Asked by ProfAnonAnon 28 months ago

Details:

As in the Bill of Rights, constitutional rights, and legal rights.


0
 Forward to friends
 Discuss this question (15 comments) why can't I answer? Report abuse

av-answers (5)
(15)
 
Show all details, Hide all details

"A common misconception"

 by PoorRichard on Oct 03 2007 (28 months ago)
Official Rating

Respectfully, I believe your question is based on an erroneous belief - that our rights derive from the government.  It’s a common misconception today that somehow we can only do what the government allows us to do, and it’s entirely incorrect.

 

The whole point of the Constitution is that the government only has the powers that WE GIVE IT.  As is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

 

Article Ten of the Bill of Rights also illustrates this principle, "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."  In other words, if we didn’t specifically say the Federal Government can do a specific thing, then it can’t do that thing. 

 

Debate over the constitutionality of various laws generally obscures this point.  The Conservatives like to say they are for a strict reading of the Constitution.  However, if this were true, then their debate would focus on the rights of the people over the power of the government, not vice versa.  (I’m not trying to pick on Conservatives, politicians from both sides are two-faced on this issue.) 

 

I would suggest that a more correct way to ask this question, and get to your real issue, is "Are we satisfied with the powers the government has taken onto itself?"

 


PoorRichard's Recommendations
Product Image
Amazon List Price: $7.95
Used from: $1.92
Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 24 reviews)
Like this Answer?

"Bad Premise"

 by JBENZ on Oct 03 2007 (28 months ago)
 Best Answer
Official Rating

The Government doesn't give us rights. We give the Government rights. The Constitution and the legal system are about limiting the government's power over us. We give up some rights and freedoms as a compromise, to make a safe and just society for all of us. If the government abuses that grant we have the right and perhaps the obligation to take them back or modify the grant. If you aren't satisfied with how things are going, get out there and change it.
Like this Answer?

"I think that the amaerican populace is so diverse, that we have too many different ideas"

 by awarulz on Oct 03 2007 (28 months ago)
Official Rating

And the interpretation of what the founders meant by the words in the Bill and constitution are in some dispute

For example: what does the Bill mean in the 1st Amendment when it says that the congress will make no law concerning the establisment of a religion?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
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.

Does that mean that there will be no national church established (That's what I think) or does it mean that there can be no religious activity within government activities? (that's what some people think)

So, I am generally unsatisfied with the understanding of our rights by our judges. I think they try and restrict certain rights because of their bias toward certain rights. I think the activists on the bench often interpret things that are not there.

For example - the searches of electronic and phone information allowed by the patriot act to protect the US against terrorists is opposed by activists that says it violates the 4th amendment:

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.

I guess they think "effects" is their phone records. I don't see it. But some can.
Sources: My answer
Like this Answer?

"The question is, who cares?"

 by Adictede on Oct 04 2007 (28 months ago)
Official Rating

Unfortunately, too many Americans are far to busy trying to decide what new status symbol they should aquire, to bother themselves with complex issues like "rights".  I am often disturbed at how many people honestly don't know or care about politics, their government or world affairs.  These are all things that have huge and direct impacts on their lives and yet they just shrug it off.

 

To answer your question; Our rights, as written are adequate.  The problems occur in interpretation and execution.  The current government has a vison of how things should be and has taken every step possible to ensure we are forced to live by this vision, including convincing us that we should give up rights in exchange for safety.  A nefarious turn of event for sure. 

 

As written, adequate.  In execution, currently unacceptable.

 

For everyone to be satisfied is utopian and unacheivable.  Although, I would bet many Americans are fairly satisfied.

 

My opinion anyway.

Sources: my opinion
Like this Answer?  (1)

"We pretty much establish our own rights. The problem is that most people don't really know that."

 by DesertLotus on Oct 09 2007 (28 months ago)
Official Rating

As a result some people, some governments, some religious organizations take advantage.  The process trickles down though to each individual.  Each of us chooses every day what rights we have and also what rights we choose to afford to those around us- "do I have the right to cut in line?"  "Does that guy have the right to interrupt me?"  or conversely, "I want that guy to decide how to invest my money"  or "I want that goverment to decide how much I should spend a year on repairing roads we all use..."  the ultimate outcome ultimately follows the wisdom and confidence of the people.

Like this Answer?




Ask a question of your own:


 

Latest post on this question's discussion board:

awarulz, regarding your answer "I think that the amaerican populace is so diverse, that we have too many different ideas": You can explicitly establish a national religion through the establishment of a church like they did in England, or you can implicitly establish a national religion through the use of religious slogans on the money and in pledges; neither of which were to be allowed. Seriously, believeing in your myth of choice - go ahead, but don't present it as anything more than the myth that is it, don't present it as fact, and don't try to force it on anyone else.
Read more & discuss (15 comments)