8 ms·

Unfortunately, pretty much all of the BoR is regularly under attack. Those rights have to be constantly reaffirmed.

flossball 9y ago
The Supreme Court loves to ignore the ninth. Somehow the fourth amendment is about convenience now? If we aren't detained or delayed, the government can copy, search, and scan anything they want. It appears the third now too is gone and the government can do what it wants on your land without permission or compensation.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  It appears the third now too is gone and the government can do what it wants on your land without permission or compensation. I'm pretty sure that the United States government has not been forcing anyone to house soldiers. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-iii https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amen...
  - mindslight 9y ago
    Mitchell vs City of Henderson. They've all been pwnt in one way or another.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      The Mitchells lost their case—at least on the third amendment claims.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        Isn't that exactly the point the parent was trying to make? (Having said that, it's arguable that the police were not asking to be "quartered", and in any case, the 3rd concerns soldiers, not police.)
        aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/?utm_term=.063992f817e2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
        kelnos 9y ago
        Yes, I understand that. Please don't fling URLs around as a substitute for discussion. The court dismissing the idea that there is a 3rd Amendment issue could exactly be what the parent was talking about, if he does indeed believe it was a 3rd Amendment issue.
      - mindslight 9y ago
        Yes, exactly. It would be tautological to consider the Supreme Court's decision to be the final word on the truth of the matter - doing so would imply that it's impossible for the government to systematically violate any rights/laws.
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    Actually, this is one of my main retrospective concerns with the tactics we were using in Iraq and I assume Afghanistan. We would literally take over some random families complex at night and dig in for the fight come morning. It was sop, but it wasn't till after I got out and thought to myself, hey that seems like a violation of the 3rd amendment even if it's in another country during a time of war.
exabrial 9y ago
On their defense, people mean well, but 'the road to hell did paved with good intentions' as they say. 1st Amendment is being attacked by liberals, with pronoun laws, hate speech regulations, equal opportunity laws, forced cake baking, many other things. The 2nd is also being attacked from a variety of ways by liberals, which as said before, is well intentioned, but ultimately destructive. Thank goodness the 3rd isn't an issue! The 4th amendment is being attacked by both conservatives and liberals in a variety of ways. From NSA data collections on Americans under Obama, to DEA/BATF sponsored civil asset forfeiture under Bush, and unlawful searches by ICE under the current administration, this Amendment is very important but is being chipped away by both authoritarian ideologies. Ah, our 5th amendment has been weakened by both liberals and conservatives. From No Fly lists and travel bans you can't get out of, to waiting periods on firearms, we've truly let this very important amendment become weakened. I like all of the amendments. I don't want to see any single one of them weakened any more and some of our rights restored.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  The first is being attacked by conservatives. Attacking the Bill of Rights isn't exclusive to one end of the political spectrum.
  - notMick 9y ago
    Seriously? The only people keeping the first amendment there are the conservatives! The left are trying to remove it with their various 'hate speech' laws (already done in many countries, say the 'wrong thing' on Facebook in the UK and you have the police coming to arrest you in hours) which can be applied to anything the left simply don't want you to say - and silencing you is fundamental to far left ideology.
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      You have Donald Trump trying to undermine the news media, attacking people for expressing their opinions by refusing to stand for the anthem, calling for stripping the citizenship from those who burn the US flag, and wanting a ban on Muslims entering the country. Attacks on individual liberties are not limited to a particular political ideology.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
It wouldn't be worth having the bill of rights if they weren't. That's their entire point.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  It's an interesting argument. I sure get distressed when otherwise intelligent and educated Americans sincerely tell me: "Sure I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things!" They'll throw it all away for some insignificant gain.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    I hear that. Counterpoint: propaganda is a thing, how do you get the benefits of robust (and I don’t mean loud or rude) debate to find the best policies without the risks of propaganda? How do I know I have not fallen for propaganda myself when I argue for or against some policy?
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      You don't know. You accept that when you accept free speech. Besides, propaganda vs truth is like porn vs art. It's impossible to define, and there's no human I'd trust to make such decisions (not even myself).
      - ben_w 9y ago
        There is only one truth, there are many possible propagandas. If the truth cannot be known, then we don’t have democracy, we have government by highest advertising budget.
        pixl97 9y ago
        Sorry, the truth can't be known. There are likely some physics laws that can explain this better than I can, but the farther in time you get from a physical event, the more information is lost (entropy leaving your light cone). This leads to 'evidence' that allows multiple valid interpretations.

The Supreme Court loves to ignore the ninth. Somehow the fourth amendment is about convenience now? If we aren't detained or delayed, the government can copy, search, and scan anything they want. It appears the third now too is gone and the government can do what it wants on your land without permission or compensation.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago
It appears the third now too is gone and the government can do what it wants on your land without permission or compensation. I'm pretty sure that the United States government has not been forcing anyone to house soldiers. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-iii https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amen...
- mindslight 9y ago
  Mitchell vs City of Henderson. They've all been pwnt in one way or another.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    The Mitchells lost their case—at least on the third amendment claims.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Isn't that exactly the point the parent was trying to make? (Having said that, it's arguable that the police were not asking to be "quartered", and in any case, the 3rd concerns soldiers, not police.)
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/?utm_term=.063992f817e2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
        kelnos 9y ago
        Yes, I understand that. Please don't fling URLs around as a substitute for discussion. The court dismissing the idea that there is a 3rd Amendment issue could exactly be what the parent was talking about, if he does indeed believe it was a 3rd Amendment issue.
    - mindslight 9y ago
      Yes, exactly. It would be tautological to consider the Supreme Court's decision to be the final word on the truth of the matter - doing so would imply that it's impossible for the government to systematically violate any rights/laws.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Actually, this is one of my main retrospective concerns with the tactics we were using in Iraq and I assume Afghanistan. We would literally take over some random families complex at night and dig in for the fight come morning. It was sop, but it wasn't till after I got out and thought to myself, hey that seems like a violation of the 3rd amendment even if it's in another country during a time of war.

exabrial 9y ago

On their defense, people mean well, but 'the road to hell did paved with good intentions' as they say. 1st Amendment is being attacked by liberals, with pronoun laws, hate speech regulations, equal opportunity laws, forced cake baking, many other things. The 2nd is also being attacked from a variety of ways by liberals, which as said before, is well intentioned, but ultimately destructive. Thank goodness the 3rd isn't an issue! The 4th amendment is being attacked by both conservatives and liberals in a variety of ways. From NSA data collections on Americans under Obama, to DEA/BATF sponsored civil asset forfeiture under Bush, and unlawful searches by ICE under the current administration, this Amendment is very important but is being chipped away by both authoritarian ideologies. Ah, our 5th amendment has been weakened by both liberals and conservatives. From No Fly lists and travel bans you can't get out of, to waiting periods on firearms, we've truly let this very important amendment become weakened. I like all of the amendments. I don't want to see any single one of them weakened any more and some of our rights restored.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
The first is being attacked by conservatives. Attacking the Bill of Rights isn't exclusive to one end of the political spectrum.
- notMick 9y ago
  Seriously? The only people keeping the first amendment there are the conservatives! The left are trying to remove it with their various 'hate speech' laws (already done in many countries, say the 'wrong thing' on Facebook in the UK and you have the police coming to arrest you in hours) which can be applied to anything the left simply don't want you to say - and silencing you is fundamental to far left ideology.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    You have Donald Trump trying to undermine the news media, attacking people for expressing their opinions by refusing to stand for the anthem, calling for stripping the citizenship from those who burn the US flag, and wanting a ban on Muslims entering the country. Attacks on individual liberties are not limited to a particular political ideology.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

It wouldn't be worth having the bill of rights if they weren't. That's their entire point.

skookumchuck 9y ago
It's an interesting argument. I sure get distressed when otherwise intelligent and educated Americans sincerely tell me: "Sure I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things!" They'll throw it all away for some insignificant gain.
- ben_w 9y ago
  I hear that. Counterpoint: propaganda is a thing, how do you get the benefits of robust (and I don’t mean loud or rude) debate to find the best policies without the risks of propaganda? How do I know I have not fallen for propaganda myself when I argue for or against some policy?
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    You don't know. You accept that when you accept free speech. Besides, propaganda vs truth is like porn vs art. It's impossible to define, and there's no human I'd trust to make such decisions (not even myself).
    - ben_w 9y ago
      There is only one truth, there are many possible propagandas. If the truth cannot be known, then we don’t have democracy, we have government by highest advertising budget.
      - pixl97 9y ago
        Sorry, the truth can't be known. There are likely some physics laws that can explain this better than I can, but the farther in time you get from a physical event, the more information is lost (entropy leaving your light cone). This leads to 'evidence' that allows multiple valid interpretations.