• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The forgotten amendments

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While we spend a great deal of time shooting holes in each other's interpretation of the Second Amendment (good pun, huh?) and occasionally talking the First to death (Oh, I'm good), we seem to have forgotten several other important amendments, to wit:

[h=3]Amendment IV[/h]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.

[h=3]Patriot Act? Electronic surviellance? Time to take a good look at that one.



Amendment V
[/h]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


[h=3]Asset forfeiture laws have been on the books now for, what, 30 years? How is that not depriving citizens of property without due process?

Amendment VI
[/h]In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.




That one still works if you can afford it. If not, well, you just might be SOL.

[h=3]Amendment X[/h]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.


.


As the federal government gets more and more power, that one goes unnoticed


Finally:

Article XIV:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2.

There's that pesky word, "property" again, and yet, asset forfeiture laws are still around.

What's your favorite ignored Constitutional amendment? Why?
 
I think the most heartbreaking is 4, primarily because those rights were forfeited because of an irrational fear of a statistically insignificant criminal element (aka terrorists), which was somehow branded as an act of patriotism. (Hence: Patriot Act). In fact, it gave the terrorists a bigger win than they could have ever hoped for. Very sad.
 
I see the 1stA as preeminent.

Without an idea, nothing comes forth.

And we must never allow our government to stifle or control our ideas and thoughts.

This great republic sprang forth from an idea! That men were created equal, and all should be free to pursue life and liberty! And that idea was codified in the Constitution. With the right to freely express our further ideas being specifically guaranteed.

So there ya' go!
 
I think the most heartbreaking is 4, primarily because those rights were forfeited because of an irrational fear of a statistically insignificant criminal element (aka terrorists), which was somehow branded as an act of patriotism. (Hence: Patriot Act). In fact, it gave the terrorists a bigger win than they could have ever hoped for. Very sad.
Agreed.

And not just through the Patriot Act (what a terrible misnomer!), but through the War on Drugs as well.

I'm old enough to have known and lived in a time before the DEA, asset forfeiture, and financial monitoring. We had so much more personal freedom then! There truly was a general feeling of "innocent until proven guilty", and "let a man live his own life". It permeated society. Well, not anymore. And it does break my heart.

I long for the liberal freedoms of the Warren Court.
 
Agreed.

And not just through the Patriot Act (what a terrible misnomer!), but through the War on Drugs as well.

I'm old enough to have known and lived in a time before the DEA, asset forfeiture, and financial monitoring. We had so much more personal freedom then! There truly was a general feeling of "innocent until proven guilty", and "let a man live his own life". It permeated society. Well, not anymore. And it does break my heart.

I long for the liberal freedoms of the Warren Court.

I think it's what the world admired about you guys...and despite all the trash talk and what not, I feel sorry for all of you, sincerely. I just don't understand how you guys let it happen...I guess fear is a powerful thing. :(
 
The Thirteenth Amendment is my choice. Not only did it end slavery but also indentured labour. Slavery is gone but indentured labour remains and wage slavery is a growing concern.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
I see the 1stA as preeminent.

Without an idea, nothing comes forth.

And we must never allow our government to stifle or control our ideas and thoughts.

This great republic sprang forth from an idea! That men were created equal, and all should be free to pursue life and liberty! And that idea was codified in the Constitution. With the right to freely express our further ideas being specifically guaranteed.

So there ya' go!

Agreed on the importance of the first, but is it really being ignored, do you think?
 
I think it's what the world admired about you guys...and despite all the trash talk and what not, I feel sorry for all of you, sincerely. I just don't understand how you guys let it happen...I guess fear is a powerful thing. :(
[long]

Having the added prospective of observing our country over some time, I can tell you exactly how these things happened - and continue to happen:

It generally happens not in a huge step, even though the Patriot Act was one such event and may reflect society's more recent willingness to accept government intrusion. But rather, it often occurs in a continuous build-up of small seemingly innocuous incremental steps.

Nixon instated the DEA just before leaving office. But at that time full 4th amendment protections remained. Your car could not be searched without a warrant. The police were not allowed to look in your wallet. There was no legal tie between illegal drugs and your personal possessions, property, money, or other assets. Even if one was convicted of drug dealing, there was no mechanism to attach one's property. There was no drug testing. There was no alert dog used to circumvent the 4th. There was no confiscation of cash on one's person, with or without the presence of illegal drugs. Etc, etc., etc.

Hard to believe, huh?

The DEA initially only provided a federal agency as a high-level single-point alternative to the various agencies that individually handled narcotics crimes (Customs, FBI, etc). It handled only very high level dealing, often international, and had several hundred agents. It added no additional laws. It was only as time went on, starting early under the Reagans, that more features were added. It was then that financial monitoring of American's money was instated, with of course the IRS getting a copy as well! Then in the mid 80's, confiscation of one's money when found guilty of drug dealing was instated. But it was initially done through a separate court case, only after a dealing conviction, and only involving the proceeds proven to be directly gained from the drug dealing. Somewhere along the line, I'm not sure where, the need for guilt became removed for asset forfeiture.

Going into the 90's we saw new infringements like mandatory employee drug testing, no knock warrants, and DUI stops not requiring reasonable suspicion, along with the seizing of vehicles and other assets for mere possession. The new millennium gave us additional great things like alert dogs, the seizing of cash without the presence of drugs, flash grenades, and mandatory drug-testing of school kids in activities.

This is all off the top of my head, and stuff I remember through life. The exact years might be pretty close, but I can't claim them to be perfectly. There's so much I'm sure I don't know of, and some I'm sure I forgot.

But the main point is: Small incremental things are continuously slipped into legislation to remove our freedoms, and it often takes many years until these things accumulate into something unrecognizable to the seemingly innocuous original! I'm pretty sure no one from my generation would have allowed that very first step to take place, if they could foresee how it was to play out over the decades. But that's how incremental government works, and why even the most benign appearing abridgment to even the smallest freedom must be resisted.

My kids grew-up in a world where they must first prove they are drug-free to participate in life, and where the police set-up vehicular road blocks to inspect them for something they might have done. To my kids, this is normal. And of course their normal, which is my abridged abnormal, will incrementally change over time to something even they can't imagine, further eroding our freedoms. Sadly. Unless they keep extremely vigilant watch.

This was inadvertently exceedingly long, thanks for reading if you got through it!
 
I think the most heartbreaking is 4, primarily because those rights were forfeited because of an irrational fear of a statistically insignificant criminal element (aka terrorists), which was somehow branded as an act of patriotism. (Hence: Patriot Act). In fact, it gave the terrorists a bigger win than they could have ever hoped for. Very sad.

Oh, it goes waaaaay further back than just that. Conservatives have been gleefully shredding the 4th w/both fists now with the WOD for years.
 
Agreed on the importance of the first, but is it really being ignored, do you think?
I don't know if it's being ignored, but I do consider it the linchpin of democracy, the amendment upon which freedom is built.

I do see Trump and his supporters pushing back a bit. Trump believes those that burn the flag should be jailed, even though flag burning is a specifically protected form of free speech.

There also are calls to end the play portraying Trump as Ceasar, and I do sense a general push-back from Trump supporters on speech or art that is derogatory of Trump.

But the 1st is put there specifically to protect the speech that the government and majority of the citizenry do not like. That's it's purpose.

In addition, I think the PC culture involving speech at many of our universities is an infringement. Not in a technical legal sense since universities and colleges can be private entities and the 1st doesn't legal apply to them, but in a general sense since I can't imagine anyplace that should be more open to diversity of opinion than a university campus.

But yeah, I do feel like I'm sensing a dislike of free speech from the administration and it's supporters. Trump's war on media he doesn't approve of, is one example.
 
[long]

Having the added prospective of observing our country over some time, I can tell you exactly how these things happened - and continue to happen:

It generally happens not in a huge step, even though the Patriot Act was one such event and may reflect society's more recent willingness to accept government intrusion. But rather, it often occurs in a continuous build-up of small seemingly innocuous incremental steps.

Nixon instated the DEA just before leaving office. But at that time full 4th amendment protections remained. Your car could not be searched without a warrant. The police were not allowed to look in your wallet. There was no legal tie between illegal drugs and your personal possessions, property, money, or other assets. Even if one was convicted of drug dealing, there was no mechanism to attach one's property. There was no drug testing. There was no alert dog used to circumvent the 4th. There was no confiscation of cash on one's person, with or without the presence of illegal drugs. Etc, etc., etc.

Hard to believe, huh?

The DEA initially only provided a federal agency as a high-level single-point alternative to the various agencies that individually handled narcotics crimes (Customs, FBI, etc). It handled only very high level dealing, often international, and had several hundred agents. It added no additional laws. It was only as time went on, starting early under the Reagans, that more features were added. It was then that financial monitoring of American's money was instated, with of course the IRS getting a copy as well! Then in the mid 80's, confiscation of one's money when found guilty of drug dealing was instated. But it was initially done through a separate court case, only after a dealing conviction, and only involving the proceeds proven to be directly gained from the drug dealing. Somewhere along the line, I'm not sure where, the need for guilt became removed for asset forfeiture.

Going into the 90's we saw new infringements like mandatory employee drug testing, no knock warrants, and DUI stops not requiring reasonable suspicion, along with the seizing of vehicles and other assets for mere possession. The new millennium gave us additional great things like alert dogs, the seizing of cash without the presence of drugs, flash grenades, and mandatory drug-testing of school kids in activities.

This is all off the top of my head, and stuff I remember through life. The exact years might be pretty close, but I can't claim them to be perfectly. There's so much I'm sure I don't know of, and some I'm sure I forgot.

But the main point is: Small incremental things are continuously slipped into legislation to remove our freedoms, and it often takes many years until these things accumulate into something unrecognizable to the seemingly innocuous original! I'm pretty sure no one from my generation would have allowed that very first step to take place, if they could foresee how it was to play out over the decades. But that's how incremental government works, and why even the most benign appearing abridgment to even the smallest freedom must be resisted.

My kids grew-up in a world where they must first prove they are drug-free to participate in life, and where the police set-up vehicular road blocks to inspect them for something they might have done. To my kids, this is normal. And of course their normal, which is my abridged abnormal, will incrementally change over time to something even they can't imagine, further eroding our freedoms. Sadly. Unless they keep extremely vigilant watch.

This was inadvertently exceedingly long, thanks for reading if you got through it!
Al due respect, but it happens because a-the citizens of this country let it happen, and b-people will assign status to one amendment over the other. They are all important...to the point of sacred. It is the mindset that says "I like this right, but I dont mind if those rights are taken" that creates opportunity for government to strip its citizens.
 
Al due respect, but it happens because a-the citizens of this country let it happen, and b-people will assign status to one amendment over the other. They are all important...to the point of sacred. It is the mindset that says "I like this right, but I dont mind if those rights are taken" that creates opportunity for government to strip its citizens.
In the large sense, you are right.

But in practical terms, we can't control our legislature and administration between votes!

Look at the Senate right now, with the healthcare bill. They are hiding-out in Washington, so as not to face their citizen constituents where the bill is receiving 17% support! How can you stop them? Until the next election? You can't.
 
In the large sense, you are right.

But in practical terms, we can't control our legislature and administration between votes!

Look at the Senate right now, with the healthcare bill. They are hiding-out in Washington, so as not to face their citizen constituents where the bill is receiving 17% support! How can you stop them? Until the next election? You can't.

We have to remember that the Patriot Act passed with near unanimous support and most of those that voted for it are still in office. Most Americans at the time supported it. There was no voices dissent and no consequence. Even now, the opposition to the Patriot Act doesn't just break down along party lines...it breaks down to which party is in the office at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We have to remember that the Patriot Act passed with near unanimous support and most of those that voted for it are still in office. Most Americans at the time supported it. There was no voices dissent and no consequence. Even now, the opposition to the Patriot Act doesn't just break down along party lines...it breaks down to which party is in the office at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wasn't speaking about parties at all, but yes you are right here.

Also I don't remember majority citizen support for the Patriot Act, but rather a divided populace over it. No American should have supported it in the guise it was passed. And secret courts? That right there should have resulted in a unanimous "No"!
 
While we spend a great deal of time shooting holes in each other's interpretation of the Second Amendment (good pun, huh?) and occasionally talking the First to death (Oh, I'm good), we seem to have forgotten several other important amendments, to wit:


[h=3]Patriot Act? Electronic surviellance? Time to take a good look at that one.





[h=3]Asset forfeiture laws have been on the books now for, what, 30 years? How is that not depriving citizens of property without due process?





That one still works if you can afford it. If not, well, you just might be SOL.



.


As the federal government gets more and more power, that one goes unnoticed


Finally:

Article XIV:



There's that pesky word, "property" again, and yet, asset forfeiture laws are still around.

What's your favorite ignored Constitutional amendment? Why?

The 4th Amendment is my pet obsession. Yes, it has been raped, repeatedly.
 
The most forgotten amendment is the third. We actually had a case where it came into play but it is the only one I have heard of ever.
 
We have to remember that the Patriot Act passed with near unanimous support and most of those that voted for it are still in office. Most Americans at the time supported it. There was no voices dissent and no consequence. Even now, the opposition to the Patriot Act doesn't just break down along party lines...it breaks down to which party is in the office at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I seem to remember the Patriot Act facing some serious opposition, and suddenly some government manufactured Anthrax went out in the mail. Funny how people in the House and Senate got on board after that.
 
Police stops meant to catch drunk drivers in a random dragnet seem to violate the Fourth Amendment by not requiring reasonable suspicion, but I tend to agree with the majority of the Supreme Court that even so, they do not violate it.

I'm much more concerned, though, about the apparent slighting of the Second Amendment right by some members of the Supreme Court, which Justice Thomas has lamented several times. That individual right is one of a select group of rights, which includes the ones guaranteed by the First Amendment, that the Court considers fundamental. Or at least the Court treated it as a fundamental right in both cases in which it fully construed the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald. But now it seems to have become a red-headed stepchild, with no more than lip service being paid to its fundamental status. It has been seven years since McDonald, and whenever the chance to draw the boundaries of the Second Amendment right more clearly has presented itself, the required four justices who wanted to hear the cases could not be found.

I am convinced that the individual right to keep and bear arms is just as important to our ordered scheme of individual liberties as the freedom of speech. True liberals strongly support both these rights, and today most of them are usually called "conservatives."
 
I seem to remember the Patriot Act facing some serious opposition, and suddenly some government manufactured Anthrax went out in the mail. Funny how people in the House and Senate got on board after that.
There were a few consistent opposition voices...Rand Paul and Dennis Kucenich for example. But the dems did what they always do...passed it and then bitched about it. Similarly, the GOP did what THEY always do...supported it when the GOP was in charge of the White House but suddenly found their voice when Obama took over. Not coincidentally...when Obama took over, democrats began justifying the wireless warrants and wiretapping.

Opposition has been politically motivated...not based on the act but on party.
 
There were a few consistent opposition voices...Rand Paul and Dennis Kucenich for example. But the dems did what they always do...passed it and then bitched about it. Similarly, the GOP did what THEY always do...supported it when the GOP was in charge of the White House but suddenly found their voice when Obama took over. Not coincidentally...when Obama took over, democrats began justifying the wireless warrants and wiretapping.

Opposition has been politically motivated...not based on the act but on party.

That matches my recollection. The libs and libertarians opposed on principle (and common sense, imo).

Watching the principle free lifers jump from side to side based on political expediency is pretty sickening.
 
While we spend a great deal of time shooting holes in each other's interpretation of the Second Amendment (good pun, huh?) and occasionally talking the First to death (Oh, I'm good), we seem to have forgotten several other important amendments, to wit:


[h=3]Patriot Act? Electronic surviellance? Time to take a good look at that one.





[h=3]Asset forfeiture laws have been on the books now for, what, 30 years? How is that not depriving citizens of property without due process?





That one still works if you can afford it. If not, well, you just might be SOL.



.


As the federal government gets more and more power, that one goes unnoticed


Finally:

Article XIV:



There's that pesky word, "property" again, and yet, asset forfeiture laws are still around.

What's your favorite ignored Constitutional amendment? Why?

The asset forfeiture is total bs and is getting abused.
 
Back
Top Bottom