Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:00 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
quest7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: oklahoma city, okla
Gender: Male
Posts: 679
 
Device(s): GS3,Thunderbolt, Incredible, Acer Aspire 5750
Carrier: verizon

Thanks: 124
Thanked 111 Times in 70 Posts
Default Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

American citizens can be ordered to decrypt their PGP-scrambled hard drives for police to peruse for incriminating files, a federal judge in Colorado ruled today in what could become a precedent-setting case.

Judge Robert Blackburn ordered a Peyton, Colo., woman to decrypt the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop computer no later than February 21--or face the consequences including contempt of court. Oh, there's more in the link. Kind of long.

PGP Desktop: Even the FBI can't crack it!

(Credit: Symantec) Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the Fifth Amendment posed no barrier to his decryption order. The Fifth Amendment says that nobody may be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which has become known as the right to avoid self-incrimination.

"I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Blackburn wrote in a 10-page opinion today. He said the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789 and has been used to require telephone companies to aid in surveillance, could be invoked in forcing decryption of hard drives as well.

Because this involves a Fifth Amendment claim, Colorado prosecutors took the unusual step of seeking approval from headquarters in Washington, D.C.: On May 5, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer sent a letter to Colorado U.S. Attorney John Walsh saying "I hereby approve your request."

The question of whether a criminal defendant can be legally compelled to cough up his encryption passphrase remains an unsettled one, with law review articles for at least the last 15 years arguing the merits of either approach. (A U.S. Justice Department attorney wrote an article in 1996, for instance, titled "Compelled Production of Plaintext and Keys.")

Public interests will be harmed absent requiring defendants to make available unencrypted contents in circumstances like these. Failing to compel Ms. Fricosu amounts to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible.

Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Looks like a lot of laws will be modified for this new digital age, we live in.

Advertisements
quest7 is offline  
Last edited by quest7; January 23rd, 2012 at 08:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to quest7 For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (January 24th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old January 23rd, 2012, 08:35 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
quest7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: oklahoma city, okla
Gender: Male
Posts: 679
 
Device(s): GS3,Thunderbolt, Incredible, Acer Aspire 5750
Carrier: verizon

Thanks: 124
Thanked 111 Times in 70 Posts
Default

The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. 1651, which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The current form of the act was first passed in

1911 [1] and the act was amended

several times since then. [2]

All Writs Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
quest7 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2012, 09:36 PM   #3 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

It would be interesting to see how many of our current laws our founding fathers would disapprove of.
 
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (January 23rd, 2012), argedion (January 24th, 2012), B2L (January 24th, 2012), EarlyMon (January 24th, 2012)
Old January 23rd, 2012, 09:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,763 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

I just read this article this afternoon...
This is bull spit, Blackburn is a damn fool. The Fifth Amendment was built for this exact reason. If the drive contains incriminating evidence, then 5thAmend. says that you don't have to. I am governed by the Constitution, starting with 1-10, Congress and the Attorney General be damned. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves, and you know they would be all for crypto.

No reason not to encrypt your drive with True Crypt and implement the plausible deniability. That was recommended in several of the comments and it makes perfect sense. And I especially like the whole "umm... I forgot" response.

Sorry, got a little heated there, just to warm you up on a cold winter night
9to5cynic is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 9to5cynic For This Useful Post:
argedion (January 24th, 2012), B2L (January 24th, 2012), EarlyMon (January 24th, 2012)
Old January 23rd, 2012, 09:50 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Sulfur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 81
 
Device(s): 4 androids, 1 iPhone, 1 WP7
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Total horse shit. TrueCrypt's plausible deniability features are looking a lot tastier.
Sulfur is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:10 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Here Here! Bout time you lawless people are caught and brought before a judge while we toss your house, laptop and person. Preferably a hanging judge. I also favor in-session water boarding for witnesses that we think are lying under oath. Thumb screws, too.

Someone mentioned TrueCrypt/Plausibility features:

Plausible Deniability
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (January 24th, 2012)
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:27 AM   #7 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

I bet if someone posted the judge's address and other private information he'd be the first to cry about privacy violations.
 
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
kingdeeray (January 24th, 2012)
Old January 24th, 2012, 02:28 AM   #8 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,832
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,346 Times in 1,211 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Truecrypt needs to add a feature that completely scrambles all the data(permanently) if a certain password is entered, or if too many wrong password(user defined) have been entered.
__________________
Useful links: The Rules | The Team | FAQ | Unanswered Threads |
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to IOWA For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (January 24th, 2012), EarlyMon (January 24th, 2012), kingdeeray (January 24th, 2012)
Old January 24th, 2012, 05:45 AM   #9 (permalink)
The TechnoFrog
 
argedion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Severed Garden
Posts: 5,793
 
Device(s): Nexus 7 (2012)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,976
Thanked 5,558 Times in 2,560 Posts
Default

Sounds to me it's time to run dariks boot& nuke.I would run it everyday until the day b4. Then hand it over
__________________
All My Links In one Convenient Place
Asking simple questions can keep us from doing dumb things.
argedion is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 07:57 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,097
 
Device(s): Oppo Find 7 Nexus 4, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 62
Thanked 960 Times in 766 Posts
Default

Store private stuff elsewhere. USB drives are big enough.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 24th, 2012, 08:30 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Other rulings have gone the opposite way. It's kind of like asking someone to open a safe. I believe they can legally compel you to do so. They don't need the password or combination, just actual access to the files in question.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 08:43 AM   #12 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,832
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,346 Times in 1,211 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Other rulings have gone the opposite way. It's kind of like asking someone to open a safe. I believe they can legally compel you to do so. They don't need the password or combination, just actual access to the files in question.
No, I believe they can not. However, they can legally break in with a warrant.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 12:26 PM   #13 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,115
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,074
Thanked 1,999 Times in 1,054 Posts
Default

This sucks, where am I going to hide all my illegally copied cute kitten pictures now?!?!?!?

Once again we have a judge who thinks he is doing right by the people but is really overstepping his bounds. I do have to admit being a little torn on this one though, on the one hand I don't want the 5th amendment violated but on the other I could see where this would be helpful in combating and prosecuting child pornography. The problem is we can't trust the system to not abuse the power, they need to follow the first 10 to the letter and stop trying to put their own interpretation on it.

And one of the most damning things here is the name Lanny Breuer attached to it, it is amazing these idiots still have a job with the Fast and Furious scandal still in full bloom!
__________________
Have you seen me in a kilt?
Site Rules/Guidelines
Use the !Report button to report spam or objectionable posts.
If you find a post helpful please use the button!
SamuraiBigEd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

This is bull and I'm embarrassed that it was a Colorado judge who ruled this way. I will certainly keep this in mind when times comes to elect a judge & will make sure everyone I know knows about it when the time comes.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
kingdeeray (January 24th, 2012)
Old January 24th, 2012, 04:52 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,097
 
Device(s): Oppo Find 7 Nexus 4, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 62
Thanked 960 Times in 766 Posts
Default

Must have originally been from Colorado Springs. Peyton is close enough.
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 06:00 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by argedion View Post
Sounds to me it's time to run dariks boot& nuke.I would run it everyday until the day b4. Then hand it over
Not to play Lawyer, but if "they" prove you destroyed evidence, what then? Isn't it like burning documents before you go to court? Pissing off a prosecutor is one sure way to see joust how evil the evil side is.

Not too hard to prove you might have eliminated evidence. Just sayin.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 06:16 PM   #17 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,832
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,346 Times in 1,211 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Easy solution. Make sure your encryption needs a keyfile.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 06:30 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
kingdeeray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 69
 
Device(s): Nexus 4
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 15
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Easy solution. Make sure your encryption needs a keyfile.
Which program has such features? I'm curious to know
kingdeeray is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 06:48 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Personally I think it is pretty pointless anyways. If you have nothing to hide, you just open it up. If there is something incriminating you are probably going to jail anyways, so you just make a choice, go to jail for what is on your laptop or go to jail for keeping it encrypted. That is just my point of view.

Now, I do not think you should be able to be ordered to decrypt anything. It is kind of like a court being able to read your mind in my opinion. If I had anything to hide I would find a way to permanently delete everything if needed, even remotely.

I can already remotely find my phone via GPS, lock the phone with a password, and sound an alarm on my phone, all triggered by a SMS containing key words. I wish there was a way to trigger a factory reset if needed.
__________________
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 07:00 PM   #20 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,832
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,346 Times in 1,211 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Personally I think it is pretty pointless anyways. If you have nothing to hide, you just open it up. If there is something incriminating you are probably going to jail anyways, so you just make a choice, go to jail for what is on your laptop or go to jail for keeping it encrypted. That is just my point of view.

Now, I do not think you should be able to be ordered to decrypt anything. It is kind of like a court being able to read your mind in my opinion. If I had anything to hide I would find a way to permanently delete everything if needed, even remotely.

I can already remotely find my phone via GPS, lock the phone with a password, and sound an alarm on my phone, all triggered by a SMS containing key words. I wish there was a way to trigger a factory reset if needed.
Eh.. that's not really the point. The "nothing to hide" is a fear tactic so many people are submitting to and it's really sickening.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 24th, 2012, 07:47 PM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Eh.. that's not really the point. The "nothing to hide" is a fear tactic so many people are submitting to and it's really sickening.
I am always amused at those--coppers or citizens--that always seem to think you are guilty if you invoke your right against self-incrimination. Or how some police will badger you when you use your "right to remain silent..."

If you are arrested, you do not utter a single syllable.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 08:10 PM   #22 (permalink)
The TechnoFrog
 
argedion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Severed Garden
Posts: 5,793
 
Device(s): Nexus 7 (2012)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,976
Thanked 5,558 Times in 2,560 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Not to play Lawyer, but if "they" prove you destroyed evidence, what then? Isn't it like burning documents before you go to court? Pissing off a prosecutor is one sure way to see joust how evil the evil side is.

Not too hard to prove you might have eliminated evidence. Just sayin.
Maybe, however the Judge has gone to far. I would have my lawyers fight this. It is not my job to present them with evidence to prosecute me. If the Prosecutor has found it necessary for me to be charged with a crime then the burden of proof is on them not on me. If you don't have enough evidence for the courts to convict then why should we give it to them.
argedion is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2012, 10:13 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,763 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

When I was reading a truecrypt page (perhaps wikipeida - so take it with a grain of salt) one of the cites was a guy claiming that because the devs are so secretive, they could be CIA and there may be a backdoor to unlock the drive... lol.. Not sure if I buy that, but the conspiracy would make a nice story right?

Also, seems like I read on the cnet link that they can make you give them the key to a safe, and they are treating the pgp key as a safe key. Still not something I agree with.

And whoever mention that double passphrase ... very interesting. I was reading that it is possible with a couple of crypto methods to encode a message to two differernt people, as one file. Each person opens it with their key or passcode or whatever, and they get different messages. Very interesting, especially if applied to a truecrypt volume.

The digital world is sure getting spicy isn't it?
9to5cynic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:03 AM   #24 (permalink)
Member
 
Drhyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 493
 
Device(s): Galaxy Nexus with Jelly Bean (rooted)
Carrier: T-Mobile USA

Thanks: 59
Thanked 90 Times in 63 Posts
drhyde27@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Personally I think it is pretty pointless anyways. If you have nothing to hide, you just open it up. If there is something incriminating you are probably going to jail anyways, so you just make a choice, go to jail for what is on your laptop or go to jail for keeping it encrypted. That is just my point of view.

Now, I do not think you should be able to be ordered to decrypt anything. It is kind of like a court being able to read your mind in my opinion. If I had anything to hide I would find a way to permanently delete everything if needed, even remotely.

I can already remotely find my phone via GPS, lock the phone with a password, and sound an alarm on my phone, all triggered by a SMS containing key words. I wish there was a way to trigger a factory reset if needed.
Wouldn't it depend on the crime you are being charged with? I'd imagine if I had committed murder and evidence was on the computer for whatever reason, then it would be a hell of a lot less jail time for obstruction of justice or contempt.

Also, can't you do a factory reset remotely? I thought the feature was there since Froyo.
__________________
My blog: http://tkgod.blogspot.com
Drhyde is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:50 AM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
quest7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: oklahoma city, okla
Gender: Male
Posts: 679
 
Device(s): GS3,Thunderbolt, Incredible, Acer Aspire 5750
Carrier: verizon

Thanks: 124
Thanked 111 Times in 70 Posts
Default

Fifth Amendment issues can also arise if acknowledging ownership of a laptop or the existence of relevant documents is itself incriminating. But the police had recorded a phone call between Fricosu and her husband in which she seemed to acknowledge ownership of the laptop and to reference incriminating material on it.

Ars Technica

Oops
quest7 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2012, 02:51 AM   #26 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

I think the trouble with all this is that the US Constitution is looked at when it comes to matters like these. The Constitution was not designed to limit the State's powers. In this case, the Colorado state constitution should be the guide here. And after a 5 minute search, one can read Article 2, Section 18 for guidance.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/1876.pdf
__________________
Obama/Biden 2012...Because some Americans still have jobs!! ~ Mike Church
mike114 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2012, 09:17 AM   #27 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,115
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,074
Thanked 1,999 Times in 1,054 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
I think the trouble with all this is that the US Constitution is looked at when it comes to matters like these. The Constitution was not designed to limit the State's powers. In this case, the Colorado state constitution should be the guide here. And after a 5 minute search, one can read Article 2, Section 18 for guidance.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/1876.pdf
The states are supposed to follow the Constitution in all matters otherwise there is no use for the document.
SamuraiBigEd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2012, 11:14 AM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
I think the trouble with all this is that the US Constitution is looked at when it comes to matters like these. The Constitution was not designed to limit the State's powers. In this case, the Colorado state constitution should be the guide here. And after a 5 minute search, one can read Article 2, Section 18 for guidance.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/1876.pdf
No, it was designed to spell out the rights that every individual is born with. It wasn't created to provide the rights, we are all born with them even if the document didn't exist. So if the state wishes to rule in a manner that violates the individual's rights then the federal government is supposed to step in the keep the state from violating the rights of it's citizens. This is a good example where the 5th amendment should clearly apply and anything saying otherwise is a direct violation of the individual's 5th amendment rights to not provide information that would incriminate themselves. To FORCE someone to give up any information that could be self incriminating is ludicrous. If the prosecution doesn't have a case then the guy walks. Period. End of story.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
jayjay1122 (January 25th, 2012)
Old January 25th, 2012, 12:52 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,763 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

Someone (I think on here somewhere...I'd fell like an idiot if it turned out to be this thread ) said something along the lines that:
in the past, laws were written saying what you *can* do, now they are written saying what you *cannot* do.

Strike that, reverse it!
9to5cynic is offline  
Last edited by 9to5cynic; January 25th, 2012 at 10:24 PM. Reason: eeeeh.. disregard.
Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2012, 02:29 PM   #30 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,323
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,706
Thanked 57,146 Times in 22,962 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9to5cynic View Post
Someone (I think on here somewhere...I'd fell like an idiot if it turned out to be this thread ) said something along the lines that:
in the past, laws were written saying what you *can* do, now they are written saying what you *cannot* do.
Hmmmm, how true is that?

I thought we had freedom as a natural right except where curtailed by law.

The Bill of Rights specifies our rights by saying what the government cannot do to us, yes?

Or am I all wooly here?
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (January 25th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old January 25th, 2012, 10:21 PM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,763 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

Hmm.. you know, I think I might have gotten that backasswards. Re-reading it now (several hours later), that doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe this works better:
In the past, laws were written telling us what we *cannot* do, know they tell us what we *can* do.

I think that's better, but I'm sure if it isn't, I'll realize it sometime tomorrow....


Anyway, when I first read it, I was like "Oh yeah, that's it right there!".... >.<
9to5cynic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2012, 01:07 AM   #32 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
No, it was designed to spell out the rights that every individual is born with. It wasn't created to provide the rights, we are all born with them even if the document didn't exist. So if the state wishes to rule in a manner that violates the individual's rights then the federal government is supposed to step in the keep the state from violating the rights of it's citizens. This is a good example where the 5th amendment should clearly apply and anything saying otherwise is a direct violation of the individual's 5th amendment rights to not provide information that would incriminate themselves. To FORCE someone to give up any information that could be self incriminating is ludicrous. If the prosecution doesn't have a case then the guy walks. Period. End of story.
The original intent of the Constitution was to limit the federal government only. If the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the States, then they are free to do what they wish. At least that's how it was supposed to be. In theory, States can't really violate the 5th Amendment as it applies to the federal government only. If the Constitution is the superior document, then what is the point of States having constitutions?? In this case, it seems the Colorado constitution has been violated and it should be dealt with at the State level. We do believe in State's rights, don't we?
mike114 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2012, 01:19 AM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
The original intent of the Constitution was to limit the federal government only. If the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the States, then they are free to do what they wish. At least that's how it was supposed to be. In theory, States can't really violate the 5th Amendment as it applies to the federal government only. If the Constitution is the superior document, then what is the point of States having constitutions?? In this case, it seems the Colorado constitution has been violated and it should be dealt with at the State level. We do believe in State's rights, don't we?
So now you're putting the state's rights above the individuals rights? I'm all for states rights but when the state makes stupid decisions like this that infringe on the rights of an individual (such as this) then the only thing left to do is get the federal government involved to reverse the state's infringement on the individuals rights.

It amazes me that in this whole State vs Federal government debate so many people have forgotten about the individual who's rights are paramount to all.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (January 27th, 2012), SamuraiBigEd (January 26th, 2012)
Old January 26th, 2012, 09:31 AM   #34 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,115
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,074
Thanked 1,999 Times in 1,054 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
The original intent of the Constitution was to limit the federal government only. If the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the States, then they are free to do what they wish. At least that's how it was supposed to be. In theory, States can't really violate the 5th Amendment as it applies to the federal government only. If the Constitution is the superior document, then what is the point of States having constitutions?? In this case, it seems the Colorado constitution has been violated and it should be dealt with at the State level. We do believe in State's rights, don't we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
So now you're putting the state's rights above the individuals rights? I'm all for states rights but when the state makes stupid decisions like this that infringe on the rights of an individual (such as this) then the only thing left to do is get the federal government involved to reverse the state's infringement on the individuals rights.

It amazes me that in this whole State vs Federal government debate so many people have forgotten about the individual who's rights are paramount to all.
Ostrich is correct on this one, the Constitution is not a "suggestion" that can be tossed out at the state level, it is a list of rights granted to all citizens that can not be violated by anyone. Any arguments that the founding fathers intended it to apply to the federal government only are patently false, to assume such totally negates the concept behind the Constitution.
SamuraiBigEd is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SamuraiBigEd For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (January 27th, 2012)
Old January 26th, 2012, 10:37 AM   #35 (permalink)
One bite at a time...
 
Martimus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 'neath a cactus
Posts: 19,519
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S-5, Samsung Galaxy Pro 12.2
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,920
Thanked 4,032 Times in 2,410 Posts
martimus98
Default

Give it time...

Blackburn is a US District Court judge. I have little doubt that this will make it's way to the 10th circuit Court of Appeals. From what I've read the 10th circuit is a fairly liberal court so I'm guessing that this issue will find it's way to the Supreme Court.
__________________
Yea though I walk through the Valley of Google I shall fear no Apple...

Advice provided comes from fellow Android enthusiasts. We're not tech support. Please do your due dilligence before implementing! And if someone helped you, please share the love with the button...
Martimus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #36 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
Ostrich is correct on this one, the Constitution is not a "suggestion" that can be tossed out at the state level, it is a list of rights granted to all citizens that can not be violated by anyone. Any arguments that the founding fathers intended it to apply to the federal government only are patently false, to assume such totally negates the concept behind the Constitution.
I'm sorry to disagree with you guys on this one as I believe we are on the same page when it comes to most debates. But it's you that are wrong on this one. The Constitution was to restrict the feds only. I believed like you did but have since changed my mind thanks in part to people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods.

In fact, I had asked Prof Gutzman this same question back in june on FB. This was my question, "Prof Gutzman, I'd like to ask you a quick question about the Constitution if I may.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government. So all the challenges to states violating people's 2nd & 4th amendment rights are not the right tact. Shouldn't people be looking at their state's constitutions to be defending their positions when it comes to gun rights and search and siezure protections?"

His answer was a quick and simple, "Yep".

We need to realize that the States were the one's who created the federal government and they would never allow the feds to have this much power over them. If it's not prohibited by the federal gov't, than the States are free to do what they wish within the confines of the their respective State constitutions. We are either all in when it comes to State's rights, or we aren't.

Remember, the 1st Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law". Nothing in there about the States.

Unfortunately we have been taught the incorrect version of the Constitution and the States have been paying a heavy price since then.
mike114 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2012, 02:41 PM   #37 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
So now you're putting the state's rights above the individuals rights? I'm all for states rights but when the state makes stupid decisions like this that infringe on the rights of an individual (such as this) then the only thing left to do is get the federal government involved to reverse the state's infringement on the individuals rights.

It amazes me that in this whole State vs Federal government debate so many people have forgotten about the individual who's rights are paramount to all.
So what happens when the Feds infringe on our rights? Should we then allow the UN or some world court decide for us? Of course not. We are to hold our elected officials responsible and when they enact laws that violate Constitutions, they need to be replaced. And judges who affirm these types of laws need to be impeached immediately.

Just as we should not look to the world community when the feds violate the US Constitution, federal judges should not be getting involved when States violate their constitutions unless of course it is what's described in the 10th Amendment.

And thanks for the responses. We need these types of discussion to get people to really think how much our federal government has gone beyond anything the Founders (except for maybe a few) would have envisioned.
mike114 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2012, 02:18 AM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
I'm sorry to disagree with you guys on this one as I believe we are on the same page when it comes to most debates. But it's you that are wrong on this one. The Constitution was to restrict the feds only. I believed like you did but have since changed my mind thanks in part to people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods.

In fact, I had asked Prof Gutzman this same question back in june on FB. This was my question, "Prof Gutzman, I'd like to ask you a quick question about the Constitution if I may.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government. So all the challenges to states violating people's 2nd & 4th amendment rights are not the right tact. Shouldn't people be looking at their state's constitutions to be defending their positions when it comes to gun rights and search and siezure protections?"

His answer was a quick and simple, "Yep".

We need to realize that the States were the one's who created the federal government and they would never allow the feds to have this much power over them. If it's not prohibited by the federal gov't, than the States are free to do what they wish within the confines of the their respective State constitutions. We are either all in when it comes to State's rights, or we aren't.

Remember, the 1st Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law". Nothing in there about the States.

Unfortunately we have been taught the incorrect version of the Constitution and the States have been paying a heavy price since then.
Actually, it wasn't the states that created the federal government. It was the PEOPLE who created both forms of government. The individual's supersede the state government. The state is NOT to infringe upon the individual's rights and if it does then it's up to the federal government to step in via the Supreme court to rule if a law infringes upon the rights of the individuals. In this manner the federal government can indeed rule over a state but it does so only in looking out for the individual when the state has overstepped it's boundaries. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that a state couldn't simply create laws taking away one's freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to due process and any other rights we're born with. This is why they added this check. The problem lies with the continual bending and reinterpreting of the constitution to allow them to slowly chip away at our freedoms. I find it hard to believe that by 'right to bear arms' they meant that we would be restricted beyond belief to the point of lots of people not even being able to own them or carry them to protect themselves. This is for another thread however. At no point will you convince me that the founding fathers wanted the states to be able to run amok with the rights of the citizens regardless of what some professor says.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2012, 02:25 AM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
So what happens when the Feds infringe on our rights? Should we then allow the UN or some world court decide for us? Of course not. We are to hold our elected officials responsible and when they enact laws that violate Constitutions, they need to be replaced. And judges who affirm these types of laws need to be impeached immediately.

Just as we should not look to the world community when the feds violate the US Constitution, federal judges should not be getting involved when States violate their constitutions unless of course it is what's described in the 10th Amendment.

And thanks for the responses. We need these types of discussion to get people to really think how much our federal government has gone beyond anything the Founders (except for maybe a few) would have envisioned.
Why would we get the UN involved in anything? There are checks and balances for a reason and there are processes for everything. If those checks and balances fail then we're required as citizens of this great nation to regain control of the government by any means necessary. It's not something that we 'could' do if we feel like it it's something we're actually required to do when the government gains too much power. When the government fears it's people you have freedom & liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny & oppression.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2012, 02:25 AM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gearu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 774
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note 3, Samsung Galaxy SII Silver Edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 61
Thanked 87 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Isn't fighting terrorism (and anything labelled as terrorism) while oppressing your own people counter-productive?
Gearu is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 29th, 2012, 02:40 AM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearu View Post
Isn't fighting terrorism (and anything labelled as terrorism) while oppressing your own people counter-productive?
One would think. Seems to me the more liberties they take from us the closer we get to the very people we're fighting. Guess most sheeple don't think this way thought. Gotta keep us all safe from the boogie man!
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2012, 03:43 AM   #42 (permalink)
The TechnoFrog
 
argedion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Severed Garden
Posts: 5,793
 
Device(s): Nexus 7 (2012)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,976
Thanked 5,558 Times in 2,560 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
One would think. Seems to me the more liberties they take from us the closer we get to the very people we're fighting. Guess most sheeple don't think this way thought. Gotta keep us all safe from the boogie man!

To bad the boogie man is the sheeple. As long as we sit on our ass and don't make out cries and fight for our rights then why would anyone else? To quote my own self in another thread:

We have grown accustomed to the way of life that many Great people fought and died for. Now we dishonor them by not doing anything but watching the world go to hell in a hand basket. But We are entertained.
argedion is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to argedion For This Useful Post:
SamuraiBigEd (January 29th, 2012)
Old January 29th, 2012, 01:49 PM   #43 (permalink)
Under paid Sasquatch!
 
SamuraiBigEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,115
 
Device(s): HTC One Max, waiting for root! Asus Transformer 16GB
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3,074
Thanked 1,999 Times in 1,054 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
I'm sorry to disagree with you guys on this one as I believe we are on the same page when it comes to most debates. But it's you that are wrong on this one. The Constitution was to restrict the feds only. I believed like you did but have since changed my mind thanks in part to people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods.

In fact, I had asked Prof Gutzman this same question back in june on FB. This was my question, "Prof Gutzman, I'd like to ask you a quick question about the Constitution if I may.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government. So all the challenges to states violating people's 2nd & 4th amendment rights are not the right tact. Shouldn't people be looking at their state's constitutions to be defending their positions when it comes to gun rights and search and siezure protections?"

His answer was a quick and simple, "Yep".

We need to realize that the States were the one's who created the federal government and they would never allow the feds to have this much power over them. If it's not prohibited by the federal gov't, than the States are free to do what they wish within the confines of the their respective State constitutions. We are either all in when it comes to State's rights, or we aren't.

Remember, the 1st Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law". Nothing in there about the States.

Unfortunately we have been taught the incorrect version of the Constitution and the States have been paying a heavy price since then.
From day one the U.S. Supreme Court has had the ability to intervene when States violated individual rights and are supposed to do so still. Anyone who argues to the contrary is stating personal opinion which is where a lot of the misconception comes from in the first place. Historians give their opinion as to what happened as they see it, I have seen almost none who are totally unbiased.

The Constitution was enacted to protect individual liberties, if the States can toss it aside then why was it created at all? It would serve absolutely no purpose at all if it is not all encompassing.
SamuraiBigEd is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SamuraiBigEd For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (January 29th, 2012)
Old January 30th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #44 (permalink)
One bite at a time...
 
Martimus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 'neath a cactus
Posts: 19,519
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S-5, Samsung Galaxy Pro 12.2
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1,920
Thanked 4,032 Times in 2,410 Posts
martimus98
Default

The challenge we run into with regard to constitutional law is that enforcement is based upon interpretation... not fact. The Executive branch interprets it their way, Congress interprets it their way, the States interpret it their way, and constitutional scholars interpret it their way. In most cases this means that interpretation is subject to legal challenges and, ultimately, the final interpretation comes from the US Supreme Court.
Martimus is online now  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Martimus For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (January 30th, 2012), argedion (January 30th, 2012), SamuraiBigEd (January 30th, 2012)
Old January 30th, 2012, 04:34 PM   #45 (permalink)
The TechnoFrog
 
argedion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Severed Garden
Posts: 5,793
 
Device(s): Nexus 7 (2012)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5,976
Thanked 5,558 Times in 2,560 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martimus View Post
The challenge we run into with regard to constitutional law is that enforcement is based upon interpretation... not fact. The Executive branch interprets it their way, Congress interprets it their way, the States interpret it their way, and constitutional scholars interpret it their way. In most cases this means that interpretation is subject to legal challenges and, ultimately, the final interpretation comes from the US Supreme Court.
And the only thing we can count on is in the end We the People will get screwed.
argedion is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2012, 03:31 AM   #46 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBigEd View Post
From day one the U.S. Supreme Court has had the ability to intervene when States violated individual rights and are supposed to do so still. Anyone who argues to the contrary is stating personal opinion which is where a lot of the misconception comes from in the first place. Historians give their opinion as to what happened as they see it, I have seen almost none who are totally unbiased.

The Constitution was enacted to protect individual liberties, if the States can toss it aside then why was it created at all? It would serve absolutely no purpose at all if it is not all encompassing.
Some of you on here, and I mean that with no disrespect, need to grasp what our Founders envisioned when creating the Constitution. There is a great FB post written by one of the Forgotten Men and the thread that ensue's is very enlightening and educational. If you really feel the US Constitution was to be superior to the State Constitutions (like it does now) was the intent of our Founders, I beg you to read this.

https://www.facebook.com/theforgottenmen/posts/10150662901396069

Here is a sample of that writing, "Under a proper rendering of the Bill of Rights, any State can regulate the heck out of guns and the Federal government has absolutely no say about it. We the People of that State do, but not the federal government. And when a crappy State, populated by a bunch of crappy people who don't care about the Inalienable Right to self defense, regulates the heck out of gun ownership, the very last thing the non-crappy people of that State should do is run to the federal courts for help. No, they should run to their State courts, their State legislature, run for office themselves to take back political power themselves in their State...or leave the crappy state. That's it!"

I'd love to get some feedback on this as I think this is something worthy of discussion. I was going to create another thread, but thought it might work here.
mike114 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2012, 05:47 AM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,350
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 246 Times in 192 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
Some of you on here, and I mean that with no disrespect, need to grasp what our Founders envisioned when creating the Constitution. There is a great FB post written by one of the Forgotten Men and the thread that ensue's is very enlightening and educational. If you really feel the US Constitution was to be superior to the State Constitutions (like it does now) was the intent of our Founders, I beg you to read this.

https://www.facebook.com/theforgottenmen/posts/10150662901396069

Here is a sample of that writing, "Under a proper rendering of the Bill of Rights, any State can regulate the heck out of guns and the Federal government has absolutely no say about it. We the People of that State do, but not the federal government. And when a crappy State, populated by a bunch of crappy people who don't care about the Inalienable Right to self defense, regulates the heck out of gun ownership, the very last thing the non-crappy people of that State should do is run to the federal courts for help. No, they should run to their State courts, their State legislature, run for office themselves to take back political power themselves in their State...or leave the crappy state. That's it!"

I'd love to get some feedback on this as I think this is something worthy of discussion. I was going to create another thread, but thought it might work here.
how anyone could possibly believe this was the intent is beyond imagination........ WOW just WOW
copestag is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2012, 05:57 AM   #48 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
how anyone could possibly believe this was the intent is beyond imagination........ WOW just WOW
So it's obvious you didn't read any of it other than what I posted. Thanks for taking the time to at least argue one of the points that was presented. Oh wait...you didn't.

Since at the heart of all this is the 14th Amendment, maybe you can provide the writings or the debates that would make that amendment as powerful as it has become. There are many arguments to the contrary from the writers of that amendment. But if this position is as wrong as you say it is, it should be easy for you to find the proof that the 14th Amendment was to be used as the "Incorporation Doctrine" that the Supremes dreamed it to be.
mike114 is offline  
Last edited by mike114; March 7th, 2012 at 06:14 AM. Reason: enhancing point
Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2012, 06:19 AM   #49 (permalink)
Member
 
mike114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 200
 
Device(s): HTC Thunderbolt
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 36
Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Here is a post in the thread that you may have missed if you read through it;

"You always interpret a Constitution (or an amendment) based on what the parties believed they were agreeing to at the time. If you look at the ratification debates surrounding the 14th, and the words of those "selling" the amendment to the states, the intent is clear. They said the amendment was a constitutionalization of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 and they also said it was not meant to give "blanket policing authority" to the federal government. The states were to maintain their authority over areas not enumerated by the Constitution. The 14th was meant to secure for the freed slaves the same rights of citizenship as those already citizens and to protect them from unfair treatment by the states...as in extending privileges to one group and not the other. The rights protected were limited and specific, including the right to own property, enter into contracts and travel freely between states."
mike114 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2012, 10:17 AM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,437
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 319 Times in 201 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
"The states were to maintain their authority over areas not enumerated by the Constitution."
This is the key to that statement and the right to bear arms is indeed "enumerated by the Constitution" so therefore a state may NOT infringe upon this right and if they do then it IS the right of the federal government to step in and return those rights to the individuals. So if rights are taken away from the people by the state government then the federal government has every right to step in make sure the people aren't being stripped of their rights. Firearm controls are exactly that and there's no argument other than degree. A better example is with Colorado essentially legalizing MJ (by way of script and soon to be w/o script to those above the age of 21 as the current bill is written) and the federal government stepping in and saying they won't honor that. People with legal prescriptions for MJ (I personally think this is a crock but it doesn't affect me so whatever) were considered legal to possess and use within the sate yet federal agents were slapping these people with federal charges within Colorado. WTF? If a state chooses (by way of it's people, bills, elections, votes and all forms of diplomacy) to give MORE rights to it's people then the federal government has NO right to step in and say they can't. If a state wants to make it legal for it's residents to keep SBRs, suppressors and anything else currently controlled by the ATF so long as they're state residents and the items are all produced within state lines then the ATF should have nothing to say about it the way they currently do. If it never crosses state lines then why should the federal government have anything to say?

These are the places where the federal government has stepped it's bounds. The example given about slavery is a simple case for federal government intervention since black people's civil rights were being infringed upon by indentured servitude blatantly but at the state level some did NOT want to give up the right to own slaves. A right can NOT infringe on another's right or it's not a right at all. This is why the federal government stepped in and the funny thing is that Abraham Lincoln gets all the credit for "freeing the slaves" when he's on record saying that his only concern during the Civil War was keeping the Union together and if that meant making slavery legal he would just as easily choose that. Sure, the end result was the correct one and he gets all the glory but, as mentioned in your links, sometimes the temperature of the nation at the time history occurs is quite different then how the history books get written later one. I digress. The bottom line is that the Federal government should NOT be allowed to take away citizens rights when the state is trying to give them more. If a state or city says you can't own a firearm as a law abiding citizen who's done nothing to warrant such treatment then it is the duty of the federal government to step in and say that the state can NOT infringe upon that individual's right. Checks and balances.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Last edited by OstrichSaK; March 7th, 2012 at 10:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
IOWA (March 7th, 2012)
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.