What's wrong with "reasonable restrictions" on a constitutional right?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A reasonable restriction on a constitutional right?

Ok, only property owners can vote and people living off of taxpayer money can't vote either.

That would take a good chunk of the morons out of the equasion. If that is too drastic then you must pass a basic civics test to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people "answering" the OP, strangely, didn't address the issues it brought up. A few did, but some of those rapidly switched their stances. Quite a few changed the subject, brought up irrelevant topics, etc. I wonder why they did that?

Time to get back to the subject:

Who would say these are "reasonable restrictions" to our constitutional rights?

1.) A law-abiding American citizen is forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so.

2.) You will be thrown in jail if you print up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and start handing them out... unless you first apply to the govt for permission to print them up, and wait for the OK to come back from Washington DC. Or from your state government.

3.) If the government finds you had gone on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college 30 years ago (nobody got hurt), Government permission to publish pamphlets complaining about Government, will be permanently DENIED. No publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in USMB forums about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

Reasonable restrictions? Why or why not?

People don't generally rob banks with a rolled up newspaper, or kill twenty people having lunch at Luby's with a volley of Bible verses.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What if a Federal law were passed saying that you would be thrown in jail if you printed up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and started handing them out... unless you first applied to the govt for permission to print them up and waited for the OK to come back from Washington DC? Or from your state government?

That law would be challenged in Federal court and struck down as un-Constitutional. Such a law would lack even a rational basis, it clearly lacks a legitimate legislative end, and exhibits no compelling governmental interest with regard to placing limits on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

Might that person worry that, once we grant government the power to restrict us a little, govt might start doing it more and more?

No.

You make the mistake of perceiving the government as being ‘granted’ something with regard to reasonable restrictions.

Nothing is ‘granted’ to the government.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. All acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a Federal court rules otherwise. When citizens consider acts of government in violation their civil liberties, they may file suit in Federal court challenging that statute.

If during the process of judicial review a law is determined to be offensive to the Constitution, it is invalidated.

This is why it’s important to understand the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. It’s that case law that stands as a bulwark between potential governmental excess and our civil liberties. It ensures there is a balance between the rights of individuals and the necessary and proper things government must address to the benefit of a civilized, advanced society.

Consequently one need not fear being charged a ‘fee’ to join a particular religion.

It is of course incumbent upon citizens to educate themselves as to the Constitution and its case law, to understand that our civil rights are inalienable but not absolute, and that ultimately we are subject only to the rule of law.

Armed with this knowledge no citizen need live in ‘fear’ of his government.

 

[National Socialist]

Most people "answering" the OP, strangely, didn't address the issues it brought up. A few did, but some of those rapidly switched their stances. Quite a few changed the subject, brought up irrelevant topics, etc. I wonder why they did that?

Time to get back to the subject:

Who would say these are "reasonable restrictions" to our constitutional rights?

1.) A law-abiding American citizen is forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so.

2.) You will be thrown in jail if you print up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and start handing them out... unless you first apply to the govt for permission to print them up, and wait for the OK to come back from Washington DC. Or from your state government.

3.) If the government finds you had gone on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college 30 years ago (nobody got hurt), Government permission to publish pamphlets complaining about Government, will be permanently DENIED. No publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in USMB forums about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

Reasonable restrictions? Why or why not?

People don't generally rob banks with a rolled up newspaper, or kill twenty people having lunch at Luby's with a volley of Bible verses.

Women have killed their children because god told them to,people have been killed with knives,bricks,sticks,thrown off buildings etc etc..Oh and the Luby's massacre could have been prevented if this woman had been allowed to carry her weapon with her.

Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen in 1991 when the Luby's massacre commenced. The gunman shot 50 people and killed 23, including both of Hupp's parents. Hupp later expressed regret about deciding to remove her gun from her purse and lock it in her car lest she risk possibly running afoul of the state's concealed weapons laws; during the shootings, she reached for her weapon but then remembered that it was "a hundred feet away in my car."[4] Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush the gunman and was shot in the chest. Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Actually however, her mother went to her mortally-wounded husband's aid and was then shot in the head.

 

[regent]

All of our so called rights have restrictions, the reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder, and on occasion, in the eye of the court.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Only a Jury is qualified to determine when someone has acted outside of your rights.

None of your rights are limited; however, you can act outside the authority of your rights if you infringe upon another person's rights.

Let the Jury decide that.

Enjoy.

 

[regent]

Only a Jury is qualified to determine when someone has acted outside of your rights.

None of your rights are limited; however, you can act outside the authority of your rights if you infringe upon another person's rights.

Let the Jury decide that.

Enjoy.

So gun laws are not an infringement on individual rights and that has been decided by juries.

 

[National Socialist]

Juries can not LEGALLY go against the 2nd amendment...neither can any judge,president etc.

 

[jwoodie]

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States until SCOTUS invented selective "reverse incorporation" through the 14th Amendment.

 

[The T]

Can you imagine the reaction if someone was forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so?

What if a Federal law were passed saying that you would be thrown in jail if you printed up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and started handing them out... unless you first applied to the govt for permission to print them up and waited for the OK to come back from Washington DC? Or from your state government?

Might that person worry that, once we grant government the power to restrict us a little, govt might start doing it more and more? Maybe using its power to restrict one side (the side that the party in power doesn't like) from doing its normal publicizing, fundraising, and speechmaking? Have we seen any sign that the government might do such a thing?

The same people who would scream bloody murder over any suggestion of such laws, are fine with similar laws forbidding you to own a gun or carry it in your pocket, unless you first pay a fee to the govt, fill out a bunch of forms, jump thru other hoops, and then wait for permission to come back from the government. If you carry the gun in your pocket without doing all that, you can be thrown in jail, stuck with LARGE fines, and/or have the govt's "permission" to own and carry, permanently revoked.

BTW, as for the guy who has to get govt permission before publishing and handing out his pamphlet... would he be OK with it if the government permanently DENIED him permission to publish it, because they found out that, thirty years ago, he'd been busted for going on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college way back then? Nobody got hurt. But no publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in C-D forum about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

These are merely "reasonable restrictions" on your freedom of religion, and of the press... no worse than the "reasonable restrictions" on that other explicitly guaranteed Constitutional right, to keep and bear arms. How can you object to any of them?

All men are born free in the eyes of God. The very premise of Liberty itself and what the Founders spoke of. Laws are supposed to be crafted to protect that same liberty with the delicate balance of not stepping on the same liberty of others that protest. (Why statesmen are desired and politicians need not apply).

It seems to me it's out of alignment, and the Constitution, the writings of the Founders are being ignored.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition with the understanding that your actions have consequences...meaning as a citizen you accept the responsibility for it and to even defend it...even if you don't agree with it.

Clear as mud?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Who would say these are "reasonable restrictions" to our constitutional rights?

1.) A law-abiding American citizen is forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so.

2.) You will be thrown in jail if you print up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and start handing them out... unless you first apply to the govt for permission to print them up, and wait for the OK to come back from Washington DC. Or from your state government.

3.) If the government finds you had gone on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college 30 years ago (nobody got hurt), Government permission to publish pamphlets complaining about Government, will be permanently DENIED. No publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in USMB forums about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.

Reasonable restrictions? Why or why not?

It's clear that government restrictions forbidding you to exercise a Constitutional right unless you fill out forms, pay fees to government, wait for government to grant you permission to exercise it, in fact violate that constitutional right, whether it's your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, etc.

So it follows that if government also requires you to fill out forms, pay fees to the government, and wait for government to grant you permission to carry a pistol in your pocket, or in a holster under your jacket, or a rifle on a sling over your shoulder, government is equally violating your right to keep and bear arms. Especially if government fines you or throws you in jail for owning or carrying without first filling out all those papers, paying the fees etc. Like the other rights, this one is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, which contains a flat ban on any government infringing your right to own and carry guns or other such weapons. It even contains an expanation of why government is forbidden to take away or restrict your right: A well-armed populace capable of acting effectively together for defense is necessary for security and freedom. For that reason, government can make NO such bans or restrictions.

Obviously government CAN make laws forbidding you from using such weapons to violate the rights of others, by threatening, coercing, killing, injuring them etc., and it does make those laws, as it should.

But as for simply owning a gun, knife, etc. and carrying it with you, either openly or concealed, the government is flatly forbidden to restrict or take away your right to do that. Just as it is forbidden to restrict you from selecting your own religion, making speeches criticizing govt officials, forming or attending peaceful rallies etc.

You may disagree with whether the govt SHOULD be banned from restricting some of those things. And you might even want to change the laws that make it so.

But until you change those laws, they remain in force: Government (any government) cannot forbid or restrict you from making speeches, following your chosen religion, carrying a gun without threatening or hurting anyone, or getting together with others to peaceably discuss whatever you want.

 

[NightFox]

What's wrong with "reasonable restrictions" on a constitutional right?

Invariably it's the party (government) that is initiating said restrictions that gets to define what "reasonable" is instead of the party whose rights are being "restricted", it's an unfortunate byproduct of our duopoly whereby the party in power only has to please it's "base" plus convince a majority of the middle to achieve majority acceptance.

It's exactly what the founders feared about Democracy (tyranny of the majority) and they were absolutely right to do so, one need only look at all the egregious affronts to our individual liberty stacking up in government offices to see it.

 

[Stashman]

The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It points out that "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights." Who than can change these rights other than God?

As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it was included into the Constitution to give us the ability to defend ourselves against government if the need should rise. To think that a government would not turn on it's own citizens is ignoring history.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It points out that "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights." Who than can change these rights other than God?

As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it was included into the Constitution to give us the ability to defend ourselves against government if the need should rise. To think that a government would not turn on it's own citizens is ignoring history.

You're thinking about the Declaration of Independent. The Constitution defines the Government. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments.

No it wasn't. See the Whiskey Rebellion.