Comments for What Good is the Second Amendment Without the Other Nine? »
Posted By jovial 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsWrapping up their 2008 session with a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ended 200 years of silence on a fundamental constitutional issue by striking down the Washington DC handgun ban.
Read Full Story at opednews.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 90 of 92 Comments
-
-
67%
nightcrawlerX1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll tell you what good the Second Amendment is without the other nine is, it is totally wicked! You get a slick awesome gun and can shoot it and stuff. Awesome! Guns! YEAH! WHOOOO! Lets put more weapons in a city that had suffered one of the highest murder rates in America. GUNS!
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
Luis-CiferComment removed: Abusive1 Reply
-
-
92%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All the Amendments are important and should be protected, including the Fourth.
"If the founders meant to confer an individual right to bear arms, why did they begin by highlighting how important a citizen militia is to a free state, and conversely what a danger large standing armies (like we have today) pose to liberty?"
I stringently disagreed with this logic though it had little to do with the Op-Ed as a whole. Actually, I find the whole logic in this sentence to be self defeating. The author was venting here, I think.
Overall, I agree. Those who support the Second Amendment should also wonder why the government gets to outlaw drugs if they can't outlaw guns... neither ban works and it seems awfully presumptuous of the government to state what I can or cannot put into my body or possess. Or other activities the government engages in.
Reply-
88%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the founders meant to confer an individual right to bear arms, why did they begin by highlighting how important a citizen militia is to a free state, and conversely what a danger large standing armies (like we have today) pose to liberty?"
I think the author intended this as a rhetorical... but it's not, there's a simple answer.
Reply
They conveyed the importance of a citizen's militia precisely because they knew this particular right would need defending. They knew that some lawmakers over the years would take issue with people having and carrying weapons. And wanted to ensure that there was sufficient reason laid down that the Amendment would not be stricken at a later date.-
67%
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, let's approach this with historical context. When Jefferson wrote that the tree of liberty must be regularly watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, to what activity was he referring? (hint, he made this remark in connection with the pardoning of the leader of a peasant rebellion)
I would suggest that when weapons are possessed only by the police and the military, that tree will wither in the ensuing drought, and the only blood spilt will be that of those brave or foolish enough to dissent.
Reply
-
-
67%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know how I feel on this, Mdiar. I don't think people as violent as Americans need to be giving themselves greater access to weapons. More access= more Columbines, more toddler deaths, more domestic work and traffic disputes that might have ended with perhaps slaps, punches or broken bones (at worst) ending in massive internal injuries, paralysis, and death. I really don't want more right wingers with guns. OMG. ;-( Just look at our warring ways...Just LOOK at us!
Reply
;-(-
67%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about England. They passed a law prohibiting guns of any kind. They stated that the police are the only ones that are allowed to protect people. People are not allowed to protect themselves with guns. Crime has soared immediately after that was accomplished. Now if someone breaks into your house you can call the police but not defend yourself with a gun. One man did after several break ins and they sent him to jail.
Reply
If you live in England you better live next door to the police if you want to be safe. -
67%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand and respect how you feel. However, the gun crime statistics are fear mongering. How have gun bans actually effected the rates, anywhere? They don't work. They never have. They are as ineffectual as drug bans. Its not right to compare two different areas, one with a ban and one without, because that's apples and oranges. Compare the stats of one area before and after the ban. I have a few rather controversial ideas on how to address the gun violence rate in the country and the first thing you have to look at is the attitudes of areas where it is highest. Washington DC, where the gun ban was in effect is an example. I believe that we should educate our kids on guns... if we do that, they will respect them. If they respect them then they understand the responsibility involved with a gun and they will be less likely to use it then if they know very little about the gun. That is just one aspect of reducing violence in general and probably the smallest one. Its a social issue and it CANNOT be solved by bans, anywhere. It can be solved by addressing the social issues themselves... why is the violence rate so high in the United States? If you can solve that you can solve the problem. You can't solve the problem by removing the tools because then other things come into play and that's what you are trying to do with a ban.
Reply -
50%
buckncindykill1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ban handguns, and watch the crime rates to up! It's a lesson as old as the idea of gun control, but liberals just seem to be real slow learners.
It doesn't take much more than a room temperature IQ to figure out that when the law says that you can't have a gun, only people who obey the law are likely to get rid of their guns. In the meantime, those who prey on others relax in the knowledge that it is less likely that their victim is going to be armed.
And so it is around the world. Ban guns and gun crimes increase. Legalize guns and crime rates drop. How in the world do we get liberals to understand this?
Reply-
60%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is simplistic in the extreme. You talk as if a ban or lack thereof alone is the reason crime goes up or down. Cons are very hard-headed and love to provoke others by shooting off their ignorant mouths. As a result, they are constantly looking over their weaning shoulders in fear that someone is out to get them. You reap what you sow, cons. Exercise your right to freedom of speech all you want. Have a field day saying any and everything you want to anyone else (regardless of the harmful impact it might have on them) and continue begging others to die in senseless illegal wars for you. You'll screech for the right to blow someone's head off and make jokes about civil liberties as if this is just part of a "liberal" plot. Cons must not be given more avenues to cause mayhem. They're destroying the planet as it is. ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
jsimeon11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DID YOU BUCKLE UP TODAY ?? How many new laws and bans are we to expect because of the ignorant or or sophomoric? Maybe the fathers of this country were dummies trying to impress England and each other? Are you impressed with our nation? Or are you still finger pointing and belly-aching waiting for the non-existent "System" or the fictitious Government to resolve all your problems? How many times do you need to hear that where citizens have guns, crime is lower ? Maybe the news of All the unarmed, innocent, law-abiders that have been murdered haven't reached you yet! Where are the "Jedi" when you need them? Ridiculous!
Reply -
88%
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Admendments to our Constitution were made too insure Americans certain rights beyond that described in the Bill of Rights. Congress, allowing warrentless wiretapping, is just as guilty of shredding our Constitution as the President.
Reply-
82%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Technically, the Ninth Amendment was added to ensure unenumerated rights were still acknowledged rights. It must be noted that the right, including Scalia, Thomas, et al, who consider themselves "originalists" do not agree with the Founding Fathers' concept that the government does not grant rights. Contrary to popular ignorance these right-wingers believe that the only rights that exist are those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They, like Bork, perceive the Ninth Amendment as an "ink blot" that is to be ignored because it does not specifiy rights.
The greatest threat to this nation is from the right because rather than seeing the constitution as constraining government power they see it as something that supports a unitary president, the most powerful of three unequal branches of power, supporting the tyranny of the majority through majoritarian democracy, and constraining rights through the Bill of Rights. The right-wing is not "originalist" but relativist that interprets the constitution in a way to confirm their world-view.
Reply -
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bill of Rights were the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Amendments made since have not all been to insure rights, like for instance, the 16th Amendment, so tell us how collecting taxes on income protects anyones rights?
Btw, this amendment is in direct violation of the Constitution. In section 8 of the Constitution it states, "No capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
What this means is that all taxes were to be equally accessed, not by income.
Reply
You see our founding fathers knew how easy it could become for politicians and others vote money out of other people's pockets.
-
-
60%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The article seems mostly focused on the fourth, but Mr. Fried fails to explain his conclusion that wiretapping falls under Fourth Ammendment protection.
"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."
In a wire-tap. No "persons, houses, papers, nor effects" are being searched nor seized. The ammendment does not cover communications. Obviously, this was a non-issue at the time it was ratified... but that's the whole point of ammendments, you can add more when a need arises.
The Eleventh Ammendment: "The Fourth Ammendment shall also protect against wiretaps and listening devices" has never been introduced.As much as you may WANT phone-calls to be protected by the Fourth, it doesn't specifically (or even implicitly, IMHO) protect them.
The message here: don't assume you have privacy in information you broadcast through public means. What the Fourth SHOULD do, is guarantee your freedom from harassment if they overhear something embarrassing (but non-criminal).
Reply-
88%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would have to be the 28th Amendment. However the 9th and 10th Amendments are actually the ones violated the most. Not to mention the whole Congress shall not fund a standing army thing...
Here is the 9th:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Here is the 10th:
"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."
Technically speaking a state could wiretap but the federal government cannot as the state can take any power unto itself that it wishes to that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit them from doing. However, without amending the Constitution the federal government is specifically limited from doing anything beyond what the Constitution states. The 9th and 10th Amendments are still on the books and should still apply. However, they do not, by and large. Its sort of like this section of the Constitution:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
They've been pretty much ignored.
Reply-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mdiar: "Technically speaking a state could wiretap but the federal government cannot as the state can take any power unto itself that it wishes to that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit them from doing."
Yeah, I was just saying something similar on the other thread about freedom of speech. The federal government can't wiretap... but telecoms can - in much the same way that internet sites can backup their information. And they aren't prohibited from being able to share that information with the federal government. (But they can't constitutionally be compelled to share that wiretap without a warrant. If they CHOOSE to share the wiretap, they are not being compelled.) Hence, retroactive immunity for the telecoms shouldn't really be necessary, since they haven't violated any (constitutional) laws in the first place!
The 9th is tricky... because it shouldn't deny or disparage other rights, but it also doesn't allow you to invent rights, like "the right to privacy in public" or "the right to cheap heating fuel" or "the right to cable TV."
Reply -
100%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're incorrect in saying that
"Technically speaking a state could wiretap but the federal government cannot as the state can take any power unto itself that it wishes to that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit them from doing."
The constitution harmonized citizenship between all states. This means that a state cannot take away your rights because under the constitution you have rights that must be observed by each state. Each state can make up its own rules so long as they do not infringe upon your rights as a citizen of the United States.
Therefore, a state cannot wiretap a person if it does not follow the Fourth Amendment:
"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."
Unless, of course you're a Republican that believes in authoritarianism acting in opposition to a spineless Democratic Congress and a compliant Republican SCOTUS. The American people, ignorant and right-wing, got the government they deserve.
Reply-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Therefore, a state cannot wiretap a person if it does not follow the Fourth Amendment:"
Key word there is "if". The Fourth Amendment is not clear in disallowing wiretaps. Many try to infer security of communications from it, but it guarantees your rights to your person, house, paper, and effects. Telephone calls are not one of those 4 things. They can't go into your house to setup wiretaps (violation of house), nor take your own personal transcripts of phone calls (violation of papers), but there is nothing to say that your conversations over public phone lines or airwaves (or privately-owned) cannot be overheard or recorded.
IF the Fourth is to cover wiretaps in a definitive manner, it needs to be accompanied by an Ammendment (as Mdiar pointed out, the 28th) that expands upon it.
Reply-
100%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Fourth Amendment is explicit enough to cover technologies that did not exist and do not currently exist. Reread the Fourth amendment and understand that wiretapping is a search and seizure because it is equivalent of what was private conversation and correspondence. A warrant is required.
Of course, interpretation is key, with Republicans arguing that government suspicion is required as "probable cause" and Democrats arguing that they don't want to look weak and so will ignore the concept that underlies the very concept of natural rights.
The ONLY reason that an amendment would be needed to explicitly cover any given technology is that the right-wing world-view is now predominant. This means that the constitution is essentially meaningless and the U.S. as we conceive it no longer exists. Maybe it never did.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. The authoritarian world view is predominant. Once more, just because it is authoritarian does not make it right wing. A fine example of a right wing philosophy that is not authoritarian is the Libertarian Party of the US. Ron Paul was also extreme right wing. Was he an authoritarian?
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we are each using slightly different terminology but saying the same thing. There is a social right which I think should be authoritarianism and a social "left" which is libertarianism. At the same time we have a fiscal right, which is the free market, and a fiscal left which is more of a collectivist economy.
Oh well. It happens. Essentially you are speaking of the social right, which I would agree with (except on a few issues, gun control being one of them, where the social left comes off more authoritarian, by and large it fits though). I was speaking of the fiscal right. Whom, though I disagree with, I respect.
Reply
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Reread the Fourth amendment and understand that wiretapping is a search and seizure because it is equivalent of what was private conversation and correspondence."
Reread the Fourth and understand that no such equivalence is implied nor present. Wiretapping is neither search nor seizure. There is nothing physically being taken from the wiretappee, nor are they in any way inconvenienced by the act of wiretapping.
I agree with Mdiar's comment below, that the government does not have the authority to conduct wiretaps nor demand them of telecoms because they have not been granted that power (10th Amendment). However, that same Amendment states that the telecoms DO have the right to record such conversations, and if they want to provide that info to the government, it's in THEIR power.
Also as Mdiar pointed out below, the 10th is one of the most widely-ignored Amendments around. The federal government goes on and on imagining (and using) powers not granted to it by the constitution.
Reply -
-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many people cite the Fourth as guaranteeing a right to privacy. But I've read and re-read it, and cannot see where it says that.
The following article uses the "right to privacy" argument for Fourth Amendment protection of email, but as most ISPs have privacy policies that explicitly states that content may be monitored, there is NO reasonable assumption of privacy. Unless you specifically order a secure telephone line from the government, I don't see a reasonlable assumption there, either. After all, as part of the evolution of the telephone, there were "party lines" shared by many people, any of whom could listen in.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/page3.htmlThe 10th Amendment is what prevents the government from having the power to listen in, and it would also protect us from the government from having the power to compel telecoms to provide phone or email records. (The fourth may also protect the TELECOMS from this) But neither the Fourth nor the Tenth protects you from TELECOMS or ISPs willingly handing over the info.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The positive was most definitely not intended due to the last paragraph and you completely missed the entire point of the conversation.
Firstly, from a literal reading the Fourth Amendment does not grant a right to privacy. A literal reading is an entirely valid interpretation of the Constitution and, going by the literal reading, does not apply to wiretaps. However, if we go by a truly literal reading by everything, the Tenth Amendment is what prevents the federal government from instituting a wiretap program and it is also what grants a state the right to do this, unless the state constitution has a prohibition against this somewhere.
Therefore, from the argument Republicans tend to use regarding the right to privacy not existing within the Constitution, they are still incorrect about the authority of the government due to the Tenth Amendment. Anyway you look at it, the Tenth pretty much makes a wiretapping program illegal for the federal government unless they pass an Amendment stating otherwise. While the Fourth is up for interpretation, the Tenth most certainly is not.
The best way to defeat an argument is to accept the ideas they put forth and then use those same ideas against them. A literal reading of the Constitution is used to justify wiretapping programs. A literal reading can then be used to show how such a program is illegal, just not under grounds of the Fourth.
You are correct about the state's having to respect the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land.
Reply
-
-
-
90%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willotica - In colonial days, there was no mass electronic communication. They communicated through letters, messages, documents. Transmission was via courier, messengers, wagon, or coach.
Reply
The 4th Amendment clearly states "papers" are given constitutional protection.
What are those "papers" ? The Bible? Books? Recipes? Lists of things to buy at the general store?
Of course not. Papers in those days meant letters, diaries, the thoughts you wrote down to yourself and what you wanted to send to others that you couldn't talk to face to face. This was their communication.
So, yes. Personal communication was protected.
If you wanted to be a literal, strict constitutionalist and say only paper communication was protected, then you would have to say that only breech loading muskets and cannon are protected constitutionally. The founding fathers had no conception of automatic weapons, machine guns, etc.
If all modern methods of communication are not protected constitutionally, then ALL MODERN WEAPONS are not rpotected either.
You can not have it both ways.-
-
-
50%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your argument is based on the fact that the Amendment is based on privacy. I don't know that it is. Protection from government intrusion, yes, but is it intrusive to be observed if you don't know you're being observed?
My argument is that the 4th Amendment is a protection against invasive searches - where the individual suffers because of the intrusion.
The Amendment isn't just papers though, it's persons, houses, and effects as well. All physical things that can be physically invaded.
Even in the days of the founding fathers, there was the possibility that the government could try to listen in on your conversations (ex: you speak to your neighbour through your adjacent windows and a government agent is in the alley below.) You expect the conversation to be private, but are your rights violated because it is not? I don't think so. You are in a private residence, your neighbour is in a private residence, but your conversation is broadcast through public airwaves and thus eavesdroppers are not violating your rights. The same can be true of phone calls, though the public medium (wire) is much thinner, it is still public (or privately owned, in which case the owner can reasonably be expected to hear without violating your rights).
Since a valid argument for telephone to not be protected DOES exist, then another Amendment is needed for it to be included. Otherwise, wiretapping is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but acceptable by a different equally-valid interpretation.
Look to the Tenth Amendment if you want to be protected from wiretaps.
btw, your notebook computer is protected via the Fourth under the term "effects," but email stored on AOLs central server is not.
Reply -
50%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"papers" are given constitutional protection. These are the files you keep for your own reference at your own home.
You make an intuitive leap when you say that "papers" meant communications with others. Generally intuitive leaps are not sound legal judgements.
"If you wanted to be a literal, strict constitutionalist and say only paper communication was protected, then you would have to say that only breech loading muskets and cannon are protected constitutionally."
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written in a while. Do you know what 'literal' means? For this to be accurate, the constitution would have to have been written "The right of the people to bear breech loading muskets and cannons shall not be infringed."
Modern weapons are still "arms". Phone calls and emails are not "papers."
Though the founding fathers may not have conceived of automatic weapons, they certainly had the concept of "communications:" a word they could have used if, as you assume, that is what they meant.
BTW, USPS reserves the right to open your mail - which COULD be protected by the Fourth... but for some reason, I don't hear a lot of complaints about that...
Reply-
100%
jovial1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with sinophil. I think that "papers" can be the same as what's on my notebook computer and what I'm saying on the telephone. It's not really a large leap to come to the conclusion that what our forefathers intended was to protect the people from government intrusion. It appears that being literal in some cases and not in others has provided means for some lawyers to circumvent the constitution. Let's take for instance this scenario. What if from some misfortune the world develops a shortage of trees and there is no more paper. Does that negate the constitutional ammendment all together? After all since you could no longer have papers then there would be no need for the ammendment at all. A court could argue that they can look at, listen to, eavesdrop on, any communication you have because it's not on paper.
Reply-
33%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Papers are the documents etc. that you have in your house or on your person. In those days they could intercept letters and messages to and from people outside the US. Also as time went by and the radio was invented it was quite routine to listen in on communications going to and from the US to other countries. For example the code breakers were working on the Japanese codes before WW2 started. That was communication between the Japanese Embassy and the Country of Japan.
Reply
Everybody wants to make the tapping of these kinds of communications sacred now. Why? These wiretaps are to and from overseas terrorists to people in the US. Why is that protected in any way. I disagree about the constitutionality of that protection. Since when do foreign people in foreign countries get the benefit of the constitution?
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Willotica - I plead guilty of trying to read the minds of the founding fathers. But then s are you and every judge and justicein the land. I interpret papers to mean everything that the founding fathers used paper for - not just personal records, books, but also communication. It really was their primary means of communication.
Reply
You choose a narrow interpretation of the meaning of "paper" - only private records.
But what exactly does personal papers mean in the electronic world. There are huge data banks of personal financial information in banks, investment companies. Medical information is increasingly being stored in computers. The clubs I belong to, where I travel, my personal buying habits - all these are personal information that I no longer record on paper. Are these not protected even if they are not on paper?
I agree that there are limitson protection. If there is evidence or suspicion of criminality, the government absolutely has a right, in the name of public good, to invade anyone's privacy.
What I find chilling is the wide net Bush has cast to "troll' for information among a huge swath of population without any accountablity or restraint.
The FISA rules do give the president the ability to act w/o prior judicial approval against possible foreign agents or terrorists. But there has to be an accounting of it in 72 hours. The president has consistently tried to subvert or avoid any judicial constraints.
On another point, you are doing the exact opposite. Instead of narrowing a definition, you are seeking the widest possible meaning. I am referring to the word "arms."
In the olden days, arms referred to weapons used for self defense, hunting for food. They had not the faintest inkling of automatic weapons, assault rifles, teflon coated bullets, machine guns, Saturday night specials. These have no functions other than to kill and maim offensively.
If you insist that the meaning of the words in the constitution be fluid enough to encompass all modern weaponry, I must insist that the words referring to "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also be fluid enough to encompass modern "papers and effects."
-
-
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The founding fathers knew well the reasons for citizens to be armed. Not only for self protection and hunting, but for protection against the Tyranny of the Government as well.
They had seen the powerful British rulers impose their wills and beliefs upon their subects without a thought of the rightness of it.
We are very fortunate to live in this country. But our freedoms need constant vigilance against those who would steal them from us. The ones I fear most are our own messed up leaders.
We need the right to bear arms as well as the right from illegal search and seizure.
When we lose either we lose a part of freedom we will never get back.
Reply -
80%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jeffery-
The right wing does not put forth the idea of the Constitution granting you rights and only those rights. The right wing puts forth the idea of free market economics and the left wing puts forth collectivist economics. However, the current batch of right wingers in the US (with a few exceptions) are also of a harsher totalitarian bent then in the past and totalitarianism is the idea you put forth which is something separate from the economic ideas of right/left. Its totalitarian/libertarian, I suppose.
Reply-
71%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ther right-wing certainly does put forth the idea that rights exist only if they are enumerated int he Bill of Rights. You should read how Scalia, Bork, Thomas, and other right-wingers interpret the constitution and rights. The government's role in the economy is simply a component of the debate. The right's free-market ideology follows directly from Calvinism, which holds that those that have deserve it and those that do not have deserve it because a person is awarded in accordance with his righteousness. And, because god rewards, no man can act contrary to god's will.
Because the constitution was seen as granting explicit powers to government, it was seen as dangerous to enumerate any rights because the government was not granted any power to grant rights. The government and therefore the majority that controlled it could then make the claim that Scalia makes today. The Bill of Rights was not originally part of the constitution. It was added to ensure that the concept of rights was part of the constitution and the Ninth Amendment added to ensure that unenumerated rights existed.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really, I know what Calvinism is. I know what right wing is. You do not understand the concept I put forth. Instead of looking at it as a line, look at it as a graph. On this graph one axis is left/right which is purely economic. Collectivist economy versus the free market. The second axis is libertarianism versus fascism. You can very much be a free market believer (thus, right wing) and not an authoritarian. In fact that is what the Libertarian Party in the United States predominantly is. By the same token one can be like myself, a libertarian who is also rather far to the left. A person can also be an authoritarian left winger, like Stalin. Fascism is not a right wing governmental philosophy all the time; in fact one definition of fascism is simply an authoritarian government regime. Is authoritarianism reserved for the right and libertarianism for the left? Hell no and your comments don't seem to reflect this at all.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In other words, the version you seem to have decided to put forth (not necessarily) is one which muddles economics and social issues. Just because a person believes in a literal reading of the Constitution or the idea that government grants rights (an idea I despise, if you are wondering, we have rights because we are human) does not make them right wing. It makes them authoritarian and, at the extreme, fascist. This person can be left wing (collectivist on economics) and still be an authoritarian. Stalin is a brilliant example. He was a left winger and a fascist. Hitler was a right winger and a fascist. What we have is quickly approaching fascism and the rest of the world isn't far behind. Both parties absolutely suck on our rights.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, I'm no right winger. I just don't want figures that I know on the right wing who are very much non-authoritarian being brushed as authoritarians just for their economic views any more then I'd like to be called a Communist for mine. Well, considering what communism really is, I'd not mind it. But I'd hate being called a socialist.
Reply-
80%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most people haven't a clue about what "communism" or "socialism" actually are. For example, did you know that Lenin did not think that Stalin was a communist? That the Soviets did not consider China communist? In fact, communism was never a threat to the U.S. because our history was not one that accepted it. The Soviets weren't real threats because they had enough trouble controlling the regions they had troops in and they didn't get along with China. In fact Stalin can be thought of more as yet another Czar and Mao yet another Emperor than Marxists.
It is the complications of reality that the right-wing has trouble with. They like empty platitudes, such as "freedom", "liberty", and "communist" because they mean whatever they want. Good, bad is about all they can handle.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Socialism is just another class driven society which is why I'd rather not be considered one. Its just in socialism the worker takes the place of the capitalist. Most first world nations are liberal in the American sense which isn't really socialism. Communism, of course, is the ideal society. Classless and wealth shared. I'd not mind being called a communist but a very long time ago I decided there was no chance a society such as that would ever emerge. The best that can be hoped for is a balance in the power the classes have.
Reply
-
-
-
-
80%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know what you're saying about the spectrum of political thought, it is shown well here:
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/polsp.html
But the concept of rights transcends economics. Rights are the corollary to the obligations of moral beings. Because the right-wing does not believe that they have any obligation beyond satisfying their desire, rights do not exist except those that they agree exist.
Of course there are conservatives, not all conservatives are right-wing, that agree with the concept that it is not the majority, as expressed by government power, that creates rights but our obligations as moral beings and citizens.
It is the ignorant right-wing that requires rights to be explicitly enumerated in the constitution because they see no obligation to anyone or anything but themselves.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's the thing though, I think we are disagreeing on how to phrase things. I like the idea behind the political compass in which its essentially the right wing is free market economics, devoid of liberties and the left is collectivism devoid of liberties as well. Then another axis is plotted (vertical this time) and they plot where you are on that. This vertical axis is based around fascism vs libertarianism. It doesn't quite codify everyone in a specific area. I think you are using right/left for what I use fascist/libertarian. Either way I'm an extreme lefty, whether it be a belief that the government has no authority over what I do (I'm not quite that extreme, but rather close at times) or the idea that wealth should be based more on need then greed. I think that its very divisive to declare right wing as authoritarian when there are plenty of people who will claim to be on the right, yet are very definitely not authoritarian. Ron Paul is a good example of this; the man is maybe very slightly authoritarian, but he's more libertarian then most of Europe (which has followed the US in its turn towards authoritarianism, back in the 80s). He, I believe, is very definitely a right winger. Just a fiscal right winger.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay one more thing then I think I'm going to leave it as I have some stuff to do.
The graph you provided seems highly American-centric. Of course, when discussing US politics, this is fine. For example, liberals actually believe in free market economics on par with Republicans outside of the United States. Our usage of "liberal" is fairly unique on the world stage. May I advise you to check out the basic idea behind the rather simple political compass?
http://www.****************.org/*********
This was done by a Brit I believe and seems like a good idea, at the very least.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Instead of looking at it as a line, look at it as a graph."
That would certainly clear up a lot of confusion. As I was taught the political spectrum in school, it was actually 2 separate lines. There was the economic spectrum and the social spectrum. Each had a left and a right. So jeffery is not wrong when he refers to "right-wingers".
In fact, if you look at the wikipedia "political spectrum", "Left-ism" and "Right-ism" aren't defined as being on the left and right, but rather on the opposite diagonals. However, 3 graphs shown can't agree on the orientation of the axes, so the definitions get rather confusing. One actually has the axis at 45 degrees to the horizontal, to make "left-ism" and "right-ism" actually sit on the left and right.
Reply
-
-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bill of Rights was added to sweeten the deal for many of the founding fathers who staunchly opposed the creation of a federal government. Those early refuseniks reasoned (and rightly, I would argue) that the heirarchy implicit in a strong central government, combined with a police force and military at its disposal, would inevitably turn to tyrrany. The anti-federalists would not sign a document creating such a government absent some protection of the peoples rights.
Now we know that while a tyrannical central government is quite real, might makes right, and the Bill of Rights is as Bush said, merely a piece of paper, which cannot succeed in protecting individuals from the might of a government run amok.
Reply
-
-
-
71%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be honest, I have to admit mixed emotions on this issue.
Terrorists are clearly using our own constitution against us and this is having the added benefit of dividing us over an issue that we would normally be united on.
First, warrentless searches don't thrill anyone... liberal or conservative.
Second, watching a major city vaporize when it could have been prevented is also not a thrill to anyone... liberal or conservative.Liberals scream, "They're violating my right by trying to find terrorists before they strike!"
Conservatives scream, "Dead men enjoy no rights anyway and our first job is to protect your life!"The question is, what do we want to do about it?
Is there a compromise? I don't care if they listen in on SUSPECTS, provided they can later, if necessary, document "cause". If it's for other reasons (political), then impeachments would be in order.
Reply-
60%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I, for example, travel back and forth every couple of months to a "terrorist" country and am a party to huge transfers of cash to and from that country. If the government suspects my activities and wants to pry, I'm not too worried as I see it as their job.
Reply
Once their suspicions are dismissed, I would expect to go on enjoying my "privacy", even if it's not quite as "private" as it was before.
I believe that most of the liberal screamers are not doing anything nearly as suspicious as I am and would never be suspected of anything anyway and are simply trying to make political waves.
Liberals, ask yourself how you would feel if Obama was listening in in an effort to love and protect you. There, feel better?-
83%
scott42611 year, 4 months ago
-
-
67%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I understand and agree.
BUT apply the principle to yourself rather than others and answer this please:Would you rather:
1) have your conversation tapped and then have the interest in you dismissed or
2) get blown up and die.I'm no fan of government or their interference, but... tough call, yes?
Reply-
-
-
100%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, just so I understand, if Obama is president, tapping will be ok with you?
I would love to know the answer to the question:Would you rather:
1) have your conversation tapped and then have the interest in you dismissed or
2) get blown up and die.I sincerely would like this insight.
Reply-
-
100%
globalwarmer1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't buy the fear mongering and I don't believe the wire taps will keep a city from being vaporized anymore than it could stop terrorists from high jacking planes when we already had security that should have prevented it. We were not attacked because we're a christ loving nation but because of our foreign policy.
My guess is scott4261 would not want Obama to abuse his privileges either but I can't speak for him.
Reply-
-
100%
Spinward1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand the basis for your disbelief that intelligence could save a city.
The government does not have the manpower or desire, for that matter, to listen in to every phone call in America. How mind-numbing would that be? SUSPECTS in terror investigations, on the other hand, could easily be plotting to kill you... Is it bad to find that out ahead of time?
Reply
Hmmmm.....
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really don't believe that wiretapping everyone in all their phone calls and emails would be an abuse or a violation of rights.
However, once that information is obtained, it COULD be used to abuse power and violate rights. If you are harassed because of it, that's an abuse of power (but if you're unaware of the wiretap, how are you being harassed?), similarly, if the information disseminated is used to discriminate against you, your rights are being violated.
But just because the government knows that you are a homosexual who enjoys phone sex with transvestites does not mean that it will use this information against you.
I have rented pornographic movies from a store which required my driver's license as a 'membership' card. Does this give them more information about me than required? Probably. Does it mean they will use it against me? Unlikely, and even if they tried, what could they do. Tell my wife/parents/children? Tell my employer? If that information shocked my family, then I'm not being open enough with them. If it influenced my employer, I'd be surprised, and if I were discriminated at work because of it, I think it's a place I'd rather not work anyway.
Reply-
-
50%
kobzikov1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica,
you have no idea what you are talking about. Whether you believe that wiretapping all phone calls and emails is not a violation of rights to privacy is quite irrelevant. You are not a constitutional scholar and even if you were you'd still need to base your opinion on some kind of legal precedent.
Currently there is a legal precedent for expectation of privacy, which outlines a standard to be used to distinguish a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one established in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). You can find a brief description at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
Now if you want to argue that no one has a right to a private phone conversation or that all email exchanges constitute public discourse "in plain view" in terms of the outlined standard then go for it.
Though it might be just a tad difficult for you considering that telecom companies including AOL have an established Privacy Policy with their customers. So I'm not sure how it is that you are planning to argue that there would be no expectation of privacy there.
And while I don't remember what the Privacy agreement with my telecom company said I'm quite confident that it had a provision about not sharing my information with third parties unless demanded by a court order, a warrant of some kind, or for some other urgent legitimate reason.
Oh and just in case you'd like to argue that national security is that reason then the government would have to present a legitimate reason that every individual person in US who they want to listen to poses a threat to national security.
By the way, if I remember correctly the telecoms are being sued not for violation of Fourth Amendment, but for violation of their own Privacy Agreements and for aiding in illegal wiretapping, which is a felony.
Finally, there are already laws on the books outlining procedures for physical and electronic surveillance and the laws have been violated by the current administration.
Reply
-
-
67%
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Would you rather:
1) have your conversation tapped and then have the interest in you dismissed or
2) get blown up and die.Not a choice offered in the real world. There is not a causal relationship, except in your mind, between a benign intrusion on your privacy and your insurance that you will not soon die.
Here is a choice which DOES express a causal relationship, one that has been demonstrated many times - would you rather
1). have your conversation tapped, after which on the basis of some innocent comment you undergo extraordinary rendition, get the jumper cables put to your nuts, your fingers broken, etc in an effort to make you confess to things you know nothing about or
2). have your private conversations remain private and remain unmolested by your government?
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right.
Our government's intrusions have kept us from being blown up by groups such as the Quakers and the Boy Scouts, both of whom have been spied on by the Feds.
Your comments appear to be apallingly ignorant of the fact that government spying is frequently used simply to supress dissent.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
75%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
After mdiar pointed it out, I think this article misses the point. "What good is the 2nd Amendment without the other 9?" He then only discusses the ambiguous 4th, and ignores flagrant abuses of the 9th and, most especially, the 10th.
Reply -
-
acloveComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.