Bill of Rights question

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by Crumbles, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Crumbles

    Crumbles New Member

    34
    0
    0
    I wasn't really sure where to post this, so sorry if it's in the wrong forum.

    A while ago someone on here posted something about the Bill of Rights that caught my attention. Since I was smart, I wrote it down. :roll:

    Anyway, they said something like the Bill of rights isn't granting our rights, it's somehow just telling us what they are, or something to that effect.

    Can whoever said that, repeat it for me, or if anyone else knows, can they post it?

    To be honest, I never knew this. I tried searching the forum, but failed miserably.

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Crumbles

    Crumbles New Member

    34
    0
    0
    Ah, I finally found it. It wasn't on here that I saw it though. It was an argument on another blog...

    This is what the gentleman said:

    "...the Bill of Rights grants nothing. It enumerates our rights, it does not grant them. U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs. Cruikshank stated that our rights were not granted by the Constitution nor were they in any way dependent upon that instrument for their existence. Our rights our inherent and they predate the Constitution."

    Anyways, I found it interesting. Thoughts?
     

  3. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    The fact that they are enumerated and predate the constitution I can agree with, but the bold section talking about "any way dependent..." I can't agree with. I believe that we are dependent on that instrument to protect those rights...as if to say..."see, it's written right here that we do have those rights". I guess that's an appeal to authority argument, but it's all I got for now.
     
  4. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    As said by Mr. Thomas Jefferson, 'that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' The Bill of Rights is a human attempt to put words to those rights bestowed by Almighty God.
     
  5. Crumbles

    Crumbles New Member

    34
    0
    0
    Very well said.

    Thanks for your input guys.
     
  6. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    And the 2nd Amendment, no matter what the corrupt government says, guarantees that the citizens are able to "remind" government just what our rights are.

    "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

    "A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their oppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141
     
  7. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe New Member

    338
    0
    0
    In short The Bill of Rights puts the limitation on Government it does not grant us rights.
     
  8. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    Limitations that the government has chosen to ignore for well over 100 years.
     
  9. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe New Member

    338
    0
    0
    Now that is another issue.
     
  10. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    The Constitution of the United States of America is a limit on the government.

    Its intent was a frame for the bounds that the government could operate within. Not a starting point for government to accumulate more power.

    Amendments I - VIII are an enumeration of the rights retained by the people guaranteed by their very existence. Amendment IX further makes the point that just because a right is no enumerated in the preceding amendments does not mean that that right in not inherent and reserved for the people.

    Sadly, states no longer enjoy the autonomy that the founders envisioned. We have the civil war and the great depression to thank for that.

    Actually, strike that last comment. We have only the People to blame for that. What's that famous quote?..."the people will only be as free as they wish to be."
     
  11. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    A-freaking-men.
     
  12. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    Heya Ramm,

    I also think the popularly elected Senate was a big step in the WRONG direction, and a corruption.
     
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    As do I. The states stop being a piece of the federal government and state being under the federal government.

    At least that is my take on it.
     
  14. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I can't remember who said it, but one of the founding fathers was against the bill of rights. He said that a list is not needed because the government does not have the power to limit those rights anyway (I think he was forgetting that the gov. will give itself the power unless restrained). SCOTUS is supposed to be our defense

    Some people also forget that the BoR protects unlisted rights as well.
    Those enumerated rights and the reasons provided are not the end all list of rights we have as humans.
    I have heard arguments against various findings of SCOTUS ruling something as a right that was not contained in the BoR. Because it was not in the BoR does not mean it is not a right. Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights, and Abortion Rights are a few that come to mind. Whether you agree with one of those or not, the fact that a right is not contained in the BoR does not mean it does not exist.

    While it is usually the job of SCOTUS to figure out if a law violates the BoR, it is also their job to make sure those rights not listed are also not violated, which means from time to time they will be called on to recognize those unlisted rights. Some will call what SCOTUS does as inventing new rights, which to me is incorrect since the BoR already said that there are many other rights that the people have that were not listed. It is only newly recognized as a right, just like when written the BoR was newly recognized but those rights themselves were not new.

    Now you can disagree with SCOTUS on why they recognized something as a right when they should not have, it is incorrect to claim a right recognized by SCOTUS is wrong becuase it does not appear in the BoR.
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Lots of the FOunding Fathers were against a bill of rights. They were wrong. I do not think they imagined how much power Congress would attempt to exercise and get away with. What would Madison think of Wickard v. Filburn?
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Well, here is some more information about U.S. v. Cruikshank, which was cited recently by the Georgia Supreme Court to declare that Georgians have no rights whatsoever under the Second Amendment.
     
  17. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    And with that view they hold, I draw a line in the sand, lock and load.
     
  18. lsu_nonleg

    lsu_nonleg New Member

    824
    0
    0
    It was a lot more than just one of them. A great portion of the arguing over the bill of rights was over just that. More specifically, they were scared that if some rights were enumerated, that government would simply "remove" intended rights from the people that weren't listed.

    Of course, in high school the brief mention of these guys was presented as "bastards that didn't want us to have free speech," etc. A great history prof in my later undergrad years laid that bare for me.