For those who may have forgotten (See List Below):
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
________________________________________
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
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.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
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.
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
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 offense 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.
Amendment VI
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.
Amendment VII
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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
________________________________________
Today, March 7, 2006, The United States House of Representatives followed the lead of the United States Senate and, by a vote of 280 to 138 (with 14 not voting) reaffirmed the most blatant assault on American civil liberties since the Sedition Act of 1798, The USA Patriot Act. Of Washington State's eleven member Congressional delegation, the sell-out (vote) was as follows:
Aye:
Sen. Maria Cantwell (d)
Rep. Brian Baird (d)
Rep. Norm Dicks (d)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R)
Rep. Rick Larsen (d)
Rep. Kathy McMorris (R)
Rep. Dave Reichert (R)
Rep. Adam Smith (d)
Nay:
Sen. Patty Murray (D)
Rep. Jay Inslee (D)
Rep. Jim McDermott (D)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it great to know that when your government comes for you it will be a bipartisan contingent?
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Mike's Blog Round Up
47 minutes ago
2 comments:
I read these posts all over the place about how we have lost ALL of these freedoms. I have yet to have ANYONE tell me what spcific freedom THEY or anyone they know has actually lost. And even if they did lose a freedom for a short time, would not the security of our nation be worth it? Myself like many others in uniform have GIVEN up many rights to fight for our nation and preserve the liberties and way of life that we know and love. We in the military do not have true free speech. We can't tell our boss to go to hell and find another job. We can't express many opinions about race and sexuality without getting into trouble. We are told what to wear, where to go and often what to eat. And you know what? WE SURVIVE JUST FINE!!
It really makes me laugh to see people protest so much over something that doesn't even touch them or anyone they know. And if the government listening in on a potential terrorist's phone conversation bothers you so much I wonder what you might be hiding. I don't care in the least if someone listens to my phonecalls or reads my emails. Eventually they will get bored and move on to a real fish to catch.
It's a no win situation. Pre 9-11 intel was poor and the government was critisized. Now the government gets pro-active and they still get critisized. Maybe we should just sit and wait for another massive attack (and it will happen) then move on the bad guys (even though most will be dead already).
I'll bet it just kills some people to know that they are video taped in public hundreds of times a day...OMG!! What do they need THAT for?? The powers that be don't sit and stare at you in traffic or walking down the street. Those devices are used for traffic control and to combat crime as an early warning device. Hmmmm sounds like what a wire tap might be huh? (cept the traffic jam...hehe) And for those who state 'well they need a court order'. What difference does it really make when they set up the court that gives the order anyway. You know they will get it.
Let our elected officials make laws so activist judges can do something else besides legislate from the bench. Judges need to be putting criminals away for breaking the laws of the land. Our elected officials should be, and I believe most are, looking out for our best interests. If they aren't, vote them out and run in their place.
Bottom line: There are a LOT of worse places on this planet to live and many of those residents try to come to the USA (and for a good reason). Get behind the government and support them. That doesn't mean give in to everything they say or lose you ability to think. If you have an opinion offer it. If you get shot down go to the polls. That's our system and it seems to have worked pretty well so far.
Oh, a side thought: When are all those hollywierd left wingers that said they will leave the US if Bush was elected (then re-elected) going to leave? Iraq has a lot of cheap land and the government doesn't control much of anything there at the moment. It should be a great place to work on you tan :-)
Ok, I will go through this once. I mean, how could I not answer someone with a name like Taliban Hunter?
Something that must be gotten out of the way right up front; as you read this think of me as Spc-4 Chad Shue, 508th PIR, 82nd Airborne 1970-1973. (That would be Vietnam era if you can't do the math) and I applaud you for your service.
I will assume that you actually read the entire post and simply "missed it." The point here is not whether I, or anyone has actually lost a specific right or freedom (although there are some folks who have been falsley accused and incarcerated who would take issue with that). The issue here, as any good patriot with a basic knowledge of American history should see is that any effort or suggestion that the rights listed in the "Bill of Rights" may be altered without a vote of the people is in direct violation of the very document on which we base our existence as a nation; the Constitution of the United States of America. You see, the "Bill of Rights" are in fact ammendments to that very constitution and, as such were voted into place by the people in the various 13 colonies before becoming the supreme law of the land.
As a person "in uniform" (just as members of Congress) you took and oath to support and defend that constitution. I would suggest that you (and the members of Congress) read the document and tell me where it says that changes to specific articles or amendments may be made without calling for a formal amendment which would be ratified by the people? I posted and hi-lighted the specific amendments and rights contained therein. The so-called Patriot Act contains language that would directly contradict the language contained in the amendments I posted.
In your question you make specific reference to certain rights you are willing to give up and you have every right to do so. On the other hand, you have no right to make the same decision for me or any other American citizen. Neither do those who are elected to PRESERVE our rights as citizens. The idea is to protect, not reduce our rights. You may ask why, if I have nothing to hide, would I be concerned with someone listening in on my phone calls. Please read that again slowly and ask yourself where you are willing to draw the line? Should the police be able to come into your home when you are not there and go through your personal effects without a warrant? Should they be able to detain you without charges or notification to your family or attorney because the THINK you MIGHT be involved with someone named Emir? The Patriot Act allows that to happen. As a person in uniform, who are you defending; the state or the citizens? You talk of how you are fighting to "preserve the liberties and way of life that we know and love." Would you explain to me which of these liberties you are fighting to preserve and which ones you are willing to turn your back on? You speak of trusting our elected officials but, you see, as a nation of laws, I put my faith in those laws so that I don not have to be concerned with mis-placed trust in human beings. Honest, there are some misguided elected officials just about everywhere these days.
You, as so many other "neo-patriots" tell me about other coutries that are far worse than this one. Do you ever consider that it is the very rights and freedoms that you seem so willing to cast aside that separate us from those countries? You ask, "And even if they did lose a freedom for a short time, would not the security of our nation be worth it?" I would answer, Ben Franklin (you might have heard of him) once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'."
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Post a Comment