Thread: Do you know your rights?

In today's shrill political environment we hear a lot of talk from a lot of "patriots" who are outraged about their prospective loss of rights and about this country's supposed drift towards socialism. The irony is -- and the research is clear about this -- very few Americans even know what their rights are. And for all their concern about the war in Afghanistan, few can locate the country on a world map. And as far as their concern about socialism goes, few know anything about socialism other than what they hear on cable TV.

Just for grins, try testing yourself about your knowledge of our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Can you name the five rights guaranteed to us in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights? Better yet, can you name the ten amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights; which, collectively, are the cornerstone of our democracy? If you can't do it, don't feel bad, very few Americans can.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be." In my opinion, the danger today is not socialism, it's ignorance. But, hey, what do I know?

I'm not in the states granted, but I don't really know my rights. I make it my business to find out the rights reguarding things that might cause me trouble if I did not know them, generally that's traffic laws and my rights and my rights reguarding carrying a knife.

my main concern is with not so much my rights as you describe. i am concerned with the outlandish expansion of the federal gov't into every aspect of our life(liberty and freedom from confiscatory taxes)
the federal gov't has a clearly defined role in the constitution and they choose to ignore it and expand no matter who's in power up there in D.C.
when one lawmaker was asked about the outreach of powers, he stated that
"99 percent of what we do here in congress is outside the constitution", that in itself is scary...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

my main concern is with not so much my rights as you describe. i am concerned with the outlandish expansion of the federal gov't into every aspect of our life(liberty and freedom from confiscatory taxes)
the federal gov't has a clearly defined role in the constitution and they choose to ignore it and expand no matter who's in power up there in D.C.
when one lawmaker was asked about the outreach of powers, he stated that
"99 percent of what we do here in congress is outside the constitution", that in itself is scary...

I agree with you. I believe in a minimalist government, which is why I joined the Republican Party 45 years ago. But it's precisely because I believe in a "less-is-more" government that I think it's important that each of us knows what the Constitution actually says about our individual rights and the respective roles of the federal and state governments.

under the bill of rights, it would be greatly appreciated if the feds would just read #10 each and every day before making some of the laws they force feed the citizens of the U.S.

To slap us, their subjects, around for the most part they really don't seem to give a flip about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any laws that they don't like, much less give a flip what we think or care about.

Vote the bums out.

"i am concerned with the outlandish expansion of the federal gov't into every aspect of our life(liberty and freedom from confiscatory taxes)"

Not sure that I can agree with you on this. For about 60 years ending in 1968 movie studios had to receive gv't approval before their movies could be released. People were thrown into jail for possession of "adult" material. Income tax rates are lower now than they were when Pres. Reagan was in office. Up thru the 1960's-70's the US government routinely spied on its own citizens. We have more legally recognized rights now than at any time in US history. Perhaps not to the same degree as was compelled by recent economic events, but in the late 70's/early 80's the government bailed out an auto manufacturer (Chrylser). In the 70's the US government waged a secret war, not initially revealed to the electorate, in Laos and Cambodia.
The passage of time clouds memories. But to my memory we enjoy more freedom and liberty vis-a-vis our government than at any time in recent history.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

my main concern is with not so much my rights as you describe. i am concerned with the outlandish expansion of the federal gov't into every aspect of our life(liberty and freedom from confiscatory taxes)
the federal gov't has a clearly defined role in the constitution and they choose to ignore it and expand no matter who's in power up there in D.C.
when one lawmaker was asked about the outreach of powers, he stated that
"99 percent of what we do here in congress is outside the constitution", that in itself is scary...

That is also in part because the founders who created the constitution and the bill of rights were rather vague, and described ideals, rather than being practical.

For example, the first amendement: freedom of speech. Yet yelling fire in a crowded theatre or things of that nature are illegal. Rightfully so, yet it is a technical violation of the constitution.

The second amendement: apart from the fact that it is pretty vague and can be interpreted in a number of ways (which was still argued until last year), it failed to set reasonable limits. Part of this was of course because they could not foresee today's arms race. Even if I think it is not unreasonable for private citizens to have and bear arms, I think they shouldn't have access to a nuclear bomb or stinger missiles. Yet that limitation is a technical violation of the constitution.

So for each amendement, there are cases that violate it, but which are totally practical or even necessary.

[QUOTE=Bruno;496962]That is also in part because the founders who created the constitution and the bill of rights were rather vague, and described ideals, rather than being practical.

For example, the first amendement: freedom of speech. Yet yelling fire in a crowded theatre or things of that nature are illegal. Rightfully so, yet it is a technical violation of the constitution.

The second amendement: apart from the fact that it is pretty vague and can be interpreted in a number of ways (which was still argued until last year), it failed to set reasonable limits. Part of this was of course because they could not foresee today's arms race. Even if I think it is not unreasonable for private citizens to have and bear arms, I think they shouldn't have access to a nuclear bomb or stinger missiles. Yet that limitation is a technical violation of the constitution.


bruno, you have good points there, but we need to apply common sense to both of your points. 1. yelling fire in a theatre would and did cause harm and death to others. that is why the law was put in place "for the common good of the people" one might say. 2. right to bear arms was of course referring to long guns and pistols, again common sense and common good would stop any fool from getting a nuclear bomb, rightfully so..
the language used in the documents were also backed up with the federalists papers in a large part. just like the "separation of church and state" this is no where in the constitution, but jefferson mentioned it in the federalist papers. also if continue to read that same federalist letter jefferson also stated that without christian values and the ten commandments as a starting point that our republic could and would not stand the test of time. jefferson was in my thoughts mostly a agnostic, but he realized the importance of religion in our country. also on the same note it was a CHRISTIAN religion that they referring to. the church of England being gov't run had left a bad taste in the founding fathers mouth.

A little music.