THE NEW BILL OF RIGHTS

Published on May 18, 2006 By Moderateman In US Domestic

We the people that are citizens of the United States have declared that we have the following rights.

1. The right to not spend our tax dollars supporting people that have broken the law to come to America ILLEGALLY.

2. The right to have English as our national language.

3. The right to Protect ourselves from criminals with no legal reprisal.

4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people.

5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering.

6. The right to VOTE on if we send our tax dollars overseas to help countries that never appreciate it.

7. The right to recall any politician from any state that fails in his duty: example Drunken Ted Kennedy.

8. The right to worship or not worship God in public if we so choose.

9.The right to freedom from government interference in our private lives.

10.The right to not to have to support lazy bums that refuse to work for a living.

Comments (Page 4)

Dr Guy

on May 18, 2006

MM: i was looking for some details on a case or cases....not just more smoke....if you can provide,,,please do.

Google is your friend. I suggest starting at the Stella Awards. That one tracks the stupids tho, not all of them criminal.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

47 by Dr. Guy
Thursday, May 18, 2006

Google is your friend. I suggest starting at the Stella Awards. That one tracks the stupids tho, not all of them criminal.

I found a link that was perfect doc.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#46 by stutefish
Thursday, May 18, 2006

Baker, you're not paying attention.

The 3/4ths of all State legislatures must approve the Amendment. And then the Federal legislature must approve the amendment by a supermajority.

Please explain to me how that could come about without overwhelming public support, nationwide.

I refer you to prohibition, the people did not want it yet it passed into law.

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

Do you feel adequately represented, stutefish? Does your legislator do what you want them to do? Would you consider the Patriot Act to be something that represents the wishes of the constituants of the Dem Senators who voted for it?

No, you are talking about the approval of elected officials, not the people. There's an infinate difference. Do you think that prohibition would have been put in place had it been a referendum that decided?

So what you are talking about isn't a super-majority of the people. You are talking about the majority of two political machines that have been manipulated in the past few years into doing a LOT of things that the people they represent dispise.

You have faith in representation that I seem to lack. I don't know when your wishes were last represented, but it has been a long time since I have had Congresspeople that remotely resembled the stance of me or anyone I know, even in the party I choose. With the lack of scrutiny, my state government is far less representitive and far more corrupt.

Dr Guy

on May 18, 2006

refer you to prohibition, the people did not want it yet it passed into law.

No, the majority was lead by a minority, but they did vote for it. That is when people do not question their leaders, but instead follow them blindly.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#50 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006

Do you feel adequately represented, Does your legislator do what you want them to do? Would you consider the Patriot Act to be something that represents the wishes of the constituants of the Dem Senators who voted for it?

question 1, NO, question 2, diane finestien and barbra boxer? HA! never.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#51 by Dr. Guy
Thursday, May 18, 2006

refer you to prohibition, the people did not want it yet it passed into law.

No, the majority was lead by a minority, but they did vote for it. That is when people do not question their leaders, but instead follow them blindly.

the people passed prohibition? yikes I gotta read more.

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

As far as I know prohibition passed like any other amendment. Wilson went so far as to veto it, if I recall, and they still overrode it. Even so, it was obviously not the will of the people any more than the majority of the crap Congress does NOW is the will of the people. That's why we have rights that government can't cross, and why we need courts to look at what the government does to decide whether those rights have been infringed, amendment or not.

That said, I don't think for a moment that the courts need to be inventing rights out of thin air, either. I am a huge critic of what is happening in the courts in the US overriding the will of the people. To be fair, though, to suggest that we should have the right to make amendments with no checks and balances, though, just invites oppression.

We don't need to change the system, we need to keep people from abusing it.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

54 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006

That's why we have rights that government can't cross, and why we need courts to look at what the government does to decide whether those rights have been infringed, amendment or not.

I refer you to californias prop 187, it passed by 65% saying the people of california should not have to pay for illegal immigrants medical or support them through welfare. One liberal judge killed it dead.

stutefish

on May 18, 2006

The Patriot Act is not an amendment to the constitution. Because it must ultimately comply with the Constitution as currently written (and interpreted), it does not have to meet the same demanding standards of overwhelming support that a constitutional amendment must meet.

And yes, I do feel adequately represented. I also feel like I share the reins of government with several million other people, each of them as opinionated and demanding as I am. I don't see them getting what they want all the time, either. Or even much of the time.

And I also don't see thirty-seven State legislatures approving an amendment that the majority of their constituents didn't at least poll in favor of. Nor do I see the Federal legislature approving an anmendment that didn't have similar levels of national support.

I don't know much offhand about the Prohibition amendment, but I'd bet that either:

a) the people did want it, and then changed their minds and got rid of it about ten years later,

OR

the people didn't want it, and then promptly swapped out their legislators for new legislators that got rid of it.

Besides, how would you propose to change the fundamental law of the land, except by requiring vast majorities in the legislative bodies that are responsible for the laws in the land?

I could maybe see a direct vote, but not only are the logistics of such a thing pretty difficult, but one of the good reasons for a representative democracy is that it tends to mitigate the worst excesses of mob rule.

I figure, anything less than our current system would be unnecessarily tyrannical, and anything more would be unnecessarily risking mob rule.

Once you adjust for human weakness and the corruption that would be an inevitable part of any system of government, I think we've got it pretty good.

Besides, if oppressing the people through constitutional amendments are so easy, why aren't 3/4ths of our state legislators and a supermajority of federal legislators not amending our rights away on a regular basis?

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

Have you really looked at 187, MM, or are you just using one of the "remember the alamo" issues that people on the left and right fall to ignorantly as a zinger?

187 denied people due process and was at odds with Federal laws. You can't do that, therefore it was blocked by the courts, until the governor of California ( who had opposed it originally ) finally decided it was futile to persue it further. One judge? Hardly, it was in and out of lots of courts, and didn't even hold up in mediation. So was it one liberal judge, a bunch, or the governor for not fighting for it?

Anyone who considers themselves a fan of personal freedom and privacy would have to vote against 187. If you like the idea of the goose-stepping authorities walking up to you and shouting "WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS??!?" and then when you don't have them shuffling you off without due process, well, this isn't the right country for you.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

Have you really looked at 187, MM,

I voted for it.

One judge? Hardly, it was in and out of lots of courts, and didn't even hold up in mediation. So was it one liberal judge, a bunch, or the governor for not fighting for it?

California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced by assemblyman Dick Mountjoy (Republican from Monrovia, California) as the Save Our State initiative. A number of other organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

I was wrong about the 65% as you can se it was 59%

one judge as soon as the vote was tallied. and it was not pursued further due to the lack of spine in the california legislature. The democrats were rabidly against 187, when it passed {remember this is the top liberal state in the union} the left had the papers drawn up already, they placed an injunction to keep it from becoming law.

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

"Besides, if oppressing the people through constitutional amendments are so easy, why aren't 3/4ths of our state legislators and a supermajority of federal legislators not amending our rights away on a regular basis?"

stutefish: It's hard for me to believe that you are saying that. They don't steal our rights for the very reason MM is angry, because they have the courts to answer to when they try to. You have this irrational faith that government won't do what people don't want them to do, but the reason you CAN have that blind faith is 200 years of checks and balances that you guys would wave away without a thought.

You are advocating the easing of checks and balances and using the fruits of checks and balances as an argument. Our representitives COULD start eating into our freedom any time they chose without what you and MM discount. Instead of being greatful for it, you fault it because it keeps you from getting your way 100% of the time.

"one judge as soon as the vote was tallied. and it was not pursued further due to the lack of spine in the california legislature. The democrats were rabidly against 187, when it passed {remember this is the top liberal state in the union} the left had the papers drawn up already, they placed an injunction to keep it from becoming law."

Eh, that fight lasted until 1998, if I recall. One judge placed the injunction, sure, but it wasn't one judge that blocked it for years, and it was the governor who decided not to pursue it further in mediation.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#59 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006

it was dead before the ink was dry on the votes.

Grey Davis was very against prop187 so was the entire left wing, yet the people in the most liberal state in the union are tired of seeing hospitals closed, paying for the education of Illegal people and supporting them, the debt of california is so huge due to the amout of money spent on ILLEGALS in part.

Dr Guy

on May 18, 2006

Even so, it was obviously not the will of the people any more than the majority of the crap Congress does NOW is the will of the people. That's why we have rights that government can't cross, and why we need courts to look at what the government does to decide whether those rights have been infringed, amendment or not.

It was the will of those involved. And is a lesson for us even today, right?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!