Rights-Free Zones

I find it interesting, but also quite consistent, to note that another government agency has decided to set up an area where people do not have rights. This time it’s the Washington Metro. After all, claim the police, you don’t HAVE to use the Metro, so they’re not taking away your rights — instead you’re volunteering to give them away — to use a government service.

We have already created numerous places where you have no First Amendment rights — courthouses, public gatherings, places where government officials gather, and “free speech zones” during times of meetings.

We’ve created other zones where you have no Second Amendment rights — near government employees, post offices, banks, anywhere near schools or children, etc.

We now also have places where you have no Fourth Amendment — airports, courthouses, and now the Washington Metro. Why not?

Do you notice one of the similarities between all these places where you have to surrender your rights (voluntarily, of course)? Nearly all of them are places that are built with taxpayer dollars, and/or include people who are paid with taxpayer dollars. And that, of course, is the absolutely opposite of what was intended by the Constitution. But hey, the US Constitution hasn’t been used in decades, so why start now?

Side note: 5th amendment doesn’t apply any more — you can be literally deprived of liberty without cause (arrested without being charged with a crime); 6th amendment doesn’t apply: impartial juries are outlawed in many places today (see FIJA); 7th amendment varies, you can be “administratively” fined without jury; I could easily go on.

I do wonder why they skipped the third amendment. After all, we could save a lot of money if we’d just force people to quarter military members in their homes. I mean, have people “volunteer” to house soldiers.

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Rights-Free Zones”

  1. Blake says:

    There should be NO PLACE in the US where we have to surrender any of our rights.
    These rights were given by God, and delineated by the Constitution, and noone, I SAY NOONE, can take them legally.
    Period.

  2. Adam says:

    The problem with these arguments is they are based on individual interpretation of the bill of rights. It doesn’t matter. The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and it has stated over and over that exceptions exist to these rights such as the right (reaffirmed recently) of school zones and government buildings to restrict the 2nd amendment.

    • Big Dog says:

      The SCOTUS is not necessarily right in what it says. Remember, this is the group that said abortion is a right though that word does not appear in the document. If the SCOTUS said that under the Second Amendment we had the right to shoot people who wear funny clothes (using the same logic it used to find abortion) would you say that was OK and it must be right because the SCOTUS said so? The problem is, the SCOTUS often ignores the writings of the Founders which tell us exactly what they meant and wanted when they wrote the thing.

      As an aside, do you think the government has a Constitutional authority to force us to buy health care? The argument is the Commerce Clause but the use by Congress was outside what it is for. They can’t do it under taxing authority because the money is a fine, a penalty. While we might argue in general, a tax is not a penalty.

      But let me carry that further. Suppose the SCOTUS says that Congress has the right to force people to buy something because of the affect on commerce (even though that would be a wrong interpretation). Now suppose it goes through and the health bill is allowed to stand. Then, in a few years we have a Republican president, and Republicans control both chambers of Congress. If they passed a law that every American adult HAD to buy a gun, would you then say that they were wrong and commerce does not apply? You see, every person has the potential to be the victim of a crime and crime costs our economy billions of dollars so we need people to buy guns to prevent crime and keep our economy strong. No different from Obamacare’s mandate…

      As you know, the Second has always been an individual right and that was affirmed in the Dred Scott decision (a long time ago). I personally disagree with the no gun zones for schools and government buildings (people carried guns in those places in the past) because that is an infringement. Law abiding people do not need their rights restricted.

      A private property owner can say if you can carry a gun there or not but schools and government buildings belong to the people.

      • Adam says:

        “Remember, this is the group that said abortion is a right though that word does not appear in the document.”

        It was not so much that abortion specifically was a right but rather that the right to privacy and other rights encompasses the ability of a mother to terminate her pregnancy.

        Once again I’m left questioning whether you understand that the SCOTUS is not there simply to tell us what the document says or doesn’t say but rather how what the document does say applies to various situations such as how the 2nd applies to gun ownership in the home or the 9th and 14th applies to the rights of a mother to make decisions for her own body.

        “If they passed a law that every American adult HAD to buy a gun, would you then say that they were wrong and commerce does not apply?”

        The truth is you can’t show guns keep people safer. The GOP would have to start there if they were ever to make a case that the requirement to buy guns was a valid one.

        I’m not saying you have to agree with every decision but it would be nice to feel that while your side is busy trumpeting the merits of the Constitution that you clearly understood the role of the SCOTUS.

    • Big Dog says:

      I also wonder if it will be OK for cops to stop people in high crime areas and pat them down without probable cause. It is for our safety and all that…

      The ACLU would go nuts over that.

    • Ogre says:

      Actually, I stated facts, not “individual interpretations.” The only opinion I wrote was the end of the 5th paragraph.

      But I know, in your mind, facts only exist if they correspond with your self-constructed reality.

  3. Ogre says:

    Standard left logic:

    Constitution has no meaning, other than what a small number of unelected government employees say.

    Founders of the Constitution:

    Constitution is the supreme law of the land and exists to STOP government employees from restricting rights.

    • Adam says:

      “Constitution has no meaning, other than what a small number of unelected government employees say.”

      Yes, you are so right. Two hundred and twenty years of court cases and judicial precedent are meaningless. Those folks weren’t even elected. They’re just government employees restricting our rights when we can all read the dang document ourselves and make the call.

      “But I know, in your mind, facts only exist if they correspond with your self-constructed reality.”

      Self-constructed reality? That’s rich. This coming from the guy who sees nothing but tyranny and slavery in America today and thinks I hate freedom because I’m OK with paying my taxes.

      • Blake says:

        In many cases, you are correct- these “judges” were not elected, but appointed, thus owing their cushy jobs and pensions to a side, be it conservative or liberal.
        Either way it is not right, and I am leery of many of the interpretations made- including Roe v. Wade- as I believe it is the State’s right to make this law valid or not- not the Federal judiciary.
        This is also true in the Obamacare bill, and many other “laws”.
        It is just NOT the province of the Federal government to meddle in State’s Rights.