Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: vaskidmark on April 22, 2011, 05:57:02 AM
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/04/21/mississippi-shows-how-you-handle-westboro-freaks
A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.
=D
There's a video of the town's turnout for a fallen hometown boy. There's a name-calling headline. There's reporting of the poor memory of folks who hang out at one of the local gas stations. And there is some editorializing about the poor towing service available.
There is nothing to suggest there was anything less than a town-wide conspiracy taking place.
Well done, Rankin, MS!
stay safe.
-
Well played, indeed.
-
Well it should be well played, they've had practice. Isn't that pretty much the same stuff they did when the feds came looking for those uppity black kids that got lost in the swamps in the '60's?
It goes without saying that WBC are asshats, but are we really celebrating assault, and conspiracy to cover it up? Not to mention cops detaining whoever they feel like with no crime being committed?
Really? Cops just get to decide what the law is based on what they feel it should be and enforce that? Really? VASkidmark, are you sure there?
Yeah WBC pisses me off every time they make a spectacle at one of my comrades funerals, but not nearly so pissed off as some good 'ole boy sheriff that feels he can make *expletive deleted*it up if he doesn't like someone. We have freedoms for a reason, and crap like this is why we have to defend them.
This:
A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.
is as disgusting, and more frightening, then anything WBC has managed to do.
Hypothetical: How would any of you feel if Chicago and CPD had done this to Gura when he was going to court for MacDonald?
-
Remember, under the 9th amendment these people have just as much right to do what they did to WBC as WBC has to protest at these funerals. Other than the "arse waxing" I'd say it was a pretty ingenious and relatively peaceful way to go about what they accomplished. I do applaud them.
-
Remember, under the 9th amendment these people have just as much right to do what they did to WBC as WBC has to protest at these funerals. Other than the "arse waxing" I'd say it was a pretty ingenious and relatively peaceful way to go about what they accomplished. I do applaud them.
Wait a sec there - how does the 9th amendment give locals the right to stop speech that they (and most) consider abhorrent?
While it's hard to get angry at anyone for stuffing around the Westboro mob, it is probably worth noting that these tactics (and worse) were at one time employed against people who wanted equal rights for the races, as dogmush rightly does. The WBC can annoy me, but it can't arrest me and question me for hours because it doesn't like my politics.
-
The satanists of WBC have been looking to provoke a reaction for a long time . . . it seems that they finally got their wish. (Wasn't there an old Biblical passage something along the lines of "As ye sow, so shall ye reap?")
-
While it's hard to get angry at anyone for stuffing around the Westboro mob, it is probably worth noting that these tactics (and worse) were at one time employed against people who wanted equal rights for the races, as dogmush rightly does. The WBC can annoy me, but it can't arrest me and question me for hours because it doesn't like my politics.
Well, if/when that town and county use/abuse their powers against some other group, we'll all stand up and condemn them and demand action. =)
I see this as a lesser application of the idea that "The founders never intended the Constitution be a suicide pact." Putting aside the question of a crisis where following the Constitution to the letter would be a Pyhrric victory that would destroy the Republic, in the same vein it wasn't intended to force people to endure certain lesser intolerable acts either.
-
Wait a sec there - how does the 9th amendment give locals the right to stop speech that they (and most) consider abhorrent?
The 9th says your rights are too ennumerable to list. They are infinite. So under the 9th we most certainly have the right to use whatever means we deem necessary to stop them from doing what they are doing. Consequently, the 9th gives them the right to retaliate in any form they deem necessary. Whether it be direct conflict, legally or civilly. It is a bit of a double edged sword which is why you don't hear the NRA touting it. ;)
In this case, how much consequence can be brought against the town? The tow trucks couldn't get out fast enough because they were busy? Happens all the time And, I sure as hell know that when the coppers are looking for some criminal or another in town all out of state plates are fair game. Been that route, it wasn't pretty. Wasn't as ugly as it could have gotten though. :O
-
Well, if/when that town and county use/abuse their powers against some other group, we'll all stand up and condemn them and demand action. =)
I see this as a lesser application of the idea that "The founders never intended the Constitution be a suicide pact." Putting aside the question of a crisis where following the Constitution to the letter would be a Pyhrric victory that would destroy the Republic, in the same vein it wasn't intended to force people to endure certain lesser intolerable acts either.
So wait a second here, you don't think the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular speech from official censorship???
It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like. Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.
-
The 9th says your rights are too ennumerable to list. They are infinite. So under the 9th we most certainly have the right to use whatever means we deem necessary to stop them from doing what they are doing. Consequently, the 9th gives them the right to retaliate in any form they deem necessary. Whether it be direct conflict, legally or civilly. It is a bit of a double edged sword which is why you don't hear the NRA touting it. ;)
In this case, how much consequence can be brought against the town? The tow trucks couldn't get out fast enough because they were busy? Happens all the time And, I sure as hell know that when the coppers are looking for some criminal or another in town all out of state plates are fair game. Been that route, it wasn't pretty. Wasn't as ugly as it could have gotten though. :O
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of the 9th amendment there - but barring that, free speech is clearly a constitutional right. Perhaps we shouldn't be celebrating official, coordinated action to shut down someone else's speech just because we hate its content.
-
Aren't police legally allowed to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge?
Does there have to be RS or PC for such detainment? If so, what was it in this case?
-
It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like.
They've said their peace. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, has decided we don't need to hear it again.
-
Free speech goes only as far as a line being crossed into the territory of disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct could be construed as conduct that elevates the passions of normally reasonable and proper folk to the point of creating or potentially creating a greater disturbance. I'll admit that may be somewhat subjective. But that's why we select and pay police officers to make those judgements under the rule of law.
For as much as free speech seems to be touted as a nearly unlimited right, we must always remember that in our Republic we are a society of laws that are used to encourage a civil society. Laws always constrain freedom. Therefore our right to free speech does have limits, and that has been accepted.
I've always been perplexed by people who seem to want to stretch the limits of civil society by using our freedoms to created a coarser society that values darkness over light. So, I say that those of us who value peace, freeom and harmony have the right to stretch those same limits in the opposite direction.
-
Aren't police legally allowed to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge?
Does there have to be RS or PC for such detainment? If so, what was it in this case?
The amount of time depends on what they're investigating - usually "RS" is required.
GigaBuist, guess what? The whole point of the first amendment is that we don't get to decide when someone else will speak out with unpopular beliefs.
I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons when Lisa questions Jebediah Springfield's true identity - everyone's ready to hang Lisa for insulting their dear leader, but once she starts saying how great ol' Jeb was, they shout "free speech! free speech!"
-
Free speech goes only as far as a line being crossed into the territory of disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct could be construed as conduct that elevates the passions of normally reasonable and proper folk to the point of creating or potentially creating a greater disturbance. I'll admit that may be somewhat subjective. But that's why we select and pay police officers to make those judgements under the rule of law.
For as much as free speech seems to be touted as a nearly unlimited right, we must always remember that in our Republic we are a society of laws that are use to encourage a civil society. Laws always constrain freedom. Therefore our right to free speech does have limits, and that has been accepted.
The Supreme Court considered exactly what you raised, in relation to this very same group and its opinions. Our right to free speech does indeed have limitations - but there is no way to fit the WBC into those limits without granting the Government the power to review and decide which religious and political beliefs are acceptable.
-
They've said their peace. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, has decided we don't need to hear it again.
So shoot them.
If their speech is sooooo horibble that they have abdicated their rights go whole hog. Otherwise STFU and wait for them to make a mistake then shut them down legally.
Whatever happened to the sentiment "I may not like what you say, but I'll die to protect your right to say it."
Free speech goes only as far as a line being crossed into the territory of disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct could be construed as conduct that elevates the passions of normally reasonable and proper folk to the point of creating or potentially creating a greater disturbance. I'll admit that may be somewhat subjective. But that's why we select and pay police officers to make those judgements under the rule of law.
So those officers picked up the church members for a Disorderly Conduct charge under that rule of law, right?
Let me expound here for a moment:
I can sympithize with the whoopin. I agree with the witnesses. If I saw that beating, I would be hard pressed to morally remember anything useful. They're adults and their speech is abhorrant. A beating in MS is a pretty foreseeable consequence of acting like an asshat in MS. Actions ->Consequenses and all that.
But all that is interactions between private citizens.
When an (armed) agency of the government colludes to stop the political speech of a group because it doesn't like that speech? No, that's BS. And should be stopped.
Suicide pact my ass. There is absolutly NOTHING the WBC could possibly do to damage the US. There's no reason to comprimise our principles because we don't like them. I could list for pages threads where scream and moan because the police or gov is thinking about, possibly, invading our privacy, or not letting us carry a pistol in the fashion we'd like, or not letting us smoke what we'd like. And yet when EXACTLY the kind of reprehensable speech the first ammendment was penned to protect is stifled you're all lined up to cheer for it. WTH?
-
Many years ago when I was in LE, I arrested an attorney. (He'd had his car impounded because it had been left in a traffic lane.) He was at the towing facility shouting and using offensive language. A small crowd had gathered including women, men and children. The attorney was really ticking off the crowd with his behavior. He was on the verge of having his fanny kicked.
I arrested the attorney for disorderly conduct; by creating a disturbance. He was inflaming a group of people with offensive language. A judge came to HQ and tried to get me to release him. I explained what he did. The judge backed off. The attorney pled guilty, paid a fine, and had to apoligize to the employees of the towing facility. If what I did was stultifying free speech, then I think the judge and attorney sure would have made an issue of it.
PS: I didn't read the article yet. My comments are of a general nature regarding what may be unlawful speech.
-
Well played, Brandon, MS. Well played, indeed.
Sounds to me that the WBC was not only reaping what it sowed, it reaped it in the same manner. WBC stands on a reading of the law that maximizes their latitude and threatens legal action against any who might interfere, usually by pushing the law to the boundaries and taking advantage of any possible legal flexibility.
Well, it looks to me that Brandon, MS, carefully walked the legal line without crossing it and used the law to THEIR best advantage when dealing with the WBC. Brandon was able to trump & stymie WBC at their own game due to the participation and sympathy of the locals.
And, yes, it is horrible indeed that some miscreant roughed up some WBC member. I feel pained, pained that the guilty party was unable to be identified and still walks among free men. I think I shall go to my private retreat to meditate on this issue and seek spiritual solace.
Or maybe not:
I've always been perplexed by people who seem to want to stretch the limits of civil society by using our freedoms to created a coarser society that values darkness over light. So, I say that those of us who value peace, freeom and harmony have the right to stretch those same limits in the opposite direction.
Folks like the WBC ought not be too surprised when the objects of their law-stretching decide to fight fire with fire.
So shoot them.
If their speech is sooooo horibble that they have abdicated their rights go whole hog. Otherwise STFU and wait for them to make a mistake then shut them down legally.
Hysteric much?
WBC acts in a coarse and unsympathetic manner. They've no moral basis to snivel when similar tactics are used against them.
-
grampster - throwing a fit over a parking fine and a political protest, aimed at delivering a specific religious and political message are two obviously different situations. Again, that issue (of what is disorderly or not) is covered in the Supreme Court's case.
It's the content of the WBC message that angers people, not the attitude or shouting (which they don't do - they mainly stand around with their ridiculous signs.)
Roo_ster, if the facts as alleged are true, they most certainly did cross a legal line. Whether there will be consequences is another matter, but I don't think it's healthy to celebrate that kind of thing. As dogmush rightly pointed out, this sort of thing doesn't just happen to weirdos.
-
roo_ster:
It was hyperbole. I don't think anyone here thinks they should be summarily executed, but everyone seems fine with the .gov summarilly taking other rights.
I'm not concerned about their sniviling, I'm more concerned with the police misconduct. Their protesting a government action. It's the very definition of protected political speech. Which is why the PD didn't arrest them for disordly conduct. They knew they'd be in a 1st ammendment lawsuit if that happened. So they decided to get sneaky with the law to shut down something they didn't like. You know, like taking a pistol at a traffic stop and making you prove it's yours to get it back. Same thing.
Grampster:
They didn't arrest them for disorderly conduct. They county government (or workers) blocked their cars in the hotel, and then when they walked to the protest the local PD detained them for questioning in an unrelated, undisclosed crime. All with a wink and a nod.
-
They didn't arrest them for disorderly conduct. They county government (or workers) blocked their cars in the hotel, and then when they walked to the protest the local PD detained them for questioning in an unrelated, undisclosed crime. All with a wink and a nod.
It's my understanding that the cars were blocked in with private citizens trucks, who illegally parked them there, with the understanding that they could be impounded. Of course, it seems clear that they local towing company was colluding with them as well.
As far as the PD detaining people... Seems sketchy.
-
dm & ds:
If you think this occurred without the consent of the governed, you are unfamiliar with small town America.
WBC uses the law to the extreme to achieve its objectives and the locals did the same. If you think what the locals did was somehow different in kind because some local LEOs may have been involved and used the discretion granted them by court and statute on the side of WBC's targets, I think you ignore WBS's using state & federal courts and LEOs to enforce WBC's walking along an extreme interpretation of the law.
That's why it is beautiful. Hoist on their own petard.
I hope they enjoyed their stay in Mississippi.
-
So wait a second here, you don't think the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular speech from official censorship???
It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like. Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.
Tolerate. Not endure. If you showed up at my door, trying to convert me or say bad things, I have every right to slam my door in your face. I don't agree with the assault if it was not justified in defense of person or property. The pickup truck thing was also freedom of speech. The right to obstruct that which is evil. The police should have been impartial and fined them appropriately. I would have kicked in for covering that tab.
Back in the day, freedom of speech was balanced with duels. We lost that necessary balance and replaced it with courts.
-
The pickup truck thing was also freedom of speech. The right to obstruct that which is evil. The police should have been impartial and fined them appropriately. I would have kicked in for covering that tab.
It's my understanding that the cars were blocked in with private citizens trucks, who illegally parked them there, with the understanding that they could be impounded.
From the article:
Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over.
I read that as county owned trucks (DPW or whatever) If that actually means private trucks whose owners live in Rankin County, then yeah, game the frak on. What I do with my truck is my buisness, and would kick in for the impound fee if I knew the owners. If they were public owned trucks that's another matter.
Still pissed at the PD. Transparantly detaining individuals for the purpose of stopping political speech is a No-Go.
Back in the day, freedom of speech was balanced with duels. We lost that necessary balance and replaced it with courts.
Courts have failed IMO to adequately replace that. All joking aside, these folks are a poster child for needing to be 10 paces away at dawn. If we still had an appropriate redress available, then maybe we wouldn't feel the need to resort to Gestapo tactics.
-
WBC are more interested in lawsuits and the profits they get from the lawsuits. They use the letter of the law and ignore the spirit.
Mississippi did the same, in doing so they might have saved some lives.
Sooner or later someone who feels they don't have much to lose is going to kill some of them, I'd much rather have "the people"
handle it like this town did.
Cops have a duty to investigate crime, WBC got reported by someone and they did, just like an anonymous phone call got all those kids rounded up and the FLDS parents thrown in the clinker.
Some citizens parked their cars illegally OMG!!! call the FBI!
the cops and citizens didn't really break any laws, they obeyed the letter of the law.
cops in NYC in the old days would protest by enforcing the letter of the law, the city would grind to a halt.
I used to be an armed guard in San Francisco, I had to guard the cable car ticket sales people. homeless addicts would harass the tourist & I told them to get lost and the addicts got the cops who told me the addicts have free speech & I had to leave them alone.
So, I got creative, I politely asked the tourist not to give the addicts spare changed & they gladly didn't , the addicts got the cops again and they were not happy, I asked them if I had free speech - they had to agree I did. addicts zero gunsmith winning
-
So wait a second here, you don't think the Constitution was specifically intended to protect unpopular speech from official censorship???
It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like. Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.
No, it was not. The 1st Amendment was precisely intended to prevent the government from punishing people for expressing dissident ideas, it was NOT intended to force me to listen to some idjit spout off, nor to force grieving family to endure the insults of a pack of jackals en route to the funeral.
What the 1st Amendment says is (precisely): "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."
Where in that does it say, in any way, shape or form, that private individuals must be forced to endure hateful speech by fanatical maniacs?
-
Deleted by poster
-
The Supreme Court considered exactly what you raised, in relation to this very same group and its opinions. Our right to free speech does indeed have limitations - but there is no way to fit the WBC into those limits without granting the Government the power to review and decide which religious and political beliefs are acceptable.
Shrug...
There's simply a point where the real world, and the circumstances in which you find yourself, you have to do what you have to do. Constitution or not. Supreme Court or not.
I hope you never have people on the sidewalk, just at the edge of your yard chanting obscenities and insults at you and your family during some tragic time in the name of "First Amendment Rights".
-
It was precisely intended to force people to endure speech that they don't like. Wouldn't need the first amendment otherwise.
Really? Thats hysterical!!!
I'm gonna use that rule to force the kids in public school to listen to me holler at them to pull up their pants
-
No, it was not. The 1st Amendment was precisely intended to prevent the government from punishing people from expressing dissident ideas, it was NOT intended to force me to listen to some idjit spout off, nor to force grieving family to endure the insults of a pack of jackals en route to the funeral.
What the 1st Amendment says is (precisely): "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."
Where in that does it say, in any way, shape or form, that private individuals must be forced to endure hateful speech by fanatical maniacs?
=D =D why do you hate freedom & small children & puppies? =D =D :P :P :angel: :angel:
-
Quote from: De Selby on Today at 02:47:52 PM
The Supreme Court considered exactly what you raised, in relation to this very same group and its opinions. Our right to free speech does indeed have limitations - but there is no way to fit the WBC into those limits without granting the Government the power to review and decide which religious and political beliefs are acceptable.
I as a free citizen however have the freedom to review and decide which religious and political beliefs are acceptable TO ME[/i
... If I decide to illegally park my car and block the WBC they are free to call the cops, which they did.
The people have the ability to do things in a free country, like NOT ENDURING BOVINE EXCREMENT FROM STUPID JERKS
The WBC have to right to protest but they will "endure" the consequences of their actions.
May a flock of code inspectors swarm their houses
-
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of the 9th amendment there
I'd say ypu'd have to ask the authors if the 9th would apply in protecting our right to silence F-tards. How do you think they'd rule in this case?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment
The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somewhat of an enigma. It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect.
Every year federal courts are asked to recognize new Unenumerated Rights "retained by the people," and typically they turn to the Ninth Amendment. However, the federal judiciary does not base rulings exclusively on the Ninth Amendment; the courts usually cite the amendment as a secondary source of fundamental liberties. In particular, the Ninth Amendment has played a significant role in establishing a constitutional right to privacy.
Ratified in 1791, the Ninth Amendment is an outgrowth of a disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the importance of attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. When the Constitution was initially drafted by the Framers in 1787, it contained no Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, who generally opposed ratification because they believed that the Constitution conferred too much power on the federal government, supported a Bill of Rights to serve as an additional constraint against despotism. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights because they believed that any enumeration of fundamental liberties was unnecessary and dangerous.
The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, articulated this concern in The Federalist No. 84. Why should a Bill of Rights, Hamilton asked, "declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press. A provision "against restraining the liberty of the press," Hamilton said, "affords the clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."
The Federalists were also concerned that any constitutional enumeration of liberties might imply that other rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, would be surrendered to the government. A Bill of Rights, they feared, would quickly become the exclusive means by which the American people could secure their freedom and stave off tyranny. Federalist James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. A "positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude," Madison said. "If an enumeration be made of all our rights," he queried, "will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government?"
Anti-Federalists and others who supported a Bill of Rights attempted to mollify the Federalists' concerns with three counterarguments. First, the Anti-Federalists underscored the fact that the Constitution guarantees certain liberties even without a Bill of Rights. For example, Article I of the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus and from passing bills of attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws. If these liberties could be enumerated without endangering other unenumerated liberties, Anti-Federalists reasoned, additional liberties, such as freedom of the press and religion, could be safeguarded in a Bill of Rights.
Second, while acknowledging that it would be impossible to enumerate every human liberty imaginable, supporters of a Bill of Rights maintained that this obstacle should not impede the Framers from establishing constitutional protection for certain essential liberties. Thomas Jefferson, responding to Madison's claim that no Bill of Rights could ever be exhaustive, commented that "[h]alf a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all of our rights, let us secure what we can."
Third, Anti-Federalists argued that if there was a genuine risk that naming certain liberties would imperil others, then an additional constitutional amendment should be drafted to offer protection for all liberties not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Such an amendment, the Anti-Federalists argued, would protect those liberties that might fall through the cracks of written constitutional provisions. This idea became the Ninth Amendment.
Unlike every other provision contained in the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment had no predecessor in English Law. It stemmed solely from the genius of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Ironically, Madison, who opposed a Bill of Rights in 1787, was the chief architect of the Ninth Amendment during the First Congress in 1789.
After reconsidering the arguments against a Bill of Rights, Madison said he was now convinced that such concerns could be overcome. It was still plausible, Madison believed, that the enumeration of particular rights might disparage other rights that were not enumerated. Yet Madison told Congress that he had attempted to guard against this danger by drafting the Ninth Amendment, which he submitted in the following form:
The exceptions [to power] here or elsewhere in the constitution made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations on such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
The House Select Committee, consisting of one representative from each state in the Union, reviewed and revised Madison's proposal until it gradually evolved into its present form. The debates in both houses of Congress add little to the original understanding of the Ninth Amendment. The Senate conducted its sessions in secret, and the House debates failed to offer a glimmer as to what unenumerated rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment, how such rights might be identified, or by what branch of government they should be enforced.
The Supreme Court did not attempt to answer these questions for more than 170 years. Until 1965 no Supreme Court decision made more than a passing reference to the Ninth Amendment. In 1958, Supreme Court Justice robert h. jackson wrote that the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment "are still a mystery." Nevertheless, the dormant Ninth Amendment experienced a renaissance in griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965).
In Griswold the Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that banned adult residents from using Birth Control and prohibited anyone from assisting others to violate this law. In the majority opinion, Justice william o. douglas, writing for the Court, rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. On several occasions in the past, Douglas wrote, the Court has recognized rights that cannot not be found in the written language of the Constitution.
Only briefly discussed in Douglas's majority opinion, the Ninth Amendment was the centerpiece of Justice arthur goldberg's concurring opinion. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, Goldberg wrote, demonstrate that the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to protect certain unwritten liberties with the same zeal that courts must protect those liberties expressly referenced in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, Goldberg emphasized, reflects the Framers' original understanding that "other fundamental personal rights should not be denied protection simply because they are not specifically listed" in the Constitution.
Justices hugo l. black and Potter Stewart criticized the Court for invoking the Ninth Amendment as a basis for its decision in Griswold. The Ninth Amendment, the dissenting justices said, does not explain what unenumerated rights are retained by the people or how these rights should be identified. Nor does the amendment authorize the Supreme Court, in contrast to the president or Congress, to enforce these rights. By reading the Ninth Amendment as creating a general right to privacy, Black and Stewart suggested, the unelected justices of the Supreme Court had substituted their own subjective notions of justice, liberty, and reasonableness for the wisdom and experience of the elected representatives in the Connecticut state legislature who were responsible for passing the birth control regulation.
The Griswold decision was the starting point of a continuing debate over the proper role of the Ninth Amendment in constitutional Jurisprudence. One side of the debate reads the Ninth Amendment to mean that the Constitution protects not only those liberties written into the Bill of Rights but some additional liberties found outside the express language of any one provision. The other side sees no way to identify the unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment and no objective method by which to interpret and apply such rights. Under this view, courts that interpret and apply the Ninth Amendment do so in a manner that reflects the political and personal preferences of the presiding judge. Federal courts have attempted to reach a middle ground.
A number of federal courts have found that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of judicial construction, or a guideline for interpretation, and not an independent source of constitutional rights (Mann v. Meachem, 929 F. Supp. 622 [N.D.N.Y. 1996]). These courts view the Ninth Amendment as an invitation to liberally interpret the express provisions of the Constitution. However, federal courts will not recognize constitutional rights claimed to derive solely from the Ninth Amendment (United States v. Vital Health Products, 786 F. Supp. 761 [E.D. Wis. 1992]). By itself, one court held, the Ninth Amendment does not enunciate any substantive rights. Instead the amendment serves to protect other fundamental liberties that are implicit, though not mentioned, in the Bill of Rights (Rothner v. City of Chicago, 725 F. Supp. 945 [N.D. Ill. 1989]).
After Griswold, federal courts were flooded with novel claims based on unenumerated rights. Almost without exception, these novel Ninth Amendment claims were rejected.
For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft (United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 [1970]). The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered submachine gun (United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 [1976]). The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana (United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 [1986]). The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment (Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 [1992]).
This series of cases has led some scholars to conclude that the Ninth Amendment may be returning to a constitutional hibernation. Yet the Ninth Amendment retains some vitality. In roe v. wade, the federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a state law prohibiting Abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment (314 F. Supp. 1217 [1970]).
On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that the right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]). Federal courts continue to rely on the Ninth Amendment in support of a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion under certain circumstances.
Further readings
Abramson, Paul R., Steven D. Pinkerton, and Mark Huppin. 2003. Sexual Rights in America: The Ninth Amendment and the Pursuit of Happiness. New York.: New York Univ. Press.
DeRosa, Marshall L. 1996. The Ninth Amendment and the Politics of Creative Jurisprudence: Disparaging the Fundamental Right of Popular Control
-
No, it was not. The 1st Amendment was precisely intended to prevent the government from punishing people for expressing dissident ideas, it was NOT intended to force me to listen to some idjit spout off, nor to force grieving family to endure the insults of a pack of jackals en route to the funeral.
What the 1st Amendment says is (precisely): "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."
Where in that does it say, in any way, shape or form, that private individuals must be forced to endure hateful speech by fanatical maniacs?
This is almost precisely what I was going to post. I can, as a private citizen, restrict someones speech in any way I choose. If I do something illegal to do so, I can be charged with that act, but it's not a first ammendment issue. That's why I disagree with hate speech laws, as they ARE violating the first amendment. If a town chooses to use any means necessary to prevent speech, they are legally accountable to what methods they choose, and they can't use the law to restrict the speech, however the act of private citizens doing it isn't on it's face illegal.
For example, blocking the cars, that's illegal parking. Beating the crap out of someone, assault and battery. None of which are first amendment issues. Saying you didn't see anything? Not illegal, thanks to first and fifth amendments.
In this case, i say, go Mississippi, counter-lawfare at it's finest (provided they did it correctly, given that WBC uses lawsuits to finance it's operations). That's why I am in favor of private civil disobedience to inhibit these jackasses, if people want to risk the consequences, go for it! For example, standing next to WBC with a sign that says "god thinks phelps is an a$$hole" would be technically legal.
-
"god
thinks knows phelps is an a$$hole" FTFY and I'm off to the print shop... =D
Ok, not right now but maybe in the future. ;)