2 armed suspects shot outside Mohammed art event in Texas >Read mod warning in OP<

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

If you are the citizen they are describing in the 14th amendment then you have privileges or neatly named later civil rights. You should look up inalienable rights legal definition then decide if you have them. Ask yourself this, can they take away your right to own a gun? Can you be deprived of your property? The act of setting up free speech zones is violating that right. "You can have free speech over there in the alley". You have to get permission to assemble a demonstration. Another infringement on freedom of speech. I'm not confused about nothing.
Being subject to a jurisdiction means you gave up your sovereign rights, or you were conquered by an army foreign or domestic.

 

You are just making an argument over semantics. A 'right' is something one is born with, regardless of laws legislated in any state. IOW, 'inalienable', 'natural born'. A government cannot take away that right, they can only suppress your exercise there of.

 

Privileges or immunities (granted by government) are not the same thing as rights, which are specified as 'protected' in the Constitution. The limits to free speech are naturally limited by the duties of any right and that is to not infringe on other rights. Free speech zones are not set up by government to infringe on rights, but to protect rights by protecting the people that have an opinion. Such an area should have been set up in Baltimore as you see the results of unfettered access and those that wish to infringe on other rights. Setting of a free speech zone insures protection of the rights of those that wish to express their opinion.

 

If the right was bestowed by law is it a right the constitution guarantees?

 

Yes I know all their b.s. reasons, simple fact is you don't have the unalienable rights talked about in the bill of rights. Civil rights mirror them to confuse people of what real rights are so we can run around waving flags claiming to be the best country in the world.

 

Our rights are not bestowed upon us. We are born with them regardless of any government law. The Bill of Rights are laws for the government to follow so not to oppress our free exercise of rights.

 

This seemingly simple language has given rise to endless controversy over its (14th amendment) interpretation. Beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court has decided cases involving the Fourteenth by selectively invoking only the most minimal and restrictive rights needed to decide each case, and never finding or declaring in dictum that the Fourteenth protects all rights recognized by the Constitution. This has led to the doctrine of selective incorporation of the Bill of rights, most of which have eventually been included in the protection, but a few of which have not

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

 

You are still mistaken. Natural rights are protected, not granted like they are in other countries. Sorry you cannot tell the difference.

 

Sad, is Democrats not protecting and defending freedom of speech and the press.

 

They are still not unalienable rights and they are not guaranteed. You may have them when you are born but the moment they sign your birth certificate (BOND) you loss them and gain privileges and immunities.

 

Without freedom of speech you have no “consent of the governed” and no rights whatsoever.

 

Do you have the right to true ownership? No then you have been deprived of that "right" I know the difference. Sorry you don't

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of political speech, we have political rights not constitutional rights. To be governed means all sovereignty for the people was lost. We are like most western countries with political rights

 

You keep confusing natural right with sovereign right (which is possessed by a State). Sovereign rights allow the State to work on behalf of the people. Unlike other countries, natural rights were protected from interference of the Sovereign. These protections were written in from the beginning.

There is no such thing as a sovereign right of the people unless they form a government.

 

imo there is great confusion and conflation surrounding this issue

the constitution does not mention inalienable rights
nor does the bill of rights

it is part of the declaration of independence
and it mentions these as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

the rights in the bill of rights are legal rights
subject to a change of the law by amendment etc

where as inalienable rights are proposed to be above and beyond the law
but these are indeed very special rights
life, liberty, etc

 

I think some people need a wake up call that Islam is no religion of peace and it actually does threaten every American value we hold.

 

All sovereignty was never lost, and the rights of we the people will certainly be lost when we cannot blaspheme a false prophet like MoHamMad. If Congress becomes Muslim, or enough of the States do for the Senate, our rights at the State level and as people without freedom of speech (consent of the governed) still includes the right to WAR until we have the right to speak. If we are already at war with you, your speech may identify you; just as it does for Islam who hates scary mouths:

"[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse."

You said: &#8220;If ever in the future our authority (master) becomes friends with their enemy then threatening and provoking them will then be met with prejudice.&#8221; http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407848&p=1064984871#post1064984871

It is already being met with prejudice by people like you who do not understand the Constitution or who is the master here. See the Obamanation:

 

Since we have lost all civility and respect towards others, as proven by this cartoon exhibition, and have turned into a culture of might being right, shouldn't we then make laws to protect the sensibilities of religious and ethnic groups other than just homosexuals and blacks before this might makes right thing becomes a free for all?

I would think those in the forefront of having a 'Freedom from Religious and Ethnic Harassment' law, would be the same people who suffered the most under Nazism 'supremacism' such as the Jews, Slavs, Romas, etc.

 

With free speech, the 'might makes right' lies with the people. Who do you want to regulate it?

 

There are no guarantees. You can try to stop me from speaking or persuade a billion other people to try to stop me from speaking and, either way, you may succeed.

Galileo was forced to recant under threat of punishment. Was the church right or wrong? Most people judge that the church was wrong.

Consider the principle of rights as a recognition of what men need to survive and prosper on earth.

Did Galileo only have rights as long as the church left him alone? Or did someone discover that he was morally justified in being left alone to tell the world what he discovered because it was necessary for his life and beneficial to the rest of us?

Why did the Founders create the 1st Amendment?

Does a right refer to the fact that men are free to act - or - to the fact that men NEED to be free to act?

 

As human beings, of course they at least have that potential. But then, as the wonderful quotation goes, "... for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Religion allows, even demands, for people to override their better senses and commit atrocious acts of hatred and violence because the basic evil of it is excused using some allegedly divine ideal and commandment, and of course the associated promise of eternal blissful existence after death as a result.

That's why otherwise sane people will take up a gun or a bomb and kill others. It's absolutely appalling that our kind still entertains this kind of thinking, and as weapons become more sophisticated and deadly, it also becomes much more dangerous to us all.

 

We already enjoy equal protection (and lack thereof). It's no more illegal to put on an anti-gay art show than something anti-Islamic or anti-Christian. People would frown more upon some of those than others, and rightly so really, but they'd all enjoy the same legal protection I think.

We also need to be careful of "anti-hate" laws, to ensure that people's freedom of expression isn't abridged in order to satisfy certain loud, whiny groups who may get picked on in such a way.

 

The same people who regulate laws about offenses towards other groups. I mean shouldn't everyone have the same protection?

 

Is it protection from being offended you seek?

 

But how can someone say when an insult or offense is rightful, and when it's not? That's like saying something is okay as long as it is politically correct. Wouldn't that then be justifying Nazism or Wahabism, because they too are politically correct in certain places.

But no one will say or do anything to offend the loudest groups, because any offense against them has become politically incorrect, which means repercussions will be inevitable. This is what I meant by might means right.