• 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 Constitution Would Make Good Toilet Paper.

jimbo said:
Your're correct concerning the SCOTUS statement concerning free speech. I didn't bother to quote the full statement since I assumed most people are aware of the full statement.

You're not correct with the 99% thingy. That's the newly coined Comey definition concocted to let Hillary off the hook. But breaking the law is breaking the law. A LEO or a judge may dismiss the charge and sometimes do. That doesn't change the law.
Click to expand...

If you knew Jack didly squat about the legal system (which you don't) you would know it was constructed to insure justice and not to insure obedience to laws. It is not a LEO or a Judge that decides guilt or innocence in the legal system, it is a jury of Citizens.
The jury has the right and the responsibility to examine both the evidence of wrongdoing and the issue of weather a crime was actually committed. If the jury determines that the law was broken, but no crime was committed they are well within their power as jurors to find the defendant not guilty. Just because a group of asshats in Washington or the State Capitol decide to pass a law does not in any way shape or form obligate the Citizens to agree that the law is just or should be enforced. The real separation of powers is that the legislators can pass laws, the judicial can interpret the laws that legislators pass, but ultimately it is the Citzens in the form of juror's who decide if in their opinion the law is just and whether or not to enforce it. The problem is the vast majority of Citizens are as ignorant as you are about the law and simply do as they are told because they are too stupid and lazy to become educated about the law, the Constitution, and their duty as Citizens.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Wrong.

The Bill of Rights protects an individual from the Government blocking their right to speak.

It does not guarantee that an individual has the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want.

You have the right to assemble with others and say whatever you want. That does not mean you have the right to stand up in another lawful assembly and say whatever you want.

You really do not understand this, do you?
Click to expand...

Define " another lawful assembly"
 
jdog said:
Define " another lawful assembly"
Click to expand...

Come on now, really? Any meeting of 3 or more people in a public location for any purposes that do not break nor conspire to break any laws.

In other words, meeting up with 20 people in the park to play baseball is legal. Meeting up with 20 people in a park with baseball bats to go and rough up a political group meeting across the street who you do not like is unlawful.

The problem in this last year is that individuals on the far left have turned increasingly towards acts of violence. That is not protected free speech, nor is attempting to intimidate opponents.

But hey, you just keep on being you.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Wrong.

The Bill of Rights protects an individual from the Government blocking their right to speak.

It does not guarantee that an individual has the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want.

You have the right to assemble with others and say whatever you want. That does not mean you have the right to stand up in another lawful assembly and say whatever you want.

You really do not understand this, do you?
Click to expand...

That's isn't accurate. If I'm in a public place, talking about politics, you can't punch me in the mouth to shut me up. That's a civil rights violation, on top of assault.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Come on now, really? Any meeting of 3 or more people in a public location for any purposes that do not break nor conspire to break any laws.

In other words, meeting up with 20 people in the park to play baseball is legal. Meeting up with 20 people in a park with baseball bats to go and rough up a political group meeting across the street who you do not like is unlawful.

The problem in this last year is that individuals on the far left have turned increasingly towards acts of violence. That is not protected free speech, nor is attempting to intimidate opponents.

But hey, you just keep on being you.
Click to expand...

Violence against others is always illegal. What has that got to do with free speech? You go on being you too, it is a little difficult to be anything else.....
 
apdst said:
That's isn't accurate. If I'm in a public place, talking about politics, you can't punch me in the mouth to shut me up. That's a civil rights violation, on top of assault.
Click to expand...

No kidding, is what I said.

Notice "Civil Rights"... key word there is "Civil". Not Constitutional.

Unless they are acting as a representative for a state agency (as in part of the government), an individual can not be charged with violating the 1st Amendment.

jdog said:
Violence against others is always illegal. What has that got to do with free speech? You go on being you too, it is a little difficult to be anything else.....
Click to expand...

Of course it is illegal, I never said otherwise.

Does not mean it is a direct violation of the Constitution however. That is something else completely different.
 
Oozlefinch said:
No kidding, is what I said.

Notice "Civil Rights"... key word there is "Civil". Not Constitutional.

Unless they are acting as a representative for a state agency (as in part of the government), an individual can not be charged with violating the 1st Amendment.



Of course it is illegal, I never said otherwise.

Does not mean it is a direct violation of the Constitution however. That is something else completely different.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights are our Civil Rights.
 
apdst said:
The Bill of Rights are our Civil Rights.
Click to expand...

No, the Bill of Rights are a listing of Political Rights. They protect us from the Government impeding on the rights given to us in them. The Constitution has not a damned thing to do with one individual "impeding" the rights of another individual.

It is the code of law that protects us from other citizens.

Come on, this is Constitutional Law 101 stuff here dude.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Click to expand...

Now show me where this has a damned thing to do with an individual against another individual.

Or let me guess, you are one of those that the Constitution wants it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
 
Oozlefinch said:
No, the Bill of Rights are a listing of Political Rights. They protect us from the Government impeding on the rights given to us in them. The Constitution has not a damned thing to do with one individual "impeding" the rights of another individual.

It is the code of law that protects us from other citizens.

Come on, this is Constitutional Law 101 stuff here dude.



Now show me where this has a damned thing to do with an individual against another individual.

Or let me guess, you are one of those that the Constitution wants it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
Click to expand...

You can't physically deny my civil rights. There was a whole movement about that. There's even a civil rights division within the DOJ.

The Constitution protects us from all tyranny, not just by the government.
 
apdst said:
You can't physically deny my civil rights. There was a whole movement about that. There's even a civil rights division within the DOJ.

The Constitution protects us from all tyranny, not just by the government.
Click to expand...

And it is handled differently from an individual does it than when a state entity does it.

Hence, in so many cases over and over again when the FBI and National Guard were called out in that era. They are the ones that went after government actors. Although most of the time, absolutely no actual actions were taken.

And those "civil rights violations" were generally unprosecuted, other than in the cases where other actual crimes occurred, like murder, arson, assault, etc.

But Civil Right is just that, a civil right. Now show me a single case where individuals acting as individuals were prosecuted for violating the 1st Amendment. Or the 2nd, or the 4th, or any of them.

Oh, and "Civil Rights" existed before the Constitution. Even before he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called them "Natural Rights".

But forgive me, but I am totally confused. "The Constitution protects us from all tyranny, not just by the government"? That is a complete and utter contradiction. Tyranny is tyranny because it is done by the Government.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And it is handled differently from an individual does it than when a state entity does it.

Hence, in so many cases over and over again when the FBI and National Guard were called out in that era. They are the ones that went after government actors. Although most of the time, absolutely no actual actions were taken.

And those "civil rights violations" were generally unprosecuted, other than in the cases where other actual crimes occurred, like murder, arson, assault, etc.

But Civil Right is just that, a civil right. Now show me a single case where individuals acting as individuals were prosecuted for violating the 1st Amendment. Or the 2nd, or the 4th, or any of them.

Oh, and "Civil Rights" existed before the Constitution. Even before he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called them "Natural Rights".

But forgive me, but I am totally confused. "The Constitution protects us from all tyranny, not just by the government"? That is a complete and utter contradiction. Tyranny is tyranny because it is done by the Government.
Click to expand...

.......

Within a few days of the disappearance, the FBI began an investigation, and members of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division visited Mississippi to learn what facts were available about their disappearance. On August 4, 1964, a paid informant of the FBI revealed the location of the bodies of the 3 young civil rights workers. They had been shot, and James Chaney, an African-American, had been severely beaten. In December, 1964, 19 white men, including the sheriff and his deputy, were arrested on state conspiracy charges, but the charges were later dropped. In 1967, after a federal prosecution for conspiracy to deny the young men's civil rights, 7 white men were convicted.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civi...-enforcement-and-hate-crimes-history-and.html
Click to expand...
 
dropzone said:
Take what it says about free speech. Those who agree with it can take that idea and stick it so far up up their ass that they would need a dentist to check the other end of it for head lice. Free speech isn't a god damned political issue. It's a mutha fukin HUMAN RIGHTS issue! A human right that as everybody knows, business' (such as political forums) can ignore at their leisure)

Also, the constitution was written by and for American citizens. But somehow, it has come to protect people in this country who aren't citizens. I think it's time we used the constitution as toilet paper and do an Ameri-exit.
Click to expand...

the constitution isn't relevant today. the constitution was written that the people might control the government , not the government control the people. -Patrick Henry. this is no longer true in amerika
 
As far as I know Non Citizens are only afforded the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

1st

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


5th

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 offence 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.


6th

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 defence.


8th

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
"The Constitution Would Make Good Toilet Paper."

It wouldn't actually. Who in their right mind would want to use used toilet paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom