Argue With Everyone Political Forums  

Go Back   Argue With Everyone Political Forums > General Political Debate > Religion and Philosophy
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 10:57 AM
nathanbforrest45's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 8,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom1 View Post
If I remember correctly there was a crowd of people outside the courthouse chanting about how Shepard was guilty, etc.

They were forced to move also because the jurors might hear them. That is freedom of speech and assembly versus rights to a fair trial. That wasn't the issue in from of the Supreme Court though.

Shepard's rights weren't denied. He was granted a new trial and was aquitted.
They were denied, that is the reason he was granted a new trial.

Its the right of "peaceable assembly" A case can be made that a mob chanting for someone's blood is not peaceable and therefore has no constitution right to assembly
__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 11:14 AM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
They were denied, that is the reason he was granted a new trial.

Its the right of "peaceable assembly" A case can be made that a mob chanting for someone's blood is not peaceable and therefore has no constitution right to assembly

It was a case that pitted the 1st Amendment versus the Sixth Amendment . . . and the Sixth won. Granted the trial judge made plenty of errors for the reversal, but many cases have used this case as precedent and the sixth amendment comes out on top.

A group of people gathering and chanting slogans, whether they are chanting that he is guilty or not, is a Constitutional right. It is free speech and freedom of assembly. Fact is, the sixth amendment trumps them both, as well it should.

If a group of people were chanting "Oj did it" over and over wouldn't that be free speech?
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 12:52 PM
nathanbforrest45's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: mountains of East TN
Posts: 8,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom1 View Post
It was a case that pitted the 1st Amendment versus the Sixth Amendment . . . and the Sixth won. Granted the trial judge made plenty of errors for the reversal, but many cases have used this case as precedent and the sixth amendment comes out on top.

A group of people gathering and chanting slogans, whether they are chanting that he is guilty or not, is a Constitutional right. It is free speech and freedom of assembly. Fact is, the sixth amendment trumps them both, as well it should.

If a group of people were chanting "Oj did it" over and over wouldn't that be free speech?

It would be true speech but if they were disrupting the trial then I think the court has the right to remove them. They are getting in the way to the right of a speedy trial.
__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 01:07 PM
36shadow's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NAT View Post
Care to show where your creator deity is even mentioned in the Constitution, please?

Our rights come from "We the People".
That is an old lame and uneducated arguement. Anyone knows a god or creator is not in the constitution. Once they tried to put it in after the fact but it was voted down because of a firm belief that it was not needed because it was well known that the belief and reasons for such beliefs was well known and established. The declaration of independance and many records of founding fathers more than prove the reason they and others felt American citazens should be gauranteed certain rights. Now you don't have to believe in god to understand why they did as they did. And putting down or denying god exist will not change what they believed or why they did as they did. If not for their belief in god we might not have the declaration of independance nor the bill of rights. That is a fact, and as far as who gives us those rights well hell man does but based on what reasoning is the question. And the answer as far as the United States is the belief in god. As far as what is right or wrong or moral or imoral well that depends on the people and the time in history as to what is acceptable to society or is not. In fact there is no true right or wrong we make those assumptions then enforce them as moral law..

As far as religion well it is my own personal belief that it began because it was the only way man could explain his enviorment and existance and mortality etc. As man got smarter religion changed to suit man and abused by many as to control the masses. Just my opinion but in the case of the vikings it is a fact. Now many bad things have been done in the name of religion but many good things have came from it also. As far as morals well they are nothing more than rules for a socialized society to live by to co-exist as peaceably as possable and they are of great use and important. As far as the example you used well it was stupid and had nothing to do with morals or lack their of. The chick had no guts to stand up for what she believed and you did. She then put you down for doing what inside she herself wanted too but did not have the backbone to do. hmmmmmmmm I think the moral thing in question is honesty something she does not have good or bad.
__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 01:12 PM
36shadow's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
It would be true speech but if they were disrupting the trial then I think the court has the right to remove them. They are getting in the way to the right of a speedy trial.
They are also inpeading the persons right to a fair trial. Wich he is innocent until proven guilty. A freedom of anything does not give you the freedom to infring on others same rights. This is a line that is often crossed by those proclaiming thier right to do certain things and the bill of rights does not give you the right to step on others rights in the free exercise of your own. This is where your chanters loose and need to shut up.
__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow
Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2008, 08:58 PM
Political Mastermind
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom1 View Post
That is a utopia you are talking about and I don't even know if extremely unrealistic would go far enough in describing what you are saying.
You're just butt hurt, I would be too if I didn't get life. cunt stain
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2008, 12:42 AM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanite View Post
You're just butt hurt, I would be too if I didn't get life. cunt stain

Is that seriously the best you have?

Fact is, what I said was correct. Now go sell some cheap ass T-shirts out of your garage Mr. Big Time.
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2008, 02:06 AM
NAT's Avatar
NAT NAT is offline
Political Junkie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom1 View Post
Sure quotes can be taken out of context, but it is pretty clear that many of the Founders did view rights coming from some higher authority, whether you want to believe it or not.

I don't misattribute quotes to people, but I often catch others doing so. Most of the time it is from people from the far left that say religion had no role in the founding of this nation - which is utterly ridiculous to even suggest.

None of what you said has anything to do with the fact that many of the Founders did say that rights came from a higher authority. It doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else believes that, it doesn't change what the author's of the Constitution thought.

He asked the question where rights come from and I gave an answer based on what our Founding Fathers had said.
If those men had truely considered that all of our rights came "from Heaven", then the words of the preamble would perhaps be worded in the manner of a later US government, the Confederacy, which states...

WE, the People of the Confederated States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent Federal government, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

For men who "considered our laws decended from on high", there is a certain, and complete, lack of mention of deity in that document.
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2008, 02:35 AM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,548
Default

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights

Inalienable rights, by definition, are not granted by the state - no human grants these rights. They are rights which no state has the power to confer because being human entitles you to these rights.

Again, you can agree or disagree, but some of the Founders did say that these inalienable rights were granted by a higher power. Since inalienable rights by definition cannot be granted by the state (only protected), they could not come from the state. I suppose the argument could be made that the protection of these rights is the same as granting them, but it is just semantics.

I am not agreeing with them that God or some other higher power is actually granting these rights, but that many of the Founders did indeed say this. I am also stating that inalienable rights are not granted by the state.
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2008, 05:46 AM
Inelpaso's Avatar
Political Junkie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 102
Default

Your right is what is left over from what the law has taken away.
__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. " Demosthenes
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



» Navigation
Political Links Page

Blogs by AWE Members

Advertisers support this site - if you're interested in their product, take a look!




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Poltical Topsites PolitiPoll.net - Political Web Rankings