Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

Ninja,

This is the first time I've seen you change your avatar in any way since I came to DV.

SHIT JUST GOT REAL

I changed the colour of her shirt a month or two ago two blue. I have not have the same avy the whole time I've been at DV, only the post two or three years From now on, it will always be the woman meditating, I'll just alter it slightly like that. Thought the guy faux mask was appropriate considering I'm probably one of the larger supporters of the protest

Those UC Davis videos made me feel so sick, I really can't watch them again. That stuff they sprayed looks so toxic!

And, nice avatar ninja XD

It is toxic if you are allergic to it, 2 of them had to go to the hospital, the rest were treated on site. It's illegal in a lot of countries due to an increase in lethal reactions to it ,including a few US states for everyone other than police officers. And thanks, I think it'll be relevant for a while.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Why does it always come back to "the Founders?" Honestly people need to stop deifying them. (Not saying that you are, just the person who made that picture)

They wrote the bill of rights and the constitution which gives us the protection against this kind of unlawful abuse by authority. The picture isn't deifying them either. I'm sure if they were closing the panama canal instead of violating our rights the artist would have gone with a picture of Theodore Roosevelt.

Your bill of rights was vague enough for segregation to be considered lawful.

Originally Posted by Xei

Your bill of rights was vague enough for segregation to be considered lawful.

While I would love to agree with you about how hypocritical the founders of the US were, what did the bill of rights say about segregation?

"the bill of rights and the constitution which gives us the protection against this kind of unlawful abuse by authority"

I doubt it said anything specifically. That was my point. The documents weren't adequate to give protection against various kinds of abuse; segregation was one example which I came up with to highlight a facet of what I think Laughing Man was probably referring to.

Seriously, anyone who thinks they were gods is an idiot, and I doubt anyone does. However, facts are facts, and they did quite a bit of good; some more so than others. Were it not for their work, and the work of others before them such as John Locke, my understanding of the subject would not be nearly on the level it is; therefore, one could say that most any discussion of liberty would involve such people, insofar as history and certain credit is concerned.

Perhaps the Bill of Rights is not perfect. I would suggest however that no document attempting such a feat would be. Documents do not grant rights anyway, they may merely enumerate them. The ninth amendment actually covers this issue; basically saying that no document could list every right one has, but that such rights are still reserved by the people.

Originally Posted by Never

Perhaps the Bill of Rights is not perfect. I would suggest however that no document attempting such a feat would be. Documents do not grant rights anyway, they may merely enumerate them. The ninth amendment actually covers this issue; basically saying that no document could list every right one has, but that such rights are still reserved by the people.

If I may add something,

That may be so, but I see Bills of Rights, Constitutions, and other such documents as little more than lawyer trickery perpetrated on a mass scale. Once you get the population to believe in a piece of paper, you can use words and fancy interpretations of that paper to strip them of their natural born rights. The issue gets purposefully shifted from the truth to the words on a document, and then it's whatever side with the best lawyers and most money that wins. Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?

Originally Posted by cmind

If I may add something,

That may be so, but I see Bills of Rights, Constitutions, and other such documents as little more than lawyer trickery perpetrated on a mass scale. Once you get the population to believe in a piece of paper, you can use words and fancy interpretations of that paper to strip them of their natural born rights. The issue gets purposefully shifted from the truth to the words on a document, and then it's whatever side with the best lawyers and most money that wins. Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?

Indeed.

We can insist on a strict interpretation of the constitution (as it was intended), but this would only work for so long as well. This is why Jefferson and originally Madison insisted on states' rights so strongly; as it is the best check on central power, especially the more states or districts one sets up to keep it in check. This understanding was not shared by all of the framers however, and so it was not passed on to all the states' consciousness, even though it was included under the tenth amendment, allowing for the supreme court abuses you speak of once again. The war between the states ended up settling the matter and concentrating all power for the federal government.

Not perfect, but still we must keep trying. If we can get states their power back, they can experiment with whatever systems they choose without throwing away all of our progress on a new idea for a whole country. Other countries could do a similar thing, but it would have to be done differently. The federal government would remain small as we progressed in our understanding and improved; perhaps doing away with government altogether in certain areas.

...oh and yes, some of our constitution was indeed trickery; namely much of what Hamilton had a part in. Again, though, this is why the power to "interpret" must be divided up as much as possible; this way if you hate one area you can just move, taking your resources with you.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

They wrote the bill of rights and the constitution which gives us the protection against this kind of unlawful abuse by authority. The picture isn't deifying them either. I'm sure if they were closing the panama canal instead of violating our rights the artist would have gone with a picture of Theodore Roosevelt.

Well even the founding fathers violated the constitution, they are not saints upon high that we should turn to for divine knowledge or inspiration. They are just as crooked as the politicians we have today, it is just a difference in what they are crooked about.

Originally Posted by Never

Indeed.

We can insist on a strict interpretation of the constitution (as it was intended), but this would only work for so long as well.

And this is why Constitutionalism is intellectually dead.

poke, poke, run away...

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[56]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
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.

It is due to guys like George Mason and Patrick Henry that we even have a bill of rights; Hamilton and other "federalists" as they deceptively called themselves said the constitution was enough.

Good thing some people did not agree.

If it weren't for a handful of very stubborn men (get it cause one of the proponents had a stub for a hand?), we probably wouldn't

Originally Posted by cmind

Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?

Apple.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[56]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
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.

So you are mad that the government is transgressing against a document that is meant to withhold their power and yet is interpreted by that very same institution?

Originally Posted by cmind

If I may add something,

That may be so, but I see Bills of Rights, Constitutions, and other such documents as little more than lawyer trickery perpetrated on a mass scale. Once you get the population to believe in a piece of paper, you can use words and fancy interpretations of that paper to strip them of their natural born rights. The issue gets purposefully shifted from the truth to the words on a document, and then it's whatever side with the best lawyers and most money that wins. Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?

Well, no, actually, we're being stripped of our rights by the bill of rights being violated (kinda makes sense if you think about that wording). But go ahead, found a nation with no constitution, and see how that goes.

Precisely why the bill is so important as an addition to the (arguably purposefully) flawed constitution. So I would say he is at least half right about the manipulation. The bill was a condition upon which the constitution was signed by the "stubborn extremists".

It is difficult to manipulate the bill of rights in interpretation. This is clear in the absurd way in which they try to twist the second amendment, arguing over a comma. So they simply give you the finger and just ignore it now, as there are no states willing to nullify; though that is changing slowly.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Well, no, actually, we're being stripped of our rights by the bill of rights being violated (kinda makes sense if you think about that wording). But go ahead, found a nation with no constitution, and see how that goes.

We don't have one and we're doing better than America. In a way.