united states constitution and the law

Forums: United States Constitution
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is there a constitutional amendment or anything in the existing amendments which says the government can pass a law which takes away any constitutional rights that a united states citizen has ?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,445 • Replies: 16

[+3] - Setanta - 08/29/2018No--you should read the fourteenth amendment, which protects citizens' as well as, in some cases, all persons' rights to equal protection under the law and due process of law. This was one of the...
[+3] - Setanta - 08/29/2018[quote="McGentrix"]The second Amendment has more restrictions on it than you can shake a stick at for being such a simple amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be...
[+3] - Setanta - 08/29/2018The first clause [i]is[/i] material because it includes the requirement that the militia be well-regulated, and it is upon the basis of participation in the militia that the people may keep and...

No--you should read the fourteenth amendment, which protects citizens' as well as, in some cases, all persons' rights to equal protection under the law and due process of law. This was one of the "civil war amendments," and was proposed, passed and ratified by the states to protect the rights of former slaves.

Brief commentary and text of the fourteenth amendment at Cornell University Law School

1 Reply

@icreepin,

Section two of the fourteenth amendment says that voting rights can be taken away for rebellion and other crimes. That's what states use to take the vote from convicted criminals.

0 Replies

The franchise was never constitutionally established. Do a web search on Shays' Rebellion. It took place in western Massachusetts in about 1787. It was launched against the so-called River Gods, the powerful men in the Connecticut River valley, and the original grievance was the seizure of the land of men who were serving in the Continental Army, seizure for the failure to pay property taxes, and a franchise limited by property ownership. The Massachusetts legislature co-opted the rebellion by extending the franchise to all adult, white males (after sending state militia to put down the insurrection). Shays himself was a farmhand, and could not vote because he was not a property owner. Most of the states responded by passing such a measure. (Pennsylvania allowed women who were widows and owned property to vote. When they re-wrote their franchiser legislation a few years later, they dropped that provision.) The constitutional convention convened in 1787, and the franchise was a touchy subject which was dealt with by recognizing the right of states to certify their elections, including for Federal office, and otherwise remaining mute on the subject. The subject of the franchise has only been slowly dealt with, and always by constitutional amendment.

Not all states debar convicted criminals from the vote, although I believe it is correct that all debar convicts while serving their time in prison. Section 2 permits the action, it does not mandate it. EDIT: Section 3 allows for such disfranchisement for those who rebel against the Federal government, but even that is subject to congressional review, on a case by case basis.

0 Replies

@icreepin,

No, but rights are taken away regardless.

Some examples:
Photography was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a constitutionally protected activity yet there are restrictions on where photography can be used. Court rooms for example.
The second Amendment has more restrictions on it than you can shake a stick at for being such a simple amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet it is all the time.
The fouth allows us to be safe in our documents and effects and free from illegal searchs yet the TSA and Border Patrol act as though that amendment was never written.

There are many more examples of American rights being eroded as we slip more and more into a police state instead of a free nation. Osama has definitely won so far.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

The second Amendment has more restrictions on it than you can shake a stick at for being such a simple amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet it is all the time.

I love the way the gun lobby always truncates that amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, precedes that. The Supremes upheld the 1935 National Firearms Act on the basis of the provision in Article One, Section 8 for Congress to provide for arming the militia. You know--a well regulated militia? (See The United States v. Miller, 1939.)

Certainly there have been and always will be abuses. The way our system works, when that happens, you take it to court, and try to make the case that your rights have been infrigned.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
The second Amendment has more restrictions on it than you can shake a stick at for being such a simple amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet it is all the time.

I love the way the gun lobby always truncates that amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, precedes that. The Supremes upheld the 1935 National Firearms Act on the basis of the provision in Article One, Section 8 for Congress to provide for arming the militia. You know--a well regulated militia? (See The United States v. Miller, 1939.)

Certainly there have been and always will be abuses. The way our system works, when that happens, you take it to court, and try to make the case that your rights have been infrigned.

See, you have it wrong. You always have it wrong.

It doesn't say that the the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, its says the right of the people. It is BECAUSE we needed a militia that the people need to be free to be armed. That is why the first part is immaterial. I am pretty sure that if they wanted the militia to be armed, they'd have written militia. Instead, they knew that the people needed to be free to own and carry arms unfettered.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

The first clause is material because it includes the requirement that the militia be well-regulated, and it is upon the basis of participation in the militia that the people may keep and bear arms. But then, the gun lobby always gets it wrong. The people are free to carry arms, subject to the undoubted right of Congress and the states to regulate firearms.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

This was one of the "civil war amendments," and was proposed, passed and ratified by the states to protect the rights of former slaves.

Yeah, some good that did in the racist USA.

0 Replies

Yeah, just as much good as it would do in racist Canada. As you have nothing to contribute to this topic, why don't you play in your September 11th sandbox? Oh yeah, that's right, you're all alone there--nobody wants to play your idiot game.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Yeah, just as much good as it would do in racists Canada.

Wipe the spittle off your chin, Set. You're hyperventilating.

Quote:

As you have nothing to contribute to this topic, why don't you play in your September 11th sandbox? Oh yeah, that's right, you're all alone there--nobody wants to play your idiot game.

I contributed, pointing out that the USA is such a racist country that it took its legislators hundreds of years to free Blacks and then give them rights that everyone else enjoyed. Which still hasn't come.

Surely you aren't of the mind that Lincoln did anything moral with his phony proclamation. In the US it's always about politics and money, never about people.

Because you are too chicken, Set, too much of a coward. I have reminded you twice about YOUR post in that 9/11 thread where you advanced total nonsense and you have been too frightened to SET the record straight.

0 Replies

In fact, the slaves were emancipated by constitutional amendment just 80 years after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification, not centuries. But then, ignorant and hysterical accusation are your stock in trade.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

In fact, the slaves were emancipated by constitutional amendment just 80 years after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification, not centuries. But then, ignorant and hysterical accusation are your stock in trade.

And lying is yours, Setanta. You really have a poor grip on the English language. But that has always been the case.

"... hundreds of years to free Blacks and then give them rights that everyone else enjoyed."

Why are you such a coward? You still haven't replied to your lies in the thread that I have reminded you about a number of times.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Before reporting your stupid post for name calling (I'm getting sick of that ****), I'll point out that the United States had not existed for centuries when the constitution was amended to end slavery and to assure equal civil rights to everyone.

Hate, hysteria and ignorance underlie all of the trash you post here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I'll point out that the United States had not existed for centuries when the constitution was amended to end slavery and to assure equal civil rights to everyone.

Bullshit. Always just your opinion but never any evidence. You still haven't replied to that post where you did the same thing, chastise someone with your high and mighty attitude but your zero evidence.

Lincoln's Bullshit EP Circa 1863

Plessy v Ferguson 1896 Separate But Equal - which as you well know was no where near equal.

Brown v Board of Education Topeka Kansas 1954

Civil Rights Acts 1960s

0 Replies

Hate, hysteria and ignorance underlie all of the trash you post here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Hate, hysteria and ignorance underlie all of the trash you post here.

Such stunning hypocrisy, not to mention your usual lies, Setanta. You don't even have the courage to quote those you "discuss" with.

Notice how devoid are your posts of any reasoned arguments. You bitch, whine and moan about YOU being insulted when you are one of the biggest insulters here.

Remember how you, farmerman and Izzy all got together recently, like little school girls, pointing fingers and saying how you will ignore me.

You still haven't replied to your totally void of evidence post on 9/11 that I have pointed out to you numerous times.

Again, you, farmerman and Izzy [and all the other US/German/Canadian/ ... cowards] are too frightened to honestly address the fact that 9/11 was not carried out by any hijackers.

Here y'all are again, protecting the vicious US/UK/Canadian, Australian, ... war criminals/terrorists who used the lies of 9/11 to murder millions.

Have none of you any speck of human decency?

0 Replies

united states constitution and the law

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know