View Poll Results: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 18.18%
  • No

    11 50.00%
  • Quite (but we can still fight)

    3 13.64%
  • Quietly

    3 13.64%
  • Don't know

    1 4.55%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

  1. #11
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    at what point can you declare them practically obsolete?

    where is the line in the sand between watered down and ignored vs practically obsolete?
    I think what's happening here is we're disagreeing over a choice of words, so let me try and state my position a little more clearly.

    "Obsolete," to me, indicates something which has been replaced by something else -- preferably something which is superior. The touch-tone phone rendered the rotary-dial phone obsolete. Color television rendered black-and-white television obsolete.

    Terms like "watered-down" and "ignored" suggest, to me, that rather than being replaced with something superior the thing in question has become less symbolic and more binding.

    So-called "free-speech zones" are an example of something which water down our First Amendment protections.

    The Third Amendment (no quartering of troops) is the only one which is honestly obsolete -- mainly because of practicality more than any law. If the military ever did opt to house troops in a private citizen's home, it'd be a sign that the collapse of the government is imminent -- civilian homes simply aren't secure enough to store the gear, equipment and vehicles of war, much less the soldiers themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    In my opinion the first law that goes against the rights given attempts to make the rights invalid, if approved, the law is illegal, but has also invalidated the rights. A legal limbo indeed. problem is most courts would grant favour to new laws over constitutional rights, unfortunately those judges decide.
    Even if a new law directly contradicts one of our Constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) freedoms, it's not the law that does the damage. Such a law would inevitably be challenged in court. It's the upper-level bench that makes the decisions which ultimately decide between the law and our liberties.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  2. #12
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    In many ways, constitutional rights have been expanded just as much as narrowed, such as implied rights to privacy, or Miranda warnings, or safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures in casual encounters with police (Terry v Ohio). The bill of rights, and subsequent amendments, are very general, and while some ought to be taken more literally (like the first), some are a little vague. The comma in the second amendment comes to mind, as does defining exactly what is or is not a reasonable search or seizure.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #13
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    The expansions you're talking about are roughly 40 years old. My impression of case law over the last 20 years or so is that judges have become more likely to interpret law and precedent in ways that give the government a lot more leeway.

    Take, for example, a guy with a laptop that has an encrypted partition. The government got the laptop during the execution of a lawful search warrant, and it wants the contents of the partition for evidence against the owner -- but it's not a national security issue, and it doesn't want to admit in open court it's got the resources to brute-force it in short order.

    The obvious solution, from their perspective? Ask a judge to order their target to give up his password so they can unlock the partition at will.

    I don't know about you, but my first impression on a situation like this is that the judge would laugh at the prosecution -- how does forcing someone to give up a password not constitute compelling them to give evidence against themselves?

    Even so: United States v. Boucher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  4. #14
    Human 2.0
    Maximus Zeebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Europe
    Last Seen
    09-07-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,568

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    The expansions you're talking about are roughly 40 years old. My impression of case law over the last 20 years or so is that judges have become more likely to interpret law and precedent in ways that give the government a lot more leeway.

    Take, for example, a guy with a laptop that has an encrypted partition. The government got the laptop during the execution of a lawful search warrant, and it wants the contents of the partition for evidence against the owner -- but it's not a national security issue, and it doesn't want to admit in open court it's got the resources to brute-force it in short order.

    The obvious solution, from their perspective? Ask a judge to order their target to give up his password so they can unlock the partition at will.

    I don't know about you, but my first impression on a situation like this is that the judge would laugh at the prosecution -- how does forcing someone to give up a password not constitute compelling them to give evidence against themselves?

    Even so: United States v. Boucher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    This is a good example... Mostly because in some European countries it has become law that people who have encrypted something have to give the password when told so by the courts, otherwise they risk adding to their penalty. we however in the European charter of fundamental rights have no right saying we have the right not to be witness against ourself. we can ofcourse shutup and have no practical obligation, but no protection by right.

    I think the give your password law is absurd.
    Europe is illegally occupied by the US

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    simple question really..

    Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights".Opinion, not fact No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

    what do you think?
    ...
    Why is it that so many cannot accept the fact that "rights" must be limited ??
    The new laws define these limits, the basic rights remain.

  6. #16
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    I think the give your password law is absurd.
    I completely agree.

    I remember the key escrow debate back in the 90s -- key escrow being the process by which the government would've been handed a copy of any encryption key generated, so that if they got a warrant they could use their copy of the key to decrypt whatever is covered by the search warrant. When the fledgling Internet community balked, the retort was predictable -- if we can't have everybody's encryption keys, child pornographers will murder your children and get away with it because all their bragging e-mails will be encrypted!

    Ultimately, I'm a big fan of advances in technology, technique and procedure that make it easier (and safer!) for our law enforcement professionals to do their jobs. Their role in society is a noble and necessary one. All the same, I'm not about to sell out my basic freedoms to that end. The law is supposed to serve as a tool for the protection of my rights, so it seems a little counterproductive to sacrifice my rights to the law.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #17
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    ...
    Why is it that so many cannot accept the fact that "rights" must be limited ??
    Why is it that so many fail to understand that constitutional rights is a restriction on what the government do? Being ruled by some inbred little dictator from across the ocean left our founding forefathers with a serious mistrust of governments. This is why the constitution was written the way it is. This is why they wrote the first ten amendments ensuring that the people can speak their minds, practice their religion without government interference, have the means to overthrow the government should it become tyranical, not have the government unreasonable search you or your property(houses, papers, and effects) and so on.


    The new laws define these limits, the basic rights remain.
    The only thing that can alter,add or remove constitutional rights is new amendment. No fraudulent interpretation or playing the lets pass a unconstitutional law now and let them fight it in courts for years or decades.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #18
    Educator ronpaulvoter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 04:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    627

    Re: Has "the bill of rights" been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra View Post
    simple question really..

    Many new laws in the US go against the rights granted in "the bill of rights". No specific example should be mentioned by me, because there are hundreds even thousands of laws that go against the "bill of rights". In my opinion, so many laws go against the "bill of rights" that it in practice has been made obsolete by 200 years of new laws.

    what do you think?
    The 200 new laws DON'T make the Bill of Rights obsolete.

    The Bill of Rights makes the 200 new laws INVALID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    REPEAL THEM!!!!!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •