How the Government protects your rights

[bucs90]

When a Government CHOOSES to ignore, illegally alter, or change the written rules...

um... what?

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

EXCLUSIVE - U.S. to let spy agencies scour Americans' finances | Reuters

Al Qaida operatives, Iranian spies, Russian spies, Hezbollah cells, etc, etc, etc.......are all funded through domestic banking accounts.

 

[SuperDave]

This thread is to discuss how the governments (yes, plural) of this country DO protect our rights. The military and police are obviously the tools we use to do it. But, in the macro sense of the topic, here is why:

If you were on a giant island with 1,000 other people, with NO government, then there are no rights. Nope. Not at all. Its every man for himself. Survival of the fittest. Each man may think he alone has certain rights, but the other 1,000 may not.

So, what if those 1,001 people get together, and agree on certain rights. They make a bill, with 5 specific rights.

But what if 100 of those savages say "Fuck that, I dont recognize your rights, and when the time is right, I'll kill you, steal from you, rape your daughter, or burn your home."

Well, thats no good. Even if you have rights, those others dont recognize it.

So, what if those 1,001 people see that........and the other 901 decide they need an "Island Watch" that will be tasked with making sure those other 100 people....as well as the rest of the 901, respect those rights and dont do anything that would violate them.

So now you have the Island's 5 Rights written down, and a group who will act on behalf of the island residents to make sure the entire population abides by those 5 rights.

1 Islander is put in charge of the Island Watch, a group of 50 Islanders. BUT....what if Island Watch gets power hungry, and they start breaking the rules? Well, the Islanders agree that every 6 months, all 1,001 will vote on a new Island Watch Chief. And, the Island Watch is not immune to the rules of the island, so, if they violate one, they too can be punished as the rest of the people would be. In fact, to ensure this, they split Island Watch into 4 different groups of Island Watch. One has the whole island. The other 3 split the island into 3 parts, and govern only those. Of one of the 3 does something wrong, the first Whole Island Watch can govern them. If Whole Island does something wrong, then whichever area of the 3 they did it in....that 1 of 3 can punish them. We'll call it "Checks and Balances", and we'll elect 4 citizens who are NOT part of Island Watch to oversee the process. We'll call them "Island Judges".


I can go on and on, but you see the point. Government is nothing but a body of people who work to esnure that our society acknowledges and respects the rights we came up with.


Otherwise........we are just 300,000,000 people living on a big chunk of land in between two big oceans, and we'd have 300,000,000 different opinions on what each persons "rights" are.

This is common sense, basic Civics 101 shit here. I dont know why its so hard for some to understand?

What part of this have you found others to have trouble understanding? The problem comes in when The State oversteps it's assigned duties, not when it follows them.

 

[SuperDave]

um... what?

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

EXCLUSIVE - U.S. to let spy agencies scour Americans' finances | Reuters

Al Qaida operatives, Iranian spies, Russian spies, Hezbollah cells, etc, etc, etc.......are all funded through domestic banking accounts.

So that makes it okay for them to go digging around in my personal banking record without a warrant or even a reasonable belief that I had done anything wrong?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This thread is to discuss how the governments (yes, plural) of this country DO protect our rights. The military and police are obviously the tools we use to do it. But, in the macro sense of the topic, here is why:

If you were on a giant island with 1,000 other people, with NO government, then there are no rights. Nope. Not at all. Its every man for himself. Survival of the fittest. Each man may think he alone has certain rights, but the other 1,000 may not.

So, what if those 1,001 people get together, and agree on certain rights. They make a bill, with 5 specific rights.

But what if 100 of those savages say "Fuck that, I dont recognize your rights, and when the time is right, I'll kill you, steal from you, rape your daughter, or burn your home."

Well, thats no good. Even if you have rights, those others dont recognize it.

So, what if those 1,001 people see that........and the other 901 decide they need an "Island Watch" that will be tasked with making sure those other 100 people....as well as the rest of the 901, respect those rights and dont do anything that would violate them.

So now you have the Island's 5 Rights written down, and a group who will act on behalf of the island residents to make sure the entire population abides by those 5 rights.

1 Islander is put in charge of the Island Watch, a group of 50 Islanders. BUT....what if Island Watch gets power hungry, and they start breaking the rules? Well, the Islanders agree that every 6 months, all 1,001 will vote on a new Island Watch Chief. And, the Island Watch is not immune to the rules of the island, so, if they violate one, they too can be punished as the rest of the people would be. In fact, to ensure this, they split Island Watch into 4 different groups of Island Watch. One has the whole island. The other 3 split the island into 3 parts, and govern only those. Of one of the 3 does something wrong, the first Whole Island Watch can govern them. If Whole Island does something wrong, then whichever area of the 3 they did it in....that 1 of 3 can punish them. We'll call it "Checks and Balances", and we'll elect 4 citizens who are NOT part of Island Watch to oversee the process. We'll call them "Island Judges".


I can go on and on, but you see the point. Government is nothing but a body of people who work to esnure that our society acknowledges and respects the rights we came up with.


Otherwise........we are just 300,000,000 people living on a big chunk of land in between two big oceans, and we'd have 300,000,000 different opinions on what each persons "rights" are.

This is common sense, basic Civics 101 shit here. I dont know why its so hard for some to understand?

See now why the Founders believed that only moral, religious people were qualified to serve in government?

See the distorted, bizarre world view?

 

[OKTexas]

I've never disagreed with that at all.

But, that said, the Constitution also would not allow for the FBI or FEMA. For a while, the Coast Guard would've been un-Constitutional when it was under the Dept of Transportation rather than it's current home under the DOD. And I see valid reasons to have all of those. Would you agree?

actually it had it's roots in the Treasury Dept

United States Coast Guard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But Hamilton bailed out Wall Street, so we know he can't be trusted

Ah, cool, didnt know that.

I've said many times that the FBI would be un-Constitutional to the purists. They have yet to comment on it.

The FBI is not part of any "standing army". It is not the police agency of any state, county or city. It is purely the National Police Force of the Federal Government, which by Constitutional purity, would be forbidden.

Im awaiting a right winger to justify getting rid of the FBI.

The functions of the FBI are what's unconstitutional, if you read the Kentucky resolution the Feds have very limited law enforcement authority, if the FBI were dedicate to those only I would see no problem with them.

A key provision of the Kentucky Resolutions was Resolution 2, which denied Congress more than a few penal powers by arguing that Congress had no authority to punish crimes other than those specifically named in the Constitution. The Alien and Sedition Acts were asserted to be unconstitutional, and therefore void, because they dealt with crimes not mentioned in the Constitution:

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intitled "An Act in addition to the act intitled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the—day of June, 1798, intitled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force watsoever.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

For the most part today, the police don't protect our rights; they protect the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is this an admission of defeat on your debate with me in my thread? Did you run away because you were losing?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights.html

Don't worry, I can mock you just as easily here.

This thread is to discuss how the governments (yes, plural) of this country DO protect our rights. The military and police are obviously the tools we use to do it. But, in the macro sense of the topic, here is why:

If you were on a giant island with 1,000 other people, with NO government, then there are no rights. Nope. Not at all. Its every man for himself. Survival of the fittest. Each man may think he alone has certain rights, but the other 1,000 may not.

Since there are no rights on that island it must be full of wrongs.

No, that can't be correct, in order for there to be wrongs there have to be rights. I guess that makes your statement that, without government, there are no rights wrong.

So, what if those 1,001 people get together, and agree on certain rights. They make a bill, with 5 specific rights.

But what if 100 of those savages say "Fuck that, I dont recognize your rights, and when the time is right, I'll kill you, steal from you, rape your daughter, or burn your home."

They weren't doing that before these people got together to create rights? Does that mean that government creates crime?

Well, thats no good. Even if you have rights, those others dont recognize it.

So, what if those 1,001 people see that........and the other 901 decide they need an "Island Watch" that will be tasked with making sure those other 100 people....as well as the rest of the 901, respect those rights and dont do anything that would violate them.

Is there a reason they couldn't do that before they invented rights?

So now you have the Island's 5 Rights written down, and a group who will act on behalf of the island residents to make sure the entire population abides by those 5 rights.

If you are forced to abide by these rights wouldn't that make them wrongs? What makes the Island watch better than the people who reject the wrongs you invented?

1 Islander is put in charge of the Island Watch, a group of 50 Islanders. BUT....what if Island Watch gets power hungry, and they start breaking the rules? Well, the Islanders agree that every 6 months, all 1,001 will vote on a new Island Watch Chief. And, the Island Watch is not immune to the rules of the island, so, if they violate one, they too can be punished as the rest of the people would be. In fact, to ensure this, they split Island Watch into 4 different groups of Island Watch. One has the whole island. The other 3 split the island into 3 parts, and govern only those. Of one of the 3 does something wrong, the first Whole Island Watch can govern them. If Whole Island does something wrong, then whichever area of the 3 they did it in....that 1 of 3 can punish them. We'll call it "Checks and Balances", and we'll elect 4 citizens who are NOT part of Island Watch to oversee the process. We'll call them "Island Judges".

Your imaginary wrongs seem to be making things a lot more complicated than it was before you invented them. Still can't see a need for a government to protect me from something that was not a problem before you invented it.

I can go on and on, but you see the point. Government is nothing but a body of people who work to esnure that our society acknowledges and respects the rights we came up with.

If it was nothing more than that there wouldn't have been a need to come up with a way to keep it from getting to big for its britches.

Otherwise........we are just 300,000,000 people living on a big chunk of land in between two big oceans, and we'd have 300,000,000 different opinions on what each persons "rights" are.

This is common sense, basic Civics 101 shit here. I dont know why its so hard for some to understand?

Here is the funny thing, you just invented a complicated system for for making up wrongs, and you think you proved that somehow makes things right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When a Government CHOOSES to ignore, illegally alter, or change the written rules, as Our Government has done and continues to do, you no longer have a Government of the people. You have a Bureaucracy lead by a few people trampling on the agreed upon rights.

Thats true. Like the DOJ ignoring Voter Rights laws, just because of race. Or, NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy. I haven't read much about that policy, but, I do know as a former cop that to legally stop a person, you must have at a minimum "Reasonable Suspicion", meaning a reasonable belief that a person may have been or about to be involved in a crime. And to frisk a person, you MUST have some knowledge that a person could possibly be armed illegally. I'd like to see more on that policy.

But other times, governments do protect our rights. Like how the State Law Enforcement Division in S.C. back in the 80's cracked down on the North Charleston Police Dept for 4th amendment and use of force violations, with numerous officers going to jail.

I do acknowledge though, that if the Feds are the ones violating laws, it is hard to punish them. In theory, if an FBI agent illegally detains someone, then the local police in that jurisdiction could arrest that FBI agent. But even if they did, and that agent was 1,000 miles away in Washington DC afterwards, is a local PD gonna have the will and finances to send a team of detectives to DC to try to arrest him? When it comes to LE, that is one of my concerns, how can local and state governments hold fedreal agents accountable if they do wrong. I dont have any examples of that to give, although Im sure they've happened, but that is a concern.

The stop and frisk policy has existed for years, is being run by the government, and has passed multiple court challenges. One would think that, if your system actually protected rights, this would not be going on at all. Strangely enough, it is actually expanding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

examples?

The Federal Government has ONLY those powers delineated in the Constitution. There is no authority for Social Security, Medicare, HUD, Education or a myriad of other powers assumed since the 1930's. The general claim is that some how magically they all fall under the Commerce clause.

I've never disagreed with that at all.

But, that said, the Constitution also would not allow for the FBI or FEMA. For a while, the Coast Guard would've been un-Constitutional when it was under the Dept of Transportation rather than it's current home under the DOD. And I see valid reasons to have all of those. Would you agree?

I can see valid reasons to have a national religion, doesn't make it right, or Constitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've never disagreed with that at all.

But, that said, the Constitution also would not allow for the FBI or FEMA. For a while, the Coast Guard would've been un-Constitutional when it was under the Dept of Transportation rather than it's current home under the DOD. And I see valid reasons to have all of those. Would you agree?

actually it had it's roots in the Treasury Dept

United States Coast Guard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But Hamilton bailed out Wall Street, so we know he can't be trusted

Ah, cool, didnt know that.

I've said many times that the FBI would be un-Constitutional to the purists. They have yet to comment on it.

The FBI is not part of any "standing army". It is not the police agency of any state, county or city. It is purely the National Police Force of the Federal Government, which by Constitutional purity, would be forbidden.

Im awaiting a right winger to justify getting rid of the FBI.

I am still waiting for people to justify having it. If someone actually comes up with a reasonable justification I will work on justifying getting rid of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the most part today, the police don't protect our rights; they protect the government.

Which would not be half the problem it is if the courts were not in on it.

 

[Agit8r]

Is this an admission of defeat on your debate with me in my thread? Did you run away because you were losing?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights.html

Don't worry, I can mock you just as easily here.

This thread is to discuss how the governments (yes, plural) of this country DO protect our rights. The military and police are obviously the tools we use to do it. But, in the macro sense of the topic, here is why:

If you were on a giant island with 1,000 other people, with NO government, then there are no rights. Nope. Not at all. Its every man for himself. Survival of the fittest. Each man may think he alone has certain rights, but the other 1,000 may not.

Since there are no rights on that island it must be full of wrongs.

No, that can't be correct, in order for there to be wrongs there have to be rights. I guess that makes your statement that, without government, there are no rights wrong.

So, what if those 1,001 people get together, and agree on certain rights. They make a bill, with 5 specific rights.

But what if 100 of those savages say "Fuck that, I dont recognize your rights, and when the time is right, I'll kill you, steal from you, rape your daughter, or burn your home."

They weren't doing that before these people got together to create rights? Does that mean that government creates crime?



Is there a reason they couldn't do that before they invented rights?



If you are forced to abide by these rights wouldn't that make them wrongs? What makes the Island watch better than the people who reject the wrongs you invented?



Your imaginary wrongs seem to be making things a lot more complicated than it was before you invented them. Still can't see a need for a government to protect me from something that was not a problem before you invented it.

I can go on and on, but you see the point. Government is nothing but a body of people who work to esnure that our society acknowledges and respects the rights we came up with.

If it was nothing more than that there wouldn't have been a need to come up with a way to keep it from getting to big for its britches.

Otherwise........we are just 300,000,000 people living on a big chunk of land in between two big oceans, and we'd have 300,000,000 different opinions on what each persons "rights" are.

This is common sense, basic Civics 101 shit here. I dont know why its so hard for some to understand?

Here is the funny thing, you just invented a complicated system for for making up wrongs, and you think you proved that somehow makes things right.

Governments can give rights. But they do not always. Lets take the examples of the Bible. During the time of Judges, nobody had any protected rights. Under Kings, nobody had any rights besides the king, and even the bulk of the rights he asserted were unauthorized by anything. the first mention of rights in the whole text are those that Paul was guaranteed as a Roman Citizen. Here we see that rights originate with a republican form of government, even though it was a flawed one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

actually it had it's roots in the Treasury Dept

United States Coast Guard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But Hamilton bailed out Wall Street, so we know he can't be trusted

Ah, cool, didnt know that.

I've said many times that the FBI would be un-Constitutional to the purists. They have yet to comment on it.

The FBI is not part of any "standing army". It is not the police agency of any state, county or city. It is purely the National Police Force of the Federal Government, which by Constitutional purity, would be forbidden.

Im awaiting a right winger to justify getting rid of the FBI.

I am still waiting for people to justify having it. If someone actually comes up with a reasonable justification I will work on justifying getting rid of it.

The federal government has the power to make laws, it therefore has the power to maintain a means of enforcing those laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is this an admission of defeat on your debate with me in my thread? Did you run away because you were losing?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights.html

Don't worry, I can mock you just as easily here.

This thread is to discuss how the governments (yes, plural) of this country DO protect our rights. The military and police are obviously the tools we use to do it. But, in the macro sense of the topic, here is why:

If you were on a giant island with 1,000 other people, with NO government, then there are no rights. Nope. Not at all. Its every man for himself. Survival of the fittest. Each man may think he alone has certain rights, but the other 1,000 may not.

Since there are no rights on that island it must be full of wrongs.

No, that can't be correct, in order for there to be wrongs there have to be rights. I guess that makes your statement that, without government, there are no rights wrong.



They weren't doing that before these people got together to create rights? Does that mean that government creates crime?



Is there a reason they couldn't do that before they invented rights?



If you are forced to abide by these rights wouldn't that make them wrongs? What makes the Island watch better than the people who reject the wrongs you invented?



Your imaginary wrongs seem to be making things a lot more complicated than it was before you invented them. Still can't see a need for a government to protect me from something that was not a problem before you invented it.



If it was nothing more than that there wouldn't have been a need to come up with a way to keep it from getting to big for its britches.

Otherwise........we are just 300,000,000 people living on a big chunk of land in between two big oceans, and we'd have 300,000,000 different opinions on what each persons "rights" are.

This is common sense, basic Civics 101 shit here. I dont know why its so hard for some to understand?

Here is the funny thing, you just invented a complicated system for for making up wrongs, and you think you proved that somehow makes things right.

Governments can give rights. But they do not always. Lets take the examples of the Bible. During the time of Judges, nobody had any protected rights. Under Kings, nobody had any rights besides the king, and even the bulk of the rights he asserted were unauthorized by anything. the first mention of rights in the whole text are those that Paul was guaranteed as a Roman Citizen. Here we see that rights originate with a republican form of government, even though it was a flawed one.

Rights exist despite the government, entitlements exist because of the government, why is that so hard to comprehend?

By the way, before you start commenting about Biblical times and what did, or did not, exist I would suggest you read Leviticus. There were plenty of rights that were protected under the system of laws that God set up, which is why Samuel argued against Israel having a king in 2 Samuel 8. If you read that you will see he is essentially the same points you are about kings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah, cool, didnt know that.

I've said many times that the FBI would be un-Constitutional to the purists. They have yet to comment on it.

The FBI is not part of any "standing army". It is not the police agency of any state, county or city. It is purely the National Police Force of the Federal Government, which by Constitutional purity, would be forbidden.

Im awaiting a right winger to justify getting rid of the FBI.

I am still waiting for people to justify having it. If someone actually comes up with a reasonable justification I will work on justifying getting rid of it.

The federal government has the power to make laws, it therefore has the power to maintain a means of enforcing those laws.

That was funny.

 

[OKTexas]

Ah, cool, didnt know that.

I've said many times that the FBI would be un-Constitutional to the purists. They have yet to comment on it.

The FBI is not part of any "standing army". It is not the police agency of any state, county or city. It is purely the National Police Force of the Federal Government, which by Constitutional purity, would be forbidden.

Im awaiting a right winger to justify getting rid of the FBI.

I am still waiting for people to justify having it. If someone actually comes up with a reasonable justification I will work on justifying getting rid of it.

The federal government has the power to make laws, it therefore has the power to maintain a means of enforcing those laws.

Explain where they get the authority to pass laws dealing with crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Agit8r]

I am still waiting for people to justify having it. If someone actually comes up with a reasonable justification I will work on justifying getting rid of it.

The federal government has the power to make laws, it therefore has the power to maintain a means of enforcing those laws.

Explain where they get the authority to pass laws dealing with crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution.

That would be the Necessary and Proper Clause

"can any thing be more absurd, more arrogant, or more pernicious to the peace of Society, than for self created bodies, forming themselves into permanent Censors, and under the shade of Night in a conclave, resolving that acts of Congress which have undergone the most deliberate, and solemn discussion by the Representatives of the people, chosen for the express purpose, and bringing with them from the different parts of the Union the sense of their Constituents, endeavouring as far as the nature of the thing will admit, to form that will into Laws for the government of the whole; I say, under these circumstances, for a self created, permanent body, (for no one denies the right of the people to meet occasionally, to petition for, or to remonstrate against, any Act of the Legislature &ca) to declare that this act is unconstitutional, and that act is pregnant of mischief; and that all who vote contrary to their dogmas are actuated by selfish motives, or under foreign influence; nay in plain terms are traiters to their Country, is such a stretch of arrogant presumption as is not to be reconciled with laudable motives: especially when we see the same set of men endeavouring to destroy all confidence in the Administration, by arraigning all its acts, without knowing on what ground, or with what information it proceeds and this without regard to decency or truth."

-- George Washington; from letter to Burges Ball (Sept. 25, 1794)

 

[hunarcy]

um... what?

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

EXCLUSIVE - U.S. to let spy agencies scour Americans' finances | Reuters

Al Qaida operatives, Iranian spies, Russian spies, Hezbollah cells, etc, etc, etc.......are all funded through domestic banking accounts.

And what does that have to do with the government getting access to my personal financial information without a warrant? Weren't people like you howling about the Bush Administration listening to phone calls without warrants?

Unless you're a hypocrite, you should be even more upset about this intrusion into your privacy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am still waiting for people to justify having it. If someone actually comes up with a reasonable justification I will work on justifying getting rid of it.

The federal government has the power to make laws, it therefore has the power to maintain a means of enforcing those laws.

That was funny.

And obviously irrefutable.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bucs, you're dumber than I thought. How much welfare did you start receiving before you started to feel so guilty that you had to change your political views?