permitted to move freely through the event. A few minutes later, however, they were arrested and removed.

Sounds unjust to me.

Repeal "hate crimes" legislation and repeal legislation making it a crime to offend someone!

90 posted on 01/25/2005 9:23:32 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
As I currently understand, the first amendment only refers to the federal government.

Yes but, as I understand it, when the 14th amendment was passed it turned the Constitution on its head. Prohibitions against the federal government became prohibitions against the states, and even the people.

Reading the 14th amendment, I don't understand the logic. I think you have to be a lawyer.

91 posted on 01/25/2005 9:30:10 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G; Dan from Michigan
"Are you actually trying to imply that we have more gun rights now than before? Prior to 1934, there were no gun control laws whatsoever."

From 1890 to the 1970's, most states forbade the carrying of concealed weapons.

If you are familiar with the "Shootout at the OK Corral," then you'll remember that the town in question banned all guns; disarming those in violation was what led to that shootout.

Today, 46 states permit the carrying of open or concealed weapons...a far cry from the total bans of the past.

Likewise, prior to 1986, you could be arrested for merely passing through a city or county that forbade guns...even if your own guns were stored in the trunk of your car.

Prior to 2003, commercial airline pilots were completely forbidden from packing heat, too.

All of those firearm restrictions are gone now, as are the old restrictions in the Assault Weapons Ban.

So yes, we are substantially more free today than in 1890, 1934, or even 2002.

92 posted on 01/25/2005 9:34:44 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
As a lawyer, I'll throw in my opinion that the incorporation doctrine is bunk. Raoul Berger's Government BY Judiciary is a wonderfully researched, and far more eloquent, argument than an post tonight.
93 posted on 01/25/2005 9:36:21 PM PST by radicalamericannationalist (The Senate is our new goal: 60 in '06.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
" Does the first amendment of the federal constitution prohibit cities from requiring permits for rallies?"

If the permit process interferes with the right of free assembly, yes.

Do you mean the First Amendment amplified by the Fourteenth? The First Amendment, by itself, only restrains the federal government:

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.

94 posted on 01/25/2005 9:38:21 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
Anything that is not explicitly protected by the constitution is at the discretion of the States...or so it was until about 100 years ago. The constitution gives us the right of assembly

Many states have written into their constitutions, a bill of rights that were very similar to the US constitution. This is not redundancy. Originally, most of the items in the US bill of rights only restricted the US Congress. If you read it carefully, you will see that the 2nd amendment gives all of us the right to bear arms. But the first amendment prohibits only Congress, not the states, from abridging religion and free speech.

Supposedly that all changed after the 14th amendment.

95 posted on 01/25/2005 9:43:20 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Do you mean the First Amendment amplified by the Fourteenth?

Yes. But I would rather that the 14th amendment were repealed because it gives way too much power to the federal government. We have state constitutions with their own bill of rights.

96 posted on 01/25/2005 9:47:39 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

Zoning Restrictions
Leash laws
Anti-Smoking Laws
Lowered Speed Limits
Building Codes
HIPPA
ADA
Medicare
Lowered Drinking Age
Unions
Leash laws

I promised myself I'd stop at ten.





97 posted on 01/25/2005 9:57:11 PM PST by dervish (on the limb and walking backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans; secretagent
Dan,

I am exhausted and I'm going to hit the sack. I just want to thank you and secretagent for carrying this conversation. Contrary to many, I think it is important. Thank you both and everyone else that has joined in.

98 posted on 01/25/2005 9:57:47 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Hit'em in the Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Leash laws? You consider leash laws infringement of your freedom?
99 posted on 01/25/2005 9:58:39 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Christine Fraudoire is not my governoire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Prior to 2003, commercial airline pilots were completely forbidden from packing heat, too.

I don't think that's true. Even passengers were allowed to carry:

"...Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing debates over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident illustrates a forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried pistols, but were required to carry them. On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small, .380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag. " http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/airlines2.htm

100 posted on 01/25/2005 10:00:18 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-265 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson