Game Changer
ServantOfAllah
2012/05/21 13:06:02
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
67% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
33% | ||
You make up rules and people change them to suit themselves. If you say "Pick A or B", someone will say "C". If you say, "you have the right to eat ice cream, someone will say "but only in these flavors".
Name a right given to us by the founding fathers, and how that right has been changed from its original intent to either expand or constrict its power.
(Rave this if you think this is a good question. If you don't then FU)
(Rave this if you think this is a good question. If you don't then FU)
Top Opinion
-
It used to mean ______ but now it means _____
+3I'm curious and I'm also not American but does the US Constitution mention slaves, I mean they were legal during that time, but are they mentioned at all in your constitution? Just a question and I resent it being taken in any other way.
9th amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
As I understand it, it means slave owners had the right to keep slaves. although it was frowned upon by many people.
Article 1 section 9
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
It appears they are saying you can't stop someone from bringing in slaves, but you can penalize them, tax them, up to ten dollars per person. (per slave?)
Article. I., Section. 2.:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Not only was there no concept of illegal immigration in America from our Revolution in the late 1770s until 1875 (for the first 100 years of this nation!), our First United States Congress as one of its first orders of business passed the original 'Dream Act' (Naturalization Act of 1790), which required only 2 years residency as a prerequisite to become a U.S. citizen. Moreover, the resident in question applying had zero red tape: Walk into any common law court, be of good moral standing (not a criminal), take an oath of citizenship – presto! You're one of US!
Today's conservatives pretend their harsh anti-immigration stance somehow is in line with the original intent of the founders, but with completely unrestricted immigration having been allowed until a full decade after the Civil War, this position is untenable.
There are many to choose from, but I'll go with this one because it's an essential component to the rule of law, it may be the single most abused and it's effected me directly.
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."
It started out that there had to be evidence supporting the commission of a crime before the feds/cops could kick your door in, ransack your home and haul you off in the patty wagon. Now the police can write their own warrants and enforce them, without them ever even being seen by a judge, search your home, seize property. They can detain you, force you to submit to a dna swab (or try) on only the accusation of a felony, incarce...
There are many to choose from, but I'll go with this one because it's an essential component to the rule of law, it may be the single most abused and it's effected me directly.
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."
It started out that there had to be evidence supporting the commission of a crime before the feds/cops could kick your door in, ransack your home and haul you off in the patty wagon. Now the police can write their own warrants and enforce them, without them ever even being seen by a judge, search your home, seize property. They can detain you, force you to submit to a dna swab (or try) on only the accusation of a felony, incarcerate you without a phone call, without booking you - without anyone even knowing where you are.
It's stunning the level of power govt. can hold over someone's head if they're "of interest," if their name is on "the list," if they're riding in a suspicious car - with a "suspicious odor" permeating it. Power that would rock your mind. It's absolute craziness, imo. Good question, btw.