To start, let’s look at the “Bill of Rights” or the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, as found on USConstitution.net
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
Now, Freedom is not about doing whatever we want, whenever we want, withe no consequences. That isn’t freedom, it is chaos. It is unrealistic.
Each Right we have comes with a Responsibility. We cannot have one without the other. Now, the mature person will gladly take that responsibility because they cherish the freedom. They will speak freely, but with a tempored respect for others. They will arm and defend themselves, but restrain violence for protection. They show concern for their neighbor’s wellbeing, but respect the privacy and not intrude or force their will upon heir neighbor.
The immature person hates Responsibility. They just want to waste away doing whatever their ID comes up with, not caring about consequences or wanting to work for any of it. They work only as much as is required to get enough money to stuff their stomachs and have a place to sleep (whether it be via job or Chronic Welfare), but if given the chance to do nothing and get paid for it, they’ll jump at that chance.
Hatred, then, is levied against a group that has money. A lie is put forth that those who succeed did so ‘on the backs’ of the common man and that they ‘can afford’ to pay gobs of cash to make the lives of those who don’t succeed more comfortable. Then those who haven’t succeeded then agree to measures that, on the surface, punish those who succeed by taking their money to redistribute it to the poor. In truth, such measures are taken by Oppressive governments to take freedom from all, but since the poor are already poor and willing to give up responsibility, they won’t care (until it is too late).
This is the state we find ourselves in today. The Federal Government, which has been growing itself (some would say Unconstitutionally) since the early 1800’s, is offering to take away responsibilities, bearing the brunt of Responsibility as if altruistically, in hopes that we won’t notice losing the freedoms that go with them.
America, listen closely. If you give up your responsibilities, you lose your freedoms. That’s it.
In Obama’s America, your only rights are those given to you by The Great Leader – which is to obey.
re: #1 by Speranza
They won’t like me much. He is the President, nothing more.
I do not bow.
I think what angers me the most about this healthcare and cap and trade crap is not the stupidity of the logic behind them, but that NEITHER SIDE has asked the most basic of questions:
Does the Federal Government have a right to do it?
Both Republicans and Democrats fail.
O/T
Fox just reported that California is looking into legalizing marijuana, because it would bring an estimated $1 billion in desperately needed revenue.
re: #3 by LanceKates
Add to the list of basic questions unanswered: “Have you read the bill?”
on Drudgereport, “57% tax looms in NYC”
“Escape from New York” takes on a whole new meaning.
re: #6 by Intravenousdemilo
When President Reagan took office, the ‘rich’ were being taxed at about that rate.
That’s what he fought against.
When Carter did what Obama did, it failed horribly. Now Obama thinks that he can do what Carter did, but have MORE spending and infringement upon rights of citizens and… it’ll work for some reason.
Remember when we said, “I will not submit” we meant to islam.
Now we are going to need to say “I will not submit” to our AMERICAN government.
Pretty sad.
re: #8 by newsjunkie_ky
I submit to 2 things. One is the Constitution. The other isn’t Obama.
re: #4 by Intravenousdemilo
It should be legal. The Federal Government has no right from stopping me smoking weed in my house.
re: #10 by Rodan
Where do you live?
The 3rd Amendment might seem quaint, but we should be advancing the interpretation that it prohibits the government from forcing people to host any kind of government presence, be it person or machine, in their own home (excepting things justified by someone having been duly convicted of a crime, i.e. house-arrest ankle bracelets).
Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, is a Stalinist thug.
re: #12 by George guy, Lizard-in-exile
I don’t know that we can push the 3rd Amendment to mean technology and then speak out against the liberals who try to suggest that the 2nd only applies to National Guard.
It means what it means.
Now, if one wanted to suggest that we ought not be required to house federal technology (I imagine you are talking about the gps devices for tax purposes pushed in California, and some talk about making a federal version of that) it’d be better fought by the 4th Amendment’s right to privacy.
How about if a reporter asked questions like “What Constitutional evidence do you put forth to suggest that the Federal Government has the authority and power to do this?”
re: #10 by Rodan
I go back and forth on illegal drugs. I think the federal government can cry foul on drugs if they come from international or interstate sources…. but it would be up to the state to determine the legality of a drug made in the state it is consumed it.
The Feds could say that pot is illegal, but a state could say that the federal law can only apply to pot that crosses state lines and that intra state pot is legal subject to state regulation.
If they start taxing weed, only criminals will have…
wait.
If they start taxing weed, nobody will be able to afford any!
lol
re: #6 by Intravenousdemilo
Yeah, and then the idiot liberals who get pissed at being overtaxed end up moving.
THEN, when they do move to a new city and state, they vote for the same types of libtard assholes who raised their taxes where they used to live.
When Mark Levin says that liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid, man did he hit the nail on the head there!!!
re: #17 by Bob in Breckenridge
After Katrina, alot of Purple areas turned Blue due to the exportation of welfare-dependent folks.
re: #18 by LanceKates
Yep, but according to racist Mayor Asshole (Nagin), New Orleans will always be a “chocolate city” (full of welfare-collecting leeches).
I put it to anyone to explain how the Government can take over healthcare or the insurance programs in light of the 10th Amendment.
re: #19 by Bob in Breckenridge
well, he’d be stupid enough to live in a costal city that’s below sea level.
I think Obama’s monkey boy, Emanuel Rahm, loves to be photographed whispering into B.Hussein’s ear. It’s creepy.
re: #22 by Intravenousdemilo
I don’t think he likes it at all. I just think he’s ALWAYS doing it.
I think weed should be legal.
I also think that there’s a special place in hell for politicians who would make it illegal under the guise of a “public health” issue, and then legalize it just for purposes of tax revenue.
It’s very telling.
The “war on drugs” is probably the only part of the Reagan policy that I take issue with.
I also have a problem with marijuana advocacy groups that are still cool with legalization on the sole basis that it will generate tax revenue.
re: #23 by LanceKates
Maybe Rahm’s like that Wormtongue guy from Lord of the Rings.
Maybe BHO’s just under an ancient Midwestern spell.
//
OT, but this is a funny smackdown of Senator Boxer.
http://www.breitbart.tv/god-awful-black-chamber-of-commerce-ceo-rips-sen-boxer-for-condescending-racial-remarks/
re: #25 by Bumr50
Yeah, it is called the Chicago Mob.
On Palladia (sp?) in hd is John Fogerty: The Long Road Home.
Concert. Sound is good in hd.
God help him, I can’t understand a word he says, but I like his music.
re: #26 by My5princesses
Amazing, before watching your link I posted on the other thread about the condescension of the left toward blacks. Bravo to this man for calling out the witch.
re: #30 by vagabond trader
This idea that Conservatives are racists because we oppose Guvmint programs that enslave entire black communities is quite ironic to me.
Seems to me saying black people need the guvmint to make it in this country is kinda racist.
It’s 85 and somewhat humid today, is summer gonna make an appearance now?
re: #31 by My5princesses
I’m Hispanic/Italian and in my life the most racist people I encountered were White Democrats. When I met White Republicans, I always notice their families had Asian, Hispanic or Black family members. With Democrats they were just white.
Again who are the racists?
re: #20 by LanceKates
That’s why quite a few states are looking into writing laws and/or amending their constitutions so that it will give them the right to opt out of any national health care program that the federal government would impose upon their citizens, based upon the 10th amendment, as you pointed out.
re: #32 by Rodan
There is alot of venom coming from those whose arguments are weak. I only have to drive to Reading, Pa to see the wrath Guvmint does to a community. My wife lived in the city 30 plus years ago and they used to walk anywhere in the city anytime of day. Now, there are some places you don’t go during the day.
The difference? Govenment programs taking the place of Family/community. Those beautiful Stone and Brick rowhomes are now rundown rat holes with garbage all over the place.
I have an acre property with 40 trees on it, and I keep it nice. Why can’t they f***ckin keep 12 feet wide strips clean?????
I know, I’m a racist.
re: #31 by My5princesses
It’s been in the 100’s here for a week or two, you can borrow 10 degrees.
btw, been smoking a beef brisket since 8am, due to come out in half an hour. Went through 80% of a bag of wood chunks and half a bag of mesquite charcoal.
re: #33 by Bob in Breckenridge
And there was a time that State Constitutions let states leave the Union, and even the Federal Government understood that.
Didn’t stop the federal government from forming a federal army tasked with FORCING the states back in.
re: #34 by My5princesses
Here’s the difference: You care. They don’t.
That’s the difference between gratefulness for ownership and entitlement mentality.
32. Rodan
Again who are the racists?
Ah, you have also encountered the indirect racism of the liberal mindset. They believe they are doing you a favour and demand recognition for it. Put their actions into words: “you are inferior of the appropriate intellect and work ethic to succeed in this country therefore we will always advocate admonishing those who advocate a fair playing field and equality under the law to lift you mongloids to heights you would never achieve under your own merit without our compassion.”
Its always fun pointing out how ignoble their gestures are, but be prepared for alot of emotion and epithets.