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

Skip to comments.

What rights have we lost over the last several years? HELP!
10/2/02

Posted on 10/02/2002 8:28:42 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc

I was talking to a friend last night and we were discussing whether or not the second ammendment would be harmed if say...certain types of guns were banned. I say that it would start us down the slippery slope of losing our right to bear arms. She says, "The whole 'don't give the government an inch or they'll take a mile' doesn't seem to ever happen."

Actually her main argument was that the Constitution was a flexible document and that the founding fathers knew that things would change and wanted the Constitution to be able to change along with the times.

When I began to list things rights that we have lost in the last several years, she wanted specifics. Some of the things I brought up to her were:

1. We have lost the right to rent our homes to whomever we want.
2. When schools started accepting federal money, the local schools lost their right to make decisions for what is best for their own community.
3. Smokers lost their right to smoke in their offices, restaurants, bars, and in some cases (parental custody cases) their own homes.
4. Employers in some cases have lost the right to hire and fire based on merit.
5. California is forbidding parents to homeschool.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: ammendment; constitution; lost; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
What I really need are examples where specific amendments to the Constitution have been affected. Thanks in advance for any help you are able to give me. I am off to work, but will check back in tonight.
1 posted on 10/02/2002 8:28:42 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
I would stop using slippery-slope arguments as a means of debate. Regardless of their merit, they are rather unconvincing.

9/11 and school shootings are the results of fire arm/culture regulation.
2 posted on 10/02/2002 8:31:06 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
WANT TO TAKE BACK THE SENATE??

WANT TO SHOCK HILLARY?

THEN DO YOUR PART TODAY! GO TO:

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want to help a Republican majority in the Senate

3 posted on 10/02/2002 8:34:01 AM PDT by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; kitkat; goodnesswins; Wphile; MJY1288; olliemb; kayak; Miss Marple; Freedom'sWorthIt; ...
Some of the best minds in the world can be found reading Free Republic, so I thought this would be a good place to ask for help.

Maybe this has been done before, but I thought maybe if we made a list of the rights we have been losing incrementally, the enormity of it all would hit us hard.

4 posted on 10/02/2002 8:37:12 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
I would stop using slippery-slope arguments as a means of debate. Regardless of their merit, they are rather unconvincing.

"We would never make seatbelts mandatory, we just want to make auto manufacturers install them in all cars."

"We want kids to have to buckle up, but we'd never make adults do so."

"We need adults to buckle up, but don't worry, you won't get pulled over just for that, and it won't count against your insurance rates..."

It seems you are correct, slippery slope arguments aren't convincing...

5 posted on 10/02/2002 8:44:08 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
I would stop using slippery-slope arguments as a means of debate. Regardless of their merit, they are rather unconvincing.

You might be right, but that's exactly the way it happens. One can't exactly come right out and say, "Hey, let's do away with that pesky second ammendment." But they can weaken it by disallowing one type of firearm after the other, and by putting fear in everyone's hearts each time some crazy nut uses a gun in the commission of a crime.

6 posted on 10/02/2002 8:45:19 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Great example, Freeeee.....
7 posted on 10/02/2002 8:46:30 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
The Tenth Amendment--delegating all authority to the States not specifically Constitutinally authorized to the Federal government--has been ignored for years.

This is not insignificant. Schools, welfare, unemployment compensation, highway funding, and billions of other Federal program dollars would be found to be unConstitutional if the Tenth were used as a measure.

8 posted on 10/02/2002 8:47:25 AM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Actually her main argument was that the Constitution was a flexible document and that the founding fathers knew that things would change and wanted the Constitution to be able to change along with the times.

That's why they included an amendment process. Note, this process is purposely difficult, so that the fickle whims of the majority do not tyrannize he minority.

What she suggests is flat out ignoring the Constitution, which is exactly like having no Constitution at all.

9 posted on 10/02/2002 8:48:29 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous; Jim Robinson
The Tenth Amendment--delegating all authority to the States not specifically Constitutinally authorized to the Federal government--has been ignored for years.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Hey Jim Rob, you are probably the best person I can think of to ask about this subject. You are an advocate of strictly following the Constitution. ;-)

10 posted on 10/02/2002 8:50:05 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
One other example I gave her was that income tax was not in the constitution and the right we have to keep the money we earn is quickly disappearing.

Also, Janet Reno sent armed people into the home of the family of that little Cuban boy, Elian Gonzales, and took him out of that home by force. She said he was here illegally so she didn't have any problem with it. I asked if the family whose home was broken into were illegals. She said no, but that they were warned. They were told to hand over the kid and they said no.

11 posted on 10/02/2002 8:56:02 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:

minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.

grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.

The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans — something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s when the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, and the spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

I understand the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but this is more of the same old same old. Government has the tendency to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one.

This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

I don't like the sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen.

The rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers. Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
12 posted on 10/02/2002 8:58:16 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Among the worst seven provisions of the bill are the following.

1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213). This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.

2. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. As reported before, this system records all e-mail correspondence and the addresses of Web pages visited by a specific target. Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216). Even more troubling, Fox News has reported that the FBI plans to go beyond the authorization of the new bill and change the very architecture of the Internet. The FBI wants to route all net traffic through central servers for monitoring. While this will require the voluntary compliance of the major ISPs, most experts agree that they will quickly cave into these demands for fear of appearing uncooperative or unpatriotic.

3. An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. He doesn't have to be charged and he may be denied access to an attorney (Section 412). In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that "no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." While the provision of this bill only applies to foreigners, it sets a dangerous precedent and could easily be used in the future against U.S. citizens accused of domestic terrorism.

4. Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners. This will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" (Section 414). My fear is that eventually all Americans will be forced to submit to this technology. This bill will put the infrastructure in place. In will then be a simple step to require all citizens to participate in this system. Failure to do so may result in the inability to travel or even to buy and sell merchandise or property.

5. Without a court order, the FBI can require telephone companies and Internet service providers to turn over customer records. All they have to do is claim that the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." Worse, the company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation (Section 505). The bill of rights was written to protect citizens from exactly this kind of abuse. This provision of the new law completely throws out the presumption of innocence doctrine that is central to our system of justice. Now anyone can be treated as a criminal if they are merely accused of a crime.

6. Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505). Again, there is no presumption of innocence and the suspect is denied his due process rights. This gives government agents the authority to spy on anyone's financial activities. All they have to do is make the accusation of terrorism and the door swings wide open.

7. The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes — such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer — are also covered (Section 808). While these are no doubt crimes and should be prosecuted, by classifying them as "terrorist activities," suspects are subject to having their rights radically curtailed, as I have outlined above. If convicted, they are subjected to extremely stiff penalties. Prison terms range between five and 20 years (Section 814.

13 posted on 10/02/2002 9:01:57 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Actually her main argument was that the Constitution was a flexible document and that the founding fathers knew that things would change and wanted the Constitution to be able to change along with the times.

You write things down and agree upon them beforehand precisely to prevent things from changing. When two teams go out to play football, they can rest assured that the referees are going to call the game based upon a set of rules that the clubs assented to. They don't decide on a whim to make a touchdown 10 points because one side is losing too badly. The rules are the rules and they are agreed upon beforehand. This can not be stressed enough.

It is the same with a business that contracts for services. They decide beforehand and write down the terms. Then both agree to the terms, if they desire.

A society is to be run no differently. A would-be thief knows that what he is doing is against the rules and that there is a punishment for it. The entire idea of rule of law is that people can make choices based up a predetermined set of rules, that all agree to abide by. When judges and juries make up laws on the spot and punish people and companies for not obeying this new "law" that they had had no knowledge of existing is to introduce chaos and uncertainty where order should be.

SD

14 posted on 10/02/2002 9:02:10 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
The WOD has given us civil forfeiture ( http://www.FEAR.org ) as well as a gutting of financial privacy. Remember 'Know Your Customer'? It was smothered in the crib, yes. But it was them dug back up and is being reanimated a bit at a time.
15 posted on 10/02/2002 9:05:27 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
The seat belt laws were one of the first things that came to my mind too. Not that I don't think wearing them is a good idea, but we should not be forced to do so! You know, "land of the free" and all that.
16 posted on 10/02/2002 9:05:46 AM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

17 posted on 10/02/2002 9:06:01 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
We're just registering gun owners. We'll never take away their guns. (2nd Amend.)

These "sham issue ads" must be stopped. (1st Amend)

These all-male (all-white, etc.) clubs must be forced to allow women members (freedom of association, 1st Amend and natural right)

18 posted on 10/02/2002 9:06:27 AM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Great post!
I heard Peter Jennings, you know, that great protector of our constitutional rights, (sure) say yesterday on Hannity that the framers were so brilliant to write the constitution in such a way that we could amend it to change with the times, blah, blah, blah. The greatest danger to our rights is the idea that the constitution is a living, breathing, document meant to be changed to fit the latest PC agenda.
19 posted on 10/02/2002 9:10:12 AM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Along with other things mentioned here, I must add the right to free speech has been greatly impaired with the "hate crime" legislation. We can now be convicted for what we are thinking. Remember the line from an old song, "Brother you can't go to jail for what you're thinking?" No longer applies. PC is a tremendous eroison of not only our freedoms, but our national security as well.
20 posted on 10/02/2002 9:14:22 AM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213). This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.

You are mistaken. The cops can delay telling the subject of the warrant that he has been searched, if they get the judge to agree. That is, if "the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result" The cops still have to tell a judge and get his approval; this is the essence of following the 4th Amendment.

21 posted on 10/02/2002 9:14:55 AM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
A society is to be run no differently. A would-be thief knows that what he is doing is against the rules and that there is a punishment for it. The entire idea of rule of law is that people can make choices based up a predetermined set of rules, that all agree to abide by. When judges and juries make up laws on the spot and punish people and companies for not obeying this new "law" that they had had no knowledge of existing is to introduce chaos and uncertainty where order should be.

Exactly!

And I interject that the "predetermined set of rules" can never change - for the simple fact you point out that they have to be "agreed up by ALL".

22 posted on 10/02/2002 9:18:37 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'
23 posted on 10/02/2002 9:22:39 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
My particular beef is that I want to travel to any public place, by whatever conveyance, I want.

The Constitution guarantees a freedom to assemble. And to assemble at a fly-in, you have to fly. The heavy handed rules from the FAA are gradually killing personal aircraft, which should be a lesson for any industry regulated by government.

People who ride snowmobiles have lost the freedom to travel in public National Parks.

Bill Clinton created policies to close forrest roads, so those of us who bought SUVs to travel to these public places are screwed.

They have stopped the motorcycle race across the desert to Las Vegas because of some turtle.

People who ride personal water craft are being denied the freedom to travel on their personal choice of boat.

The majority of the Grand Canyon has been blocked off to private aircraft for a decade now. Despite the fact that seeing the canyon from the air has the least impact on the canyon and its wildlife. No roads. No trails. No crap in the woods. And its only human tree huggers who don't like the airplane noise. The environment likes airplanes.

You can't drive your SUV on the road into Denali National Park. You have to pay a concessionare to drive you in a communal bus. They are threatening to do the same thing in Grand Canyon, so you will no longer be able to stop where you want, and spend as long as you want, along the road beside the canyon.

24 posted on 10/02/2002 9:25:35 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
How about the ban on assault weapons. Your second ammendment has already been attacked. Follow the methodologies used by the Marxists in the UK and Australia to understand how "boiling the frog" works. Currently, they are going after PELLET guns in the UK (that's all they have left). Needless to say, the UK and Australia rank 1st and 2nd among the industrialized nations for assault, robbery, rape, etc. But, you couldn't convince these Marxists that the "armed" people were "better" off. It just can't be.

DON'T GIVE UP YOUR GUNS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYONE SAYS OR DOES. IT IS YOUR LAST PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNY.

25 posted on 10/02/2002 9:27:56 AM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
If you look at Art. II of the Articles of Confederation, you see the following: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Now look at Amendment X to the COTUS:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The word "expressly" (or as you put it, specifically) does not appear in the tenth. If "expressly" had been placed in the Constitution, the Necessary and Proper of Art. I, Sec. 8 would have been repealed, making the Constitution no better than the Articles (or so Federalists argued). Madison, who drafted the first 12 proposed Amendments (10 of which are the Bill of rights, 1 was never ratified, and the last is the 27th Amendment) was heavily critized for this, since the opposition to the Constitution and the supporters of a bill of rights knew that the Amendment was mostly fluff and did little to restrict the power of Congress. That didn't stop ratification, since they felt a little was better than nothing.

The great irony is that the new government under the Federalists was not what Madison envisioned, with the Washington/Adams/Hamilton government having far more power than he envisioned, exploiting the Necessary and Proper clause for anything they wanted. It wasn't until the Republicans (Jeffersonians) spilt off and gained power that Madison's vision was realized.

26 posted on 10/02/2002 9:29:03 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc; Vic3O3
With respect to the Second Amendmant are, (off the top of my head);
1. We have lost the right to own silencers, fully automatic weapons, modern shoulder fired weapons of a caliber greater than .50, short barrelled shotguns, (less than 18").
2. We have lost the right to own destructive devices, mortars, field artillery pieces, hand grenades, and so on.
3. We have lost the right to mail order firearms.
4. We have lost the right to own certain types of military style weapons because they look evil.
5. We have lost the right to have certain types of bullets, (steel core ammo).
6. We have lost the right to buy current production firearms with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
7. We have lost the right to not be investigated by the government when we purchase the firearm.

The above is just a few, I'm sure others can give a more expansive list.

Semper Fi
27 posted on 10/02/2002 9:32:55 AM PDT by dd5339
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
I agree with you that it's important that "probable cause" be demonstrated to a judge before obtaining a warrant -- this is the very essence of the 4th Amendment.

But your fear that the provision allowing authorities not to inform the subject of a warrant will lead to "midnight knock" shootings makes little sense to me. Under previous law there was no requirement to tell a warrant subject ahead of time of the search, for obvious reasons. The absence of an after-the-fact notification can't lead to increased conflict during a search. Further, wiretaps have always, of course, been done secretly.

All that said, USA PATRIOT's Section 216 language, that the attorney for the Government merely has to have "certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation" seems dangerous as it does not seem to require "probable cause," or convincing the judge of any actual merit to the attorney's claim.

I'd be interested if you know of any detailed analysis of this apparently dangerous language.

28 posted on 10/02/2002 9:37:45 AM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt; freeeee; Cacophonous; KDD; SoothingDave; El Sordo; ladyinred; DWPittelli; FreeTally; ...
**scribbling like mad**

Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts. I have to leave for work now, darn it! LOL! I will be looking forward to seeing if there are any new posts this evening.

29 posted on 10/02/2002 9:40:18 AM PDT by mtngrl@vrwc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
The heck with scribbling, just hit the print button!

Semper Fi
30 posted on 10/02/2002 9:41:48 AM PDT by dd5339
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Anyone familiar with RICO and War on Drugs infringements or archived threads dealing with the subject?
31 posted on 10/02/2002 9:47:13 AM PDT by concentric circles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Under the new Patriot Act, the FBI's powers have been greatly expanded. First, warrants can be obtained under FISA if intelligence gathering is only a "significant purpose," rather than the "primary purpose." Because of this change, as long as intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" of the warrant, evidence gathered by what could otherwise be unconstitutional methods might be used for a criminal investigation. Second, the Patriot Act specifically lowers the threshold for obtaining a full collection warrant for Internet traffic. Instead of needing probable cause as required by Title III, the FBI now only needs to show that the information to be gathered is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." That is a much lower standard than showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. The third major change is that when a wiretap warrant is issued, the person whose communications are being captured is notified, though sometimes this notification is allowed to be after the fact. The Patriot Act now allows nearly any search to be made in secret. Finally, these changes made by the Patriot Act are not limited to surveillance of suspected terrorists, but apply to all surveillance cases.

So, the bottom line is that the FBI can now get a warrant to capture all your Internet communications by showing that your communications might be relevant to their investigation of a case. It does not have to be a case that directly involves you, nor do they need to show probable cause that you have committed any crime. The data would be collected using the Carnivore tool, a tool that has no accountability. Should you be concerned about possible misuse of this technology? That's up to you to decide.

Executive Security Briefing

Here is one.

32 posted on 10/02/2002 9:47:45 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
And of course there is the A.C.L.U.
33 posted on 10/02/2002 9:50:48 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
You have lost no rights. The Patriot Act has restored all of them. If you disagree, you should remember that habeas corpus isn't a right, rather it's the Attorney Genral's Prerogative.
34 posted on 10/02/2002 9:55:18 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
The U.S. Constitution requires not only probable cause to search, but that you be notified of the search. This law- Section 213 of the Patriot Act -- circumvents the notice requirement of the 4th Amendment.
35 posted on 10/02/2002 9:55:46 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
BUMP for further discussion.
36 posted on 10/02/2002 9:58:08 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
I would come at this from a different perspective. First of all, we Americans now live in municipalities, counties and states that have created a blizzard of codes, rules and regulations to regulate everything from yard appearance to how we treat our children in public. Problem is these codes, etc. are not "positive" law and are passed under the "color of law" or an abrogation of the law. Most likely, 99.9% of these codes et al are NOT constitutional in nature and are unenforceable. (We are just ignorant of our circumstances and just go along with this nonsense.)

Dealing with any gov't. entity whether it's the schools, city police depts. or code enforcers is now all about attempting to comprehend their "policies", "procedures", etc. all of which attempt to restrict freedoms that previous generations always took for granted. When we have faceless, odorless and colorless gov't. entities full of robotic, non-thinking bureaucrats whose only purpose is to fully implement "policy" then we will see the gradual deterioration of our God-given constitutional rights which are INALIENABLE to be replaced by gov't. granted CIVIL rights which can changed, replaced or terminated at will by
gov't. types. Sounds more and more like we are becoming the new version of the Soviet Union.


37 posted on 10/02/2002 10:06:21 AM PDT by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jae471
The word "expressly" (or as you put it, specifically) does not appear in the tenth. If "expressly" had been placed in the Constitution, the Necessary and Proper of Art. I, Sec. 8 would have been repealed, making the Constitution no better than the Articles (or so Federalists argued). Madison, who drafted the first 12 proposed Amendments (10 of which are the Bill of rights, 1 was never ratified, and the last is the 27th Amendment) was heavily critized for this, since the opposition to the Constitution and the supporters of a bill of rights knew that the Amendment was mostly fluff and did little to restrict the power of Congress. That didn't stop ratification, since they felt a little was better than nothing.

What are you talking about? The Necessary and Proper clause only permits the making of legislation which is necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers. Those foregoing powers being the enumerated ones.

In other words, they are given the power to write laws to make their other powers a reality. They are not given a carte blance by this clause to invoke new powers not granted.

SD

38 posted on 10/02/2002 10:15:30 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
One of the worst losses we have suffered is when the government is now allowed to seize property for "suspected" drug dealing. The "suspected" person need never even be charged, much less convicted of any crime. This completely violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,"

Not only that, the Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from doing what it is not specifically directed to do. Recently it has simply assumed the opposite: that what the Constitution does not prohibit, the feds are allowed to do.
39 posted on 10/02/2002 10:26:42 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Section 216 of the PATRIOT ACT allows the government to tap your phone and computer without probable cause. Under this section, a judge MUST rubber stamp a warrant as long as law enforcement certifies that the surveillance is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." No probable cause of criminal activity is required to issue the warrant. This violates the probable cause provision of the 4th Amendment.

Further, Section 218 allows the government to carry out secret searches and wiretaps without showing probable cause merely by certifying that there is a "significant" foreign intelligence purpose. This also evades the 4th Amendment.

Section 802 creates the crime of "domestic terrorism." This criminalizes acts that "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion" or to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

This section would make just about any act of civil disobedience in protest against government policies into an act of domestic terrorism.

40 posted on 10/02/2002 10:26:53 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Smokers lost their right to smoke in their offices, restaurants, bars, and in some cases (parental custody cases) their own homes.

I read the whole document over again and I can't find where smoking is a Constitutionally protected right. Sorry.

41 posted on 10/02/2002 10:29:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I read the whole document over again and I can't find where smoking is a Constitutionally protected right. Sorry.

I assume you refer to the federal Constitution. It has no enumerated power to regulate smoking, and all non-enumerated powers are specifically prohibited and reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment:

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, your state may regulate smoking, or delegate such powers to localities, but only if its Constitution allows it.

Furthermore, rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized and protected by it. Not all rights need be enumerated to be recognized or protected, and the 9th Amendment was added to settle any doubts:

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

42 posted on 10/02/2002 10:38:25 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
Actually her main argument was that the Constitution was a flexible document and that the founding fathers knew that things would change and wanted the Constitution to be able to change along with the times.

"The establishment of our institutions," wrote President Monroe, "forms the most important epoch that history hath recorded. They extend unexampled felicity to the whole body of our fellow-citizens, and are the admiration of other nations. To preserve and hand them down in their utmost purity to the remotest ages will require the existence and practice of virtues and talents equal to those which were displayed in acquiring them. It is ardently hoped and confidently believed that these will not be wanting."

43 posted on 10/02/2002 10:45:50 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Bookmarking Bump; thanks.
44 posted on 10/02/2002 10:48:42 AM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
But where is smoking a right? Is drinking a right? Taking drugs? Driving a car? All those are regulated without running into any sort of Constitutional questions, 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.
45 posted on 10/02/2002 10:50:53 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But where is smoking a right? Is drinking a right? Taking drugs? Driving a car? All those are regulated without running into any sort of Constitutional questions, 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.

Ever heard of Prohibition? The federal gov't, at that time still somewhat controlled, realized a Constitutional amendment was needed in order to botain the power to regulate alcohol.

The federal gov't has no authority to regulate tobacco or drugs. These powers are reserved to the states or the people.

Likewise, the federal gov't has no authority to regulate driving.

SD

46 posted on 10/02/2002 10:55:20 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But where is smoking a right? Is drinking a right? Taking drugs? Driving a car?

All actions that do not inhibit the ability of others to similarly exercise their own rights are natural rights. They needn't be spelled out anywhere. The founders called this "the pursuit of happiness".

Driving a car is a bit special. You have a right to drive your own car, but if you drive it on property you don't own, you are subject to the property owner's rules.

All those are regulated without running into any sort of Constitutional questions, 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.

You are saying that if we ignore parts of the Constitution, your theory has no constitutional issues? Well, if I hop in the ocean and ignore water, being wet isn't an issue either.

Besides, the Constitution has the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments built in. They were only added because some of the founders were wise enough to know we needed to spell them out specifically. They saw you coming 200 years away.

47 posted on 10/02/2002 11:12:11 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
While I agree with you, the SCOTUS hasn't for the last 180 years. Read the debates between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians about the creation of the First National Bank, and see the case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) about creation of the Second National Bank, where the USSC gave Congress "implied powers". Since then, we've been on the slippery slope, such that every time a Congresscritter wanted pork outside the enumerated powers, they just cried "Necessary and Proper".

The dialogue between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians gives good insight into the intended meaning of the Necessary and Proper clause and the Xth, since both were the written by a Jeffersonian.

48 posted on 10/02/2002 11:21:28 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Yeah the slipper-slope arguement works for anything.

"We would never make customers pay extra taxes for cigarettes, only the large corporations"

"The customer should be paying taxes for the medicare costs the smoker will be using later in life"

"Smokers should pay extra taxes since it is an anti-social behavior and they need motivation to stop"

"Cigarette taxes should be raised to discourage teen smoking"

"Smoking puts non smokers at risk, and therefore should be banned in all public places."

"Smoking should be banned"

"We would never make customers pay extra taxes for fast food, only the large corporations"

And on and on the cycle continues!
49 posted on 10/02/2002 11:22:16 AM PDT by chudogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mtngrl@vrwc
I strongly recommend James Bovard's frightening little volume Lost Rights - the Destruction of American Liberty. I think the government will still allow you to purchase it...
50 posted on 10/02/2002 11:23:18 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 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