Why we chase

[Lebowski]

Written by a former FBI agent and criminal defense lawyer. I'd recommend taking a class in criminal law at your local community college.

What's wrong w/ criminal defense lawyers? 

The suggestion to take a criminal law course is a good one, I may look into that at some point.

[bing_oh]

What's wrong w/ criminal defense lawyers? 

The suggestion to take a criminal law course is a good one, I may look into that at some point.

I was rolling my eyes at the fact he was a former FBI agent...

I'm sure he has plenty of book knowledge...and maybe even a little practical experience...in application of the law. But, as an FBI agent, he's probably lacking in the street experience of the average road cop...the FBI is just a different kind of LE. As for being a defense lawyer, I can't count the number of time a lawyer has convinced me to throw his client into jail through bad advice. Sometimes, they just try to be too smart for their own good and it bites their clients in the ass.

[Soup DeVille]

Your rights are those protections afforded to you within the US Constitution and how they are interpeted by the judicial system.

No, the rights enumerated (not afforded by the constitution and the BOR pre-existed the constitution, or any legal document for that matter) by the Bill of Rights are simply expressions of what was already there.

Does this sound familiar, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

I trust it does. Rights do not flow from the government, they are intrinsic. Whether or not the right to free speech is "afforded" me by the bill of rights is a moot point: it is my right. Were the Bill of rights to be negated tomorrow, it would be the law that became unjust, it would not remove any of my natural rights, and I would be within those natural rights to withold my consent to be governed.

[bing_oh]

No, the rights enumerated (not afforded by the constitution and the BOR pre-existed the constitution, or any legal document for that matter) by the Bill of Rights are simply expressions of what was already there.

Does this sound familiar, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

I trust it does. Rights do not flow from the government, they are intrinsic. Whether or not the right to free speech is "afforded" me by the bill of rights is a moot point: it is my right. Were the Bill of rights to be negated tomorrow, it would be the law that became unjust, it would not remove any of my natural rights, and I would be within those natural rights to withold my consent to be governed.

Firstly, the Bill of Rights are not necessarily considered intrinsic rights of all men. The Constitution specifically says that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights. The Amendments...including the Bill of Rights...are additions or alterations to the original Constitution. Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights was not originally included in the US Constitution and, therefore, it can be argued that the "unalienable rights" referred to in the preamble are not referring to the Amendments that were later added.

Also, any Amendment to the US Constitution could, technically, be legally removed. Removing one of the first 10 Amendments is nearly unfathomable, but still technically possible.

Finally, it's not your right as an individual to decide if the law violates your individual unalienable rights nor is it your right to withold your consent to be governed. To assume that every individual person has that right would be to destroy the foundation of the nation in which we live, essentially creating anarchy. Those powers are only afforded to the People as a collective, not the person as an individual.

[Soup DeVille]

Firstly, the Bill of Rights are not necessarily considered intrinsic rights of all men. The Constitution specifically says that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights. The Amendments...including the Bill of Rights...are additions or alterations to the original Constitution. Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights was not originally included in the US Constitution and, therefore, it can be argued that the "unalienable rights" referred to in the preamble are not referring to the Amendments that were later added.

Also, any Amendment to the US Constitution could, technically, be legally removed. Removing one of the first 10 Amendments is nearly unfathomable, but still technically possible.

Finally, it's not your right as an individual to decide if the law violates your individual unalienable rights nor is it your right to withold your consent to be governed. To assume that every individual person has that right would be to destroy the foundation of the nation in which we live, essentially creating anarchy. Those powers are only afforded to the People as a collective, not the person as an individual.

That was the declaration of independance.

Anyways, read up on the conditional ratification of the constitution, and throw in a few of the anti-federalist letters. That may very well change your outlook on the subject. While this view is no really reflected in current case law, more than a couple of Supreme Court Justices over the years have agreed with it.

In any case, all government comes down to personal consent. Without the individual, there is no collective. The will of the majority does not negate the rights of the minority, or as Ben Franklin more succinctly put it, "Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Two of the most oft ignored amendments in the bill of rights also support my view:

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

That is: there are rights retained by the people even if they are not enumerated in the bill of rights, and the federal government has no powers outside of those granted it specifically by the constitution. Obviously, a literal reading of either of these amendments opens a legal can of worms these days. (where, for instance, does the constitution allow for the setting of a minimum wage?)

[Lebowski]

I was rolling my eyes at the fact he was a former FBI agent...

I'm sure he has plenty of book knowledge...and maybe even a little practical experience...in application of the law. But, as an FBI agent, he's probably lacking in the street experience of the average road cop...the FBI is just a different kind of LE. As for being a defense lawyer, I can't count the number of time a lawyer has convinced me to throw his client into jail through bad advice. Sometimes, they just try to be too smart for their own good and it bites their clients in the ass.

It's not a great book, but it does explain the basics of the law such as searching a vehicle vs. a home etc.  It's stuff the average person may not know, but at the same time it's a quick/easy read (it's what I categorize as "shitter reading" ... not something you read cover to cover, simply flipping through it during 4 or 5 good sized dumps is enough to get through the good information in the book).

[bing_oh]

In any case, all government comes down to personal consent. Without the individual, there is no collective. The will of the majority does not negate the rights of the minority, or as Ben Franklin more succinctly put it, "Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

While it's true that there is no collective without the individual, that does not make the opinion of the individual equal to that of the collective. You seem to be taking the personal consent to be governed a step too far. You live within this nation and, by doing so, consent to be governed by its laws. You cannot simply say that you don't agree with a choice of the majority and refuse to consent to be governed and still live within the society. You either work to change the opinion of the People or you find another society that better fits your personal opinion.

[hounddog]

That was the declaration of independance.

Anyways, read up on the conditional ratification of the constitution, and throw in a few of the anti-federalist letters. That may very well change your outlook on the subject. While this view is no really reflected in current case law, more than a couple of Supreme Court Justices over the years have agreed with it.

In any case, all government comes down to personal consent. Without the individual, there is no collective. The will of the majority does not negate the rights of the minority, or as Ben Franklin more succinctly put it, "Democracy is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

I have to believe that Bing is more right than wrong, as are you. 

But, I do believe you are over-simplifying what his post intends. 

All he is saying is that only a very few rights are basic human rights, the rest are granted "by the people."  I agree completely with him on this part.  He is also saying that the individual cannot chose to be governed because he feels that is his right, when in fact it is not. 

Also, let us not forget that Ben Franklin was also an owner of slaves and frequently used them for more than "field work" so I am not willing to place him on such a pedestal. 

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." 

[Soup DeVille]

While it's true that there is no collective without the individual, that does not make the opinion of the individual equal to that of the collective. You seem to be taking the personal consent to be governed a step too far. You live within this nation and, by doing so, consent to be governed by its laws. You cannot simply say that you don't agree with a choice of the majority and refuse to consent to be governed and still live within the society. You either work to change the opinion of the People or you find another society that better fits your personal opinion.

People do it everyday. Most of the time, we call them criminals. Most of the time, that's the correct way to look at them. Sometimes, another term is more appropriate.

[hounddog]

While it's true that there is no collective without the individual, that does not make the opinion of the individual equal to that of the collective. You seem to be taking the personal consent to be governed a step too far. You live within this nation and, by doing so, consent to be governed by its laws. You cannot simply say that you don't agree with a choice of the majority and refuse to consent to be governed and still live within the society. You either work to change the opinion of the People or you find another society that better fits your personal opinion.

  Great post.

[hounddog]

People do it everyday. Most of the time, we call them criminals. Most of the time, that's the correct way to look at them. Sometimes, another term is more appropriate.

Sniper target? 

[bing_oh]

It's not a great book, but it does explain the basics of the law such as searching a vehicle vs. a home etc.  It's stuff the average person may not know, but at the same time it's a quick/easy read (it's what I categorize as "shitter reading" ... not something you read cover to cover, simply flipping through it during 4 or 5 good sized dumps is enough to get through the good information in the book).

One of the biggest problems as an average person with reading about a subject that isn't common knowledge is whether or not the information you're getting is accurate or not. When it comes to something as important as individual rights, I'd just be suspicious of a book packaged like that.

[bing_oh]

Sniper target? 

[Soup DeVille]

I have to believe that Bing is more right than wrong, as are you. 

But, I do believe you are over-simplifying what his post intends. 

All he is saying is that only a very few rights are basic human rights, the rest are granted "by the people."  I agree completely with him on this part.  He is also saying that the individual cannot chose to be governed because he feels that is his right, when in fact it is not. 

Also, let us not forget that Ben Franklin was also an owner of slaves and frequently used them for more than "field work" so I am not willing to place him on such a pedestal. 

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." 

Ok, only a few basic rights are human rights.

Can we take it that life is one of those? That's at least clearly stated enough, isn't it? What value does a right to life have, if I do not have the right to support it, to defend it, to live it as I will as long as i don't infringe on the rights of others?

What is the right to life withoput the right to property? A  man cannot sustain his own life whilst standing naked in the wilderness. He needs clothing, shelter, food. Therefore, he has the right to obtain those things and to retain those things, for to deny him that right is to deny him the means to sustaining life.

All men choose whether or not to be governed. Whether you consider it his right or not, its a fact. You and I have both chosen to be governed, perhaps for different reasons. perhaps it is simply that we do not find our governemnt unctuous enough to refuse, perhaps we believe it does us good, perhaps we are simply unwilling to pay of throwing off the yoke.

These choices are relatively easy to make here, because we have one of the fairest and most just governments in existence. If that was not the case, if we chanced to live in Nazi era germany or Stalinist Russia, would we or would we not have that same right; regardless of the opinion of the majority? Did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto not have the right to shoot the bastards simply because the majority would have allowed them to be burned?

[Soup DeVille]

Sniper target? 

You mean like Vicki Weaver?

[hounddog]

Ok, only a few basic rights are human rights.

Can we take it that life is one of those? That's at least clearly stated enough, isn't it? What value does a right to life have, if I do not have the right to support it, to defend it, to live it as I will as long as i don't infringe on the rights of others?

What is the right to life withoput the right to property? A  man cannot sustain his own life whilst standing naked in the wilderness. He needs clothing, shelter, food. Therefore, he has the right to obtain those things and to retain those things, for to deny him that right is to deny him the means to sustaining life.

There is zero right to property, as this is a land of opportunity, the closest qualifying right would be the pursiut of happiness.  But, that would only apply if property would make you happy.   But I digress, there are no rights to food, shelter or clothes.  There is, of course, the right to pusue those things.  In our society nothing of the kind is guaranteed, or at least it SHOULD NOT be.

All men choose whether or not to be governed. Whether you consider it his right or not, its a fact. You and I have both chosen to be governed, perhaps for different reasons. perhaps it is simply that we do not find our governemnt unctuous enough to refuse, perhaps we believe it does us good, perhaps we are simply unwilling to pay of throwing off the yoke.

These choices are relatively easy to make here, because we have one of the fairest and most just governments in existence. If that was not the case, if we chanced to live in Nazi era germany or Stalinist Russia, would we or would we not have that same right; regardless of the opinion of the majority? Did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto not have the right to shoot the bastards simply because the majority would have allowed them to be burned?

We are NOT talking about Germany or Russia, we are talking about the United States.  Muddying the water with the mention of them is just plain pandering to emotions and not actually making a coherent argument. 

Of course there are people whom have chosen not to be governed, they are criminals.  And, in this society, criminals cannot be tolerated as their very existance violates the tennants of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and by extention, our rights. 

But, and this is a big but, the government MUST act with OUR  best interests at heart.  Something it has not done in an overall manner in roughly 75 years.

[Soup DeVille]

There is zero right to property, as this is a land of opportunity, the closest qualifying right would be the pursiut of happiness.  But, that would only apply if property would make you happy.   But I digress, there are no rights to food, shelter or clothes.  There is, of course, the right to pusue those things.  In our society nothing of the kind is guaranteed, or at least it SHOULD NOT be.
We are NOT talking about Germany or Russia, we are talking about the United States.  Muddying the water with the mention of them is just plain pandering to emotions and not actually making a coherent argument. 

Of course there are people whom have chosen not to be governed, they are criminals.  And, in this society, criminals cannot be tolerated as their very existance violates the tennants of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and by extention, our rights. 

But, and this is a big but, the government MUST act with OUR  best interests at heart.  Something it has not done in an overall manner in roughly 75 years.

You're right: I should have said "The pursuit of property, or the right to keep one's property," but again, I'm pretty sure you knew that. To quote myself "Therefore, he has the right to obtain those things and to retain those things."

No, I was not talking about exclusive American rights. "All Men," not "all US citizens in good standing." Notice I mentioned several time the intrinsic ature of these rights, and realize, that at the time the declaration of independance was written, there was no such thing as the "United States of America." The point is that governments; and yes, even our own government is capable of things that violate every basic right we have.

It just so happens is that the BOR is the best and most powerful enumeration of some of those rights. (and not by its own admission in the 9th amendment, all of them)


"..very existance violates the tennants of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and by extention, our rights"

A good turn of phrase, I like it. But, I would ask, what does that mean if it is our own government which does those things? What are our rights when the government violates the tennants of the declaration of independance, or the constitution, or the bill of rights? Have these things happened in our history? Have they happened more than once? Could they happen in the future?

[bing_oh]

A good turn of phrase, I like it. But, I would ask, what does that mean if it is our own government which does those things? What are our rights when the government violates the tennants of the declaration of independance, or the constitution, or the bill of rights? Have these things happened in our history? Have they happened more than once? Could they happen in the future?

For the individual, our governmental system has been set up with just such instances in mind. The US Supreme Court is created exclusively to preside over allegations of violations of the rights within the US Constitution.

If you're talking about an extreme example, well, the Declaration of Independence says "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Of course, once again, it states "the People," indicating a decision of the collective not of the individual. And, the Declaration also says that long-established governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

[Soup DeVille]

For the individual, our governmental system has been set up with just such instances in mind. The US Supreme Court is created exclusively to preside over allegations of violations of the rights within the US Constitution.

If you're talking about an extreme example, well, the Declaration of Independence says "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Of course, once again, it states "the People," indicating a decision of the collective not of the individual. And, the Declaration also says that long-established governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

Of course I'm talking about an extreme case.

But, since you were kind enough to mention both the SCOTUS and the phrase "the People;"

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.

No substantive argument that I know of has ever held the opinion that the "People" mentioned in the first amendment conferred a collective right only, or that the right to petition for grievances had to constitute a majority of anything. It is , and always has been considered an indvidual right.

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.

Heller vs. DC recently confirmed that the people mentioned here are the same people mentioned in the first amendment. Why it took so long to do so, I have no idea, but it is clear that here also the phrase "the people" confers an individual, and not a collective right.

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.

Again the same wording, again, you would not argue that this is a collective right only, would you?

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.

Is there any reason at all to believe that "the people" mentioned in amendments one, two, and four are a different people than the ones mentioned in nine and ten? Is it a different "people" mentioned in the declaration of independance? In fact, are there any rights in any of the documents mentioned which are conferred solely upon the collective and denied the individual?

[bing_oh]

Is there any reason at all to believe that "the people" mentioned in amendments one, two, and four are a different people than the ones mentioned in nine and ten? Is it a different "people" mentioned in the declaration of independance? In fact, are there any rights in any of the documents mentioned which are conferred solely upon the collective and denied the individual?

I don't recall anyone saying that the rights afforded in the Constitution weren't intended for individuals. Nor do I see how this has any bearing on the conversation we're having.

[Soup DeVille]

Of course, once again, it states "the People," indicating a decision of the collective not of the individual. And, the Declaration also says that long-established governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

I don't recall anyone saying that the rights afforded in the Constitution weren't intended for individuals. Nor do I see how this has any bearing on the conversation we're having.

We were talking about the definition of a right, I believe. You said that rights were granted by the constitution and the bill of rights. I said they were intrinsic, universal, and predated those austere documents, which is a view backed up by the text of the bill of rights and the declaration of independance, if not current case law.

You said the term "the people" applied only to the collective. I said that there is no right held by the collective that is not held by the individual.

[bing_oh]

We were talking about the definition of a right, I believe. You said that rights were granted by the constitution and the bill of rights. I said they were intrinsic, universal, and predated those austere documents, which is a view backed up by the text of the bill of rights and the declaration of independance, if not current case law.

You said the term "the people" applied only to the collective. I said that there is no right held by the collective that is not held by the individual.

I never said that "the people" only applied to the collective and not the individual. I said that there were instances where "the people" referred to the collective and there were rights (like the decision to disband a government) that belonged the collective rather than the individual.

[Tave]

Anyone ever read On Civil Disobedience?

[J86]

Anyone ever read On Civil Disobedience?

YEARS ago.  Don't know it well enough to have a fun discussion on it.  Need to read again...

[Tave]

Basically he argues that individuals have a duty to nonviolently resist government they don't believe in, because a nation needs men of conscience. Martin Luther King Jr was a big believer in Thoreau and his ideas, as was Ghandi.

[J86]

Basically he argues that individuals have a duty to nonviolently resist government they don't believe in, because a nation needs men of conscience. Martin Luther King Jr was a big believer in Thoreau and his ideas, as was Ghandi.

I remember that overarching point...wasn't Thoreau also the first guy to say "government which governs best governs least"? 

[Tave]

I'm not sure. That sounds like him.

[TurboDan]

This thread makes me glad I didn't go to law school.

[omicron]

No, the rights enumerated (not afforded by the constitution and the BOR pre-existed the constitution, or any legal document for that matter) by the Bill of Rights are simply expressions of what was already there.

Does this sound familiar, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."?

I trust it does. Rights do not flow from the government, they are intrinsic. Whether or not the right to free speech is "afforded" me by the bill of rights is a moot point: it is my right. Were the Bill of rights to be negated tomorrow, it would be the law that became unjust, it would not remove any of my natural rights, and I would be within those natural rights to withold my consent to be governed.

And therein lies part of the reason why Australia does not have a constitutionally-guaranteed Bill of Rights.

[Soup DeVille]

And therein lies part of the reason why Australia does not have a constitutionally-guaranteed Bill of Rights.

Your fair country is also not the result of an armed insurrection. But, my point was and has been that regardless of what guarantees your government may or may not give you, all men have intrinsic rights.