Where do our freedoms come from?

Monday, January 05, 2009 -

Ah well, it was nice while it lasted. New User off AGAIN due to people being pains *sigh*....to join, e.mail Feckless Wench at morticiacemetaria@hotmail.com

Home

Current Posts

There Ought To Be A Law

Viewed: 155

Where do our freedoms come from?

With the new President comming on line soon I have noticed many of my friends and co-workers talking more and more about our freedoms, some lost, some gained, and how they are going to change.

Recent stories of gun sales increasing in America after Obama won the election is a good point, people think the ability to own firearms will be attacked in this next administration.

But where do our freedoms come from? Many seem to think out Constitution provides us a gurantee to freedom but does it? Where are our freedoms put to the test, In my opinion, out freedoms are not provided or protected from our Constitution but instead is put into place by Judges and our legal system as a whole to include law enforcement.

Consider that we have laws saying we can only drive 70 MPH on the highway, sure you can get a ticket if you exceed that speed but on the whole, 99% of all speeders never get a ticket. This could be easily fixed by placing lots of cops on the highway and giving out tickets to everyone but we don't, so is it "really' illegal to speed if we don't enforce the law?

Judges over ride laws all the time, they make decisions to ignore or adjust the intent of the laws every day and this creats something called case law. Case law is considered way more powerful then written laws and not one legislator ever voted on the case law.

Another example:

The fourth amendment allows people to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures �".

But how is this right governed and controlled? By the courts. The rules for evidence gathering and presentation to a judicial system is completely set up by the courts, not the people. Not one legislator has voted on these procedures. Then while the court has set the rules, it also has allowed there to be "exigent circumstances" where all your rights can be set aside.

Last example:

In most states, once a man has been declared to be the father of a child and ordered to pay child support, that status can never be change, even if you offer DNA evidence proving your not the father, you are still forced to pay to support children that are not yours. Again, this is a process outside of the constitution put into place by judges who feel supporting a child is more important than an individual person's rights.

So share with me your views of the idea of a constitution and the reality of our day to day lives with enforcement.

Replies

11/18/2008 6:30:37 PM From: whogo Originally the constitution was grounded in natural law. The belief as enunciated in the declaration that there were certain inalienable rights that an individual had that were not subject to a vote of the populace. Sadly, activist judges have rendered the constitution practically worthless.


11/18/2008 10:26:47 PM From: ImWithStupid I agree with whogo on this. Originally the Constitution said what the Federal Government was able to do. The rest was left to the states to decide. My opinion is that this is where things should be. The Federal Government limited to the Constitution unless given more liberties through Amendments ratified by the states. I also subscribe to the Libertarian view that outside of what the Constitution limits, you are free to be and do as you wish as long as what you do doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else to do the same. Unfortunately since the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson who raped the Constitution and laid landscape for Congress and Judges to legislate and govern outside of the Constitution, who was followed by the next next largest raping of the constitution under FDR who continued the manipulation and distortion of our intended system of government, followed by LBJ, George W. Bush and I hope to God but fear what horrors to the ideals of our Nation's Founders under the next administrations, barely resembles what was intended through this experiment in a Democratic Republic. I only hope the best for the Nation's eternity, but fear it is bleak in the near future. I fear we are rapidly going the way of Rome.


11/19/2008 3:24:36 AM From: Rani "you are free to be and do as you wish as long as what you do doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else to do the same." why is it then so many people fight Gay marriage?


11/19/2008 5:20:00 AM From: BCAR Because God Hate Fags


11/19/2008 5:24:44 AM From: BCAR Sorry "Hates" to quote the Westboro Church folks. And maybe they enjoy freedoms as well and think that gay marriage infringes on them. Rani - Marriage is a State regulated legal matter, Not a constitutional right. Nothing is standing in the way of any two pillow biters holding hands and saying, "we're married". The legal defininition is another matter and as Mass. and Conn. have shown can be legislated at the state level.


11/19/2008 6:07:52 AM From: MrsK I belive that "Case Law" is highly unconstitutional, and that Judges who abuse thier power by allowing the laws to be manipulated in such a manner should be held accountable for thier actions. Maybe I am going in another direction with this post but I must voice this concern. Every year many people incarcerated are proved innocent and released, some are released on technicalities, others are exonorated. It is those who are innocent of which I am refferecing at this time. Example, a man from Florida was released yesterday after nearly 28 YEARS in prison. I know this man, he sat with my husband and I at our own table, I know his wife, we were pleasant accquaintances. Mr. Dilon served 28 years in prison for a crime that he did not committ. DNA evidence has proven this. Yet it took nearly a year after the evidence was submitted to get him a new trial. Why? If a man is innocent, why does the court have a right to make them wait so long for thier chance to be free? Why do they have to go through another trial, another hardship, another expensive bonding? Because they CAN? And what can we expect from the system that incarcerated this innocent man in a way of compensation for the loss of thirty years of his life? Nothing. Sorry if I went in another direction, but this story has hit so very close to home. I watched him ont he news yesterday and just wept for joy at his homecoming. Anywho, I may post about this later. I have to run for now. Bottom line is that the same system that prosecutes criminals should also be held accountable when it prosecutes and convicts non-criminals.


11/19/2008 2:13:29 PM From: Rani Exactly marriage is not a constitutional right, so people need to stop amending constitutions, even State ones, to push forth personal religious beliefs. From a legal standpoint, there is zero reason to prevent anyone from making their union a legalized contract. (Plus, I just wanted to mess with TJ)


11/20/2008 5:54:26 AM From: timesjoke An interesting point on the line of what IWS said about Rome and Rani mentioning gays. Before the fall of Rome a very clear change happened. They departed from the faith that had previously held them together, and personal excesses became the driving force of every day life. Things previously believed to be wrong and immoral became accepted. One such example is homosexuality. Homosexuality was considered good and even trendy. Most politicians had a young assistant just like American politicians. In fact we call them pages just like Roman politicians. In Roman times a page was a young homosexual lover kept by politicians. Today homosexual relationships with pages are becomming more common and some states have made homosexuals a disadvantaged class. While both sides of the asile have had their problems with this issue only the Liberals have actually condoned this behavoir. In one such case a liberal lawmaker not only had a sexual relationship with a minor boy but even took him to Jamaica on vacations. After the reality of his actions were fully known by his party, he was still fully supported for reelection 6 more times and received millions of dollars from his party to keep him in office, as well as placing him on several powerful committies. Yes, things are starting to sound a lot like Rome.


11/20/2008 6:04:15 AM From: timesjoke MrsK, I agree on the case law point, that is why I mentioned it and in my opinion, the genie is out of the bottle now, Judges are the real power now, not our constitution. As far as the guy who was in prison being compensated, it sounds messed up but I don't see any intentional wrong done by anyone but those who may have lied in court against this man. Now that there is proof he is innocent, I would think some actions possible against those who pointed him out as the guilty party. If people were held more responsible to what they testify to, maybe the public would take it more seriously.


11/20/2008 8:26:23 AM From: whogo â��Man... hath by nature a power .... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men.â�� John Locke That is the thinking behind the formation of our Constitution. Before the socialists decided a majority of one can steal the property of others and disperse it as they wish.


11/20/2008 9:07:12 AM From: BCAR Before the government can give a dollar to someone they have to take a dollar from someone else. -- Ronald Reagan (talking at a level that even most liberals should understand.)


11/20/2008 10:03:59 AM From: timesjoke But a more accurate example is that to give a dollar to someone they have to take two from someone else, waste 1 dollar on government red tape and buracracy and give the other dollar to the intended person.