After 227 Years, They Still Don't Know What It Says???

Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
6 comments | Share | Flag

And this from people who were just looking at in in the National Archives!

This got me thinking...will all of the rights enshrined in the first Ten Amendments also be etched in stone in the Gulch?
SOURCE URL: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/video-americans-cant-name-first-amendment-rights#.lvyjsv:Vs9K


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 4 months ago
    All of the rights in the First Ten Amendments will not be etched in stone in the Gulch. We have had these discussions before, but they do not go very far.
    See here:
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
    and here:
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
    and a third rambling exchange of 163 comments, a few of which actually a substantive proposal.
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

    The problem has been given deep thought by Wolf Devoon, an attorney associated with several "new country" projects. See "The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch" here
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

    Devoon tackles the first premise of libertarian theory, that the government has no right to initiate force. We argue that in compelling you to appear as a defendant, the government is (presumably) responding to your (alleged) violation of the rights of another. However, by what right does the court compel you to appear as a witness? Maybe Devoon is wrong and you always can refuse to appear as a witness. You may have a "natural right" to mind your own business and not be compelled to get involved in the affairs of others. Devoon argues otherwise, and, I believe, cogently so. Thus, the government does have a right to initiate force against the innocent. … or so it would seem …

    As for the Gulch, consider the Seventh Amendment. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Realize that this means, again, that the court can initiate force, compel you serve on a jury so that someone else can bring a law suit for civil damages not a criminal case. How does that work in Galt's Gulch?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      I would respectfully argue that in a case where someone is accused of a crime and you know of that individual's innocence and remain silent, you place yourself on the prosecutor's side of the compulsion. Choose your poison carefully!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 4 months ago
    They still don't know what it says, even when they are "constitutional scholars".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      That's true enough...especially when a Professor of Constitutional Law quotes the Constitution; the problem being that the language that he was quoting was from the Declaration of Independence. No matter though...that's no doubt what the founders has in mind and thankfully he was able to straighten it out for them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo