The Constitution Just gets in the way.
Jonn’s post on Robert Bateman’s Esquire article helped me to bring together several thought I have been trying to write about the for the last several days. That topic would be our Constitutional Rights.
What made me start thinking about the the Bill of Rights again was this Video
It’s clear the the officer was way out of line. He has resigned and has been charged. The City and the officer are being sued for civil rights violations.
I cant help but wonder how many other people this officer intimidated before now. How many people are afraid of the government?
I can write the textbook explanation of why the Bill of Rights came into being. But the reason that I think is much more primitive. Fear, plain and simple fear. Those 10 amendments are not intended to protect the people from each other. They are intended to protect the people from the government and to limit the power of the government.
But here we are, we have more police officer like the one on the video than I care to think about, We have politicians trying to introduce and pass laws that directly contradict the Bill of Rights. They pass laws that try to impose limits on those rights. What would have caused the people to yell in outrage in past generations is now met with outrage by only a few.
Robert Bateman is a great example, he does not hesitate to use his title of Lt. Col (Retired) then he give his point of view on the 2ond amendment. If you notice he is careful not to bring up the Constitution, if he did he would be wrong, what he does is instills a fear. Like in the Esquire article he brings fear into play. That person may have a scary gun, lets be afraid of the gun. Then he mocks and scorns the right in question. When he is called out on his actions he is quick to point out the he used to be in the Army, that he was an officer. He uses that credential to buy him credibility. He gives the illusion of being the sheepdog, when in reality he is only the loudest of the bleating sheep.
It alarms me at how fast many of the people in this country are willing to set aside their Constitutional Rights for the illusion of greater safety. Mr. Bateman skirts this issue by using “God Given” in place of Constitutional. They like to play the if game. “If we ban the scary assault weapons, then criminals wont have them” If we let the police just search our homes for no reason, it will make catching criminals easier” “If you are exercising a constitutional right I don’t understand it scares me, because the press or the politicians have told me I should be scared” The reality is lost on them. Giving any ground, on any right is the same as losing that right.
Our rights are not “God Given” they were won with blood. They were fought for originally and each generation has had to prove we are worthy in its own way. One of the things that has made this nation great is the people’s right to question and correct injustice. The power to do that come with Bill of Rights. We protest for change, we question the Government because we can.
I used two examples of how the rights of the people are being chipped away at, one was blatant. The police officer in a slightly different uniform could have been a Nazi, he forgot that his power comes from the people, not the government. The other in the article that Mister Bateman wrote, his way is more subversive, so much so that I don’t think he even realizes what he is doing. He used his own assumptions to question another American’s rights. Right’s we hold so dear to our existence that just by simply being in this country a person has them.
I ask this of Robert Bateman Lt. Col. USA Retired, How dare you? How dare you use your title to give credence to the idea that any American does not have the freedom exercise any “Constitutional Right? How dare you imply that your Military rank gives you the voice of authority on any constitutional matter? How dare you mock and scorn any man woman or child in this or any other country using that rank?
You do not hold and elected office, you have no more authority than any other person, yet you act as if you are some great prophet who speaks for all of the military community. You scorned and mocked my rights in a public manner so I am answering you in the same way, you pompous self important ass.
Category: Politics
The first rule in dealing with a sheepdog that attacks the sheep is to get rid of the dog.
In my experience to properly handle these types of dogs you typically shoot the bastard because once they get a taste for mutton you can’t cure that.
Veritas Omnia Vincit…Same thing with a damned dog that sucks eggs.
(Master)Bateman can go fuck himself with a chainsaw.
I disagree with the thing about rights not being God-given – that whole “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” thing in the Declaration of Independence.
Jonn…I wholeheartedly agree.
God gave us our rights, but He left it up to us to keep them.
Jonn to some extent I agree, inherent rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are Natures law.
When man made the fist laws he also took the responsibility of granting rights or for taking them away.
We do not have the ability to appeal a transgression of our rights, constitutional or unalienable directly to God with any reasonable expectation of a prompt answer. Instead we have to rely on the man made judicial system or in the laws of nature, after all if a lion kills a bird the lion is not held accountable for the act of being a lion.
We as mankind do hold ourselves to a standard that is greatly different than the laws of nature. We create and abolish laws. We live by those self imposed laws. Our Constitutional rights are an examples of the limits of those laws.
I would argue that in ideology you are absolutely correct. But in practice our Constitutional rights are granted to us by ourselves.
The rights are God Given…
They are paid for with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
So far, the Patriots are ahead but the tyrants are looking to pass us on the left.
The problem with tyrants is that they know no boundaries for behavior so the Patriots have to get into the mud, blood and beer to ensure the point gets across.
The history of a military incursion is that you are enforcing a political point of view on someone that disagrees with it or wants nothing to do with it…
That, is where wars come from…
We will only keep those rights we are willing to shed blood to keep.
It has always been thus. It will always be thus.
Barksalotandlougly Batemeister digs his holes deeper and deeper.
He should be careful.
He might fall in and no one would hear him yelling for help.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” –Benjamin Franklin
There is something that is often overlooked when the Bill of Rights is brought up. It’s this: Until the 1920s, the negative and affirmative rights applied only with respect to the federal or national government. Consequently, if a state or, if permitted by the state, a local government outlawed soap-box oratory in the public square or searches without a warrant, it was okay. In the video of the angry P/O and smirking clownie boys, it would have been just dandy for that search to occur, say, in 1910, unless the state’s constitution or statute prohibited it. That goes for 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1960 too! Some food for thought.
I read the 14th Amendment different than you.
This part “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I think it addresses that issue. Ratified 1868, and IMO the Federal Gov’t had already established it’s superiority (Legal wise) by destroying the sovereignty of the individual states in that thing known to some as the “Civil” war.
Just my humble opinion.
If you were correct, then the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the Supreme Court would have been unnecessary. In fact, it is that VERY amendment that the Supreme Court has used (of necessity) to mandate that certain of the rights in the Bill of Rights apply not only to the federal government but to state governments as well. If the 14th did what you say, wholesale incorporation would have been accomplished by that amendment. But it wasn’t.
Then sir all I can say is that the fault lie with SCOTUS and not the 14th Amendment. They like the other two branches blow in an ever changing wind.
Odd, I was just watching some Dragnet last night.
Now, I am going to have to re-read some Thomas Paine.
Richard: I was good with everything that you wrote except the beginning. The Founders were quite able to write into the Constitution that ‘Congress shall make no law either requiring nor prohibiting a belief in a Supreme Being.’ But they did not. Instead, they wrote what you quoted, which is not the same thing. Prayer in public schools to start a school day was widely practiced in this country and manger scenes on school property were common at Christmastime. Easter break was Easter break, nor spring break. My point is not to argue for or against these things. My point is that the US Constitution does not speak to them. The Supreme Court read them into the Constitution on its own, as it has read and continues to read many things that are simply not there. Who complains? The left when decisions don’t go the way they would like and conservatives (‘Damn activist Justices!’) when decisions go leftward. This is NOT how the Founding Fathers envisioned the development of our Constitution. Their silly idea was to change it through an amendment process. (That was me being sarcastic.)
2/17, we agree but I think that we are talking about slightly different things.
I was trying to make the point that the Founding Fathers were very specific that the Federal Government could not legislate or regulate religion.
I think that you are trying to make the point that the courts and the government have taken upon themselves to do it anyway.
Speaking to the point that I think that you are trying to make 🙂 — yup. I grew up with prayer is school and saying the Pledge of Allegiance in home room. That changed when I was in junior high and that was the Warren court. I think that those things are important and it makes no sense that they were stopped.
For what it’s worth, I have been to Jerusalem. It is a tough part of the world where Christians, Jews, and Muslims sometimes meet together and sometimes kill each other. I think that the history and foundations of all three religions should be taught to kids in schools. And Hinduism and Confucius. People have died carrying those flags and that is history.
Now that will probably start a fight!
The automatic incorporation of all Bill of Rights as being restrictions on states is called mechanical incorporation. Justice Hugo Black argued for exactly that but was overruled by the majority on the court.
So far, most – but NOT all – of the elements of the Bill of Rights have been held binding on states by the SCOTUS. In particular, parts of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments either have been held not to be binding on states, or have not yet been addressed by the SCOTUS. Similarly, the 3rd Amendment has been held to be binding on states only within the 3rd Circuit; the SCOTUS also has never ruled on that amendment.
The application of the Bill of Rights to the states or, as it is more properly called, their incorporation, has been done selectively by the Supreme Court over many decades. This incorporation has been both a blessing and a curse. Those of us who remember the show Dragnet recall that Joe Friday frequently took a swipe at the rights of criminals. This was the curse. What we were watching was a popular reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in a series of 1960s cases dealing with the Due Process rights in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Today, we all know them, whether it be a need for a warrant to conduct a search (subject to exceptions) or the Miranda rights most everyone knows by heart from TV shows. But prior to those decisions, unless a state itself required a warrant or accorded its citizens other right spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it was not required by the US Constitution to do so. Many people are surprised by this, our history, but in order to appreciate much of what is going on, even with respect to the 2nd Amendment, it is really necessary to know it. (Do you hear me, Bateman?)
It’s guys like Bateman who have created the scenario whereby people can start to justify nibbling away at their Bill of Rights protections.
It allows abominations like the Patriot Act to be abused daily and forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize your stuff without charging you, in a Kafkaesque horror show where you then have to sue the feds or local authorities to prove your gear wasn’t gained by illegal means and have it returned.
We the people have conceded our rights for the illusion of safety. We are not now and never have been, truly “safe”. We can make reasonable preparations, but any one of us can be victimized at any time by a well prepared criminal intent on violence.
We can be killed on our way to work by someone eating a doughnut and drinking a coffee who should have been paying attention to their driving. We can get run down in a cross walk by someone failing to honor the stop for pedestrians in cross walk laws. We can be killed by a drunk on our way home from a restaurant.
You are never “safe” you can only be prepared, but somethings extend beyond safety. Consequently the illusion of safety should be revealed as just that, an illusion. Freedom can be dangerous, but so can servitude. Given those options I prefer a dangerous freedom to the illusion of safety in servitude.
Enigma4you: The Constitution is a legal construct that is rooted in the natural or God-given rights of men. The very germ of our existence as a nation arose from this truth. The inalienable or natural rights of man is at the very core of our founding. It was left to men who understood this to develop a government which honored it. They did so brilliantly, if haltingly at times. Today, many people—most especially on the left—take your approach, that our rights are wholly dependent on the largesse of government. And I can’t get there from here.
2/17
In Ideology I agree.
I do have and will always have a problem with any man who thinks they know the will of a higher power. My belief in God may or may not be the same as yours or anyone elses.
I have seen people loose all faith in God because of a tragedy. I have seen a Tragedy bring people to faith in God.
The Declaration of Independence, The constitution the Bill of rights all were written by men, I believe these men were divinely inspired, it would be unfair of me to force that belief on anyone.
In that case you are saying that WWII shouldn’t have been fought.
There comes a time in the safety of yourself as a person or a nation HAS to enforce it’s will and values on others or it will cease to exist.
Had we not taken the steps we took in WWII we would now be speaking Japanese in the west and German in the east. The dividing line being the Mississippi River.
Instead, both are peaceful nations that have a philosophy closely married to our own divinely inspired beliefs and practices.
No Im not saying anything of the sort, I didnt mention or say anything like that.
What I said was Bateman and others are trying to erode the Bill of Rights and most people are just standing by and letting it happen.
I said that my belief in God is personal to me. I have no right to force it on anyone nor does anyone have the right to force thiers on me.
OK, I see it. Thanks and sorry for the miscommunication E4U.
Neither of us appear to be Bible Thumpers.
Yet I would imagine that we both have unshakable beliefs in God.
Speaking for myself anyway.
Sorry I didnt see this until now, I got distracted by something shiny:)
My faith and Belief in God is unshakeable. Religion on the other hand, not so much
I’m not at all certain where the forced belief reference comes from. Forcing a belief on someone and declaring that belief openly are two different things entirely. The founding documents are clearly written. The Founding Fathers recognized God (e.g., Creator, Divine Providence, Supreme Judge) multiple times in the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere did they force a belief in God on anyone. And I do not see here that anyone is doing so. There are some ateists in the country and many more agnostics. That’s fine but it doesn’t change a thing with respect to the founding of this nation.
2/17
I completely agree that this nations founding Fathers recognized God.
I also think that I have done a poor job of expressing myself in this discussion.
Back to Jonn’s original comment,
He said “I disagree with the thing about rights not being God-given – that whole “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” thing in the Declaration of Independence.”
I agree with that, however the point I was trying to make and failed at is this
God gave us those rights and others. But we live in a land that has Mans law not God. We as men have imposed limits on Gods law. In the bill of Rights we give ourselves back some but not all of the God granted us to begin with.
My other point was a poor reference to freedom of religion. I have a right to Believe in God in any way I choose, no man in this land has the right to tell me that I have to Believe in a certain way if at all.
Okie dokie. My own interest is in doing what I can to inform others of our Constitutional history. I truly appreciate your broaching the topic.
Can I shoot you an email?
Sure thing. Do you have it?
Enigma4you…Thank you for your additional information. It is a sometimes difficult angle from which to view our Constitution and nation. You did it well though.
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” I believe that has been interpreted to mean, I can believe in God or not, that is my choice and my right. Congress cannot make a law requiring me to believe or not believe anything. I can have faith in God or the devil or nothing at all – my choice and my right. Freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms in defense of myself and others is a right that I have whether I want it or not. Tyrants have denied the right and seized the right so where it came from doesn’t really matter. However, if I want to exericse it, I have to be willing to fight for it. If I want to believe in the devil, that is my right. But someone might try to prevent me from exercising that right – prevent me from believing in the devil. If I am unwilling to stand up and say No! then the right has no value and I cannot use it for anything – it is decoration, lipstick on a pig, a skirt on a sheep. I have the right to self defense and I will insist on exercising it even to bringing suit or other means. If I am unwilling to do that then the existence or possession of the right doesn’t mean anything. I once sat on a grand jury. We were asked to determine if a man died at the hand of another man, if it might be murder, and if the prosecutor was charging the right guy. There was a party, three guys, all very drunk. Guy #1 said that he was going to kill guy #2. Guy #2 was completely unconscious. Guy #3, a big fellow, prevented the murder. Then #1 went to the bathroom and came out with a knife. #3 shot #1 in the chest and in the head at close range with a 44 magnum single action. When the cops showed up two hours… Read more »
Whoops! I answered in the wrong place above, so now it appears here twice.
Richard: I was good with everything that you wrote except the beginning. The Founders were quite able to write into the Constitution that ‘Congress shall make no law either requiring nor prohibiting a belief in a Supreme Being.’ But they did not. Instead, they wrote what you quoted, which is not the same thing. Prayer in public schools to start a school day was widely practiced in this country and manger scenes on school property were common at Christmastime. Easter break was Easter break, nor spring break. My point is not to argue for or against these things. My point is that the US Constitution does not speak to them. The Supreme Court read them into the Constitution on its own, as it has read and continues to read many things that are simply not there. Who complains? The left when decisions don’t go the way they would like and conservatives (‘Damn activist Justices!’) when decisions go leftward. This is NOT how the Founding Fathers envisioned the development of our Constitution. Their silly idea was to change it through an amendment process. (That was me being sarcastic.)