Is anything left of due process in our country?

[HeyYou]

I sincerely don't know what that's even supposed to mean. Our constitutional rights including due process are not the pervue of or granted by courts: they are inherent rights:

 

"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

The first due process violation in this case occurred the moment this cop walked in and demanded a blood sample without the proper court warrant. No court or judge was required to declare it a violation.

Right, a warrant granted by a judge. You know, part of the court system.

[TheMastersSon]

 

I sincerely don't know what that's even supposed to mean. Our constitutional rights including due process are not the pervue of or granted by courts: they are inherent rights:

 

"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

The first due process violation in this case occurred the moment this cop walked in and demanded a blood sample without the proper court warrant. No court or judge was required to declare it a violation.

Right, a warrant granted by a judge. You know, part of the court system.

You're confusing the process with our government's obligation to follow the process. The latter is due process not the former, our due process rights like the rest of our constitutional rights are inherent and have absolutely nothing to do with courts or judges. The process itself, however, most definitely involves them. Edited October 19, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

 

 

I sincerely don't know what that's even supposed to mean. Our constitutional rights including due process are not the pervue of or granted by courts: they are inherent rights:

 

"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

The first due process violation in this case occurred the moment this cop walked in and demanded a blood sample without the proper court warrant. No court or judge was required to declare it a violation.

Right, a warrant granted by a judge. You know, part of the court system.

You're confusing the process with our government's obligation to follow the process. The latter is due process not the former, our due process rights like the rest of our constitutional rights are inherent and have absolutely nothing to do with courts or judges. The process itself, however, most definitely involves them.

 

First, you only get the rights your government is willing to give you. There is nothing 'inherent', or 'god-given' about them. The government giveth, and the government can just as easily take away.... As they have done for over a century.

 

I fail to see how you can separate 'due process' from our court system. They are mutually dependent on each other. You simply cannot have one, without the other.

[TheMastersSon]

 

 

 

I sincerely don't know what that's even supposed to mean. Our constitutional rights including due process are not the pervue of or granted by courts: they are inherent rights:

 

"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

The first due process violation in this case occurred the moment this cop walked in and demanded a blood sample without the proper court warrant. No court or judge was required to declare it a violation.

Right, a warrant granted by a judge. You know, part of the court system.

You're confusing the process with our government's obligation to follow the process. The latter is due process not the former, our due process rights like the rest of our constitutional rights are inherent and have absolutely nothing to do with courts or judges. The process itself, however, most definitely involves them.

First, you only get the rights your government is willing to give you. There is nothing 'inherent', or 'god-given' about them.

HeyYou, will all due respect your posts indicate a near-complete lack of understanding about even the basics of our government and our constitutional rights as citizens. Refer to our Declaration of Independence and you'll discover these rights are unalienable, i.e. NOT GRANTED BY THE STATE. It is beyond the power of any judge or court to deny any law-abiding citizen any of his or her constitutional rights. Not even one of these rights. Ever. For any reason. Because they are God-given and inherent.

 

I won't continue wasting my or the forum's time correcting abject ignorance. You're intent on insisting your constitutional rights issue from our legal system instead of from your own Creator. Our government does not issue these rights, it simply recognizes them, and claiming otherwise imo is beyond sad and well into scary. Because in some countries such as China these inherent human rights are not recognized. If you honestly believe human beings have no inherent rights except for those that are explicitly given to them by their government, I wish you'd go spend a few months in a country where it's actually true, such as China, and get back to us with your opinion. Here in America we have the implied right to do quite literally anything whatsoever that is not explicitly illegal. It's the essence of American freedom imo.

Edited October 18, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

 

I sincerely don't know what that's even supposed to mean. Our constitutional rights including due process are not the pervue of or granted by courts: they are inherent rights:

 

"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

The first due process violation in this case occurred the moment this cop walked in and demanded a blood sample without the proper court warrant. No court or judge was required to declare it a violation.

Right, a warrant granted by a judge. You know, part of the court system.

You're confusing the process with our government's obligation to follow the process. The latter is due process not the former, our due process rights like the rest of our constitutional rights are inherent and have absolutely nothing to do with courts or judges. The process itself, however, most definitely involves them.

First, you only get the rights your government is willing to give you. There is nothing 'inherent', or 'god-given' about them.

HeyYou, will all due respect your posts indicate a near-complete lack of understanding about even the basics of our government and our constitutional rights as citizens. Refer to our Declaration of Independence and you'll discover these rights are unalienable, i.e. NOT GRANTED BY THE STATE. It is beyond the power of any judge or court to deny any law-abiding citizen any of his or her constitutional rights. Not even one of these rights. Ever. For any reason. Because they are God-given and inherent.

 

I won't continue wasting my or the forum's time correcting abject ignorance. You're intent on insisting your constitutional rights issue from our legal system instead of from your own Creator. Our government does not issue these rights, it simply recognizes them, and claiming otherwise imo is beyond sad and well into scary. Because in some countries such as China these inherent human rights are not recognized. If you honestly believe human beings have no inherent rights except for those that are explicitly given to them by their government, I wish you'd go spend a few months in a country where it's actually true, such as China, and get back to us with your opinion. Here in America we have the implied right to do quite literally anything whatsoever that is not explicitly illegal. It's the essence of American freedom imo.

 

In theory, that may work. However, in reality, I am most certainly correct. If you take a good close look, you should be able to notice that over the last couple decades, the government has indeed curtailed our rights. What's worse is, the people excepted it. Take a close look at the 'patriot' act, or various gun laws passed. The government is indeed removing our rights.

 

You can be as idealistic as you like, but, that doesn't change the facts. The government can, and will, and HAS, legislated away your 'rights', whenever it suits their purposes. Your example of lack of rights in China is a beautiful illustration of the point. Sure, we may have a 'different' governmental system, but, in the end, it works out to the same thing. Government is about CONTROL. The fewer rights your citizens have, the easier they are to control.

 

Turning a blind eye to reality, and passing it off as 'ignorance', only shows your own willful ignorance in how things actually work in the real world.

[TheMastersSon]

You know I ranted about the abomination at our borders and airports, and other constitutional violations for well over a decade, continuously. Then it was finally explained to me that our government did not and cannot "legalize away" or even violate our constitutional rights, since it is beyond their power to do so. The American people (via their elected reps) simply suspended recognition of these rights, in response to 911 and for other national security purposes. This suspension is and can be only temporary, e.g. every year Congress debates sunsetting one piece or another of this intentional ignorance. And it's not the first time it's happened in our country, I believe certain rights were suspended during our Civil War etc.

 

I've explained my theory for what happened under GWB in other threads so I won't restate it here, but he's the one who should have wound down the "war on terror" in 2003 (when we pulled out of Saudi Arabia), but instead enshrined it as a perpetual hysteria and war machine. Also imo you are absolutely correct about the "Patriot" Act, which mysteriously appeared fully formed mere days after 911, and ready for 535 signatures of terrified and shellshocked politicians who had never even read it. To add to your disdain and in case you didn't know, and recent history rewriting on Wiki and other internet sites notwithstanding, the bill was authored by a supposedly "ex" Vietnamese Communist staffer of Jim Sensenbrenner. The bill was introduced, passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law in less than 48 hours, and even Sensenbrenner himself has criticized the bill's ludicrous overreach. Hence 320 million Americans must now and forever deal with a "Homeland". The word was virtually unheard of in our laws before this garbage treason was passed.

 

I don't deny your larger point at all, but in our country the people are the government too. There is no separate group we can point to and blame for our own decisions in an election booth.

Edited October 20, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

You know I ranted about the abomination at our borders and airports for well over a decade, continuously. Then it was finally explained to me that our government did not and cannot "legalize away" or even violate our constitutional rights, since it is beyond their power to do so. The American people (via their elected reps) simply suspended recognition of these rights, in response to 911 and for other national security purposes. This suspension is and can be only temporary, e.g. every year Congress debates sunsetting one piece or another of this intentional ignorance. And it's not the first time it's happened in our country, I believe certain rights were suspended during our Civil War etc. I've explained my theory for what happened under GWB in other threads so I won't restate it here, but imo you are absolutely correct about the "Patriot" Act, which mysteriously appeared fully formed mere days after 911, and ready for 535 signatures of terrified and shellshocked politicians who had never even read it. To add to your disdain and in case you didn't know, it was authored by a supposedly "ex" Vietnamese Communist. Hence 320 million Americans must now and forever deal with a "Homeland". The word was virtually unheard of in our laws before this garbage treason was passed. I don't deny your larger point for a second, the rule of law in our Executive Branch has been anarchy, and the American people have stood almost completely disenfranchised from their own federal government since at least Nixon and arguably long before, but again I'm rehashing old territory from other discussions.

So, in essence, what I am seeing here is: We pretty much agree. Its just a bit of semantics that is the major bone of contention. :D

 

The government might tell us 'this is only temporary'..... (kinda like the introduction of income taxes to pay for WWII.......) but, strangely enough, some of those 'temporary' measures become permanent in operation, if not in fact. Some parts of the patriot act were incorporated into permanent laws..... and there goes any expectation of our right to privacy. Not that we had any previously...... the government just passed laws to legalize stuff they had been doing for decades anyway.

 

And then we have 'gun laws'....... The second amendment specifically states 'shall not be infringed', yet, we have how many laws on the books that do exactly that? All in the name of 'public safety', or 'public health'...... and we have the liberal left wanting to curtail those rights even more, in the forlorn hope that they can 'save lives'. Which really doesn't play out well, considering the laws they propose would not reduce 'gun violence' at all, and only make it harder for the law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights. And then they try and give it an 'appealing' label, by calling them 'common sense'..... when common sense will tell you that they won't do a damn thing to solve the problem they are working on.

 

But then, it has come to my attention, that government isn't in the business of problem SOLVING..... If they solve a problem, they can't milk it for more campaign money, or use it to beat up on the 'other' guys.....

 

The original intent of the founding fathers was quite good, but, even they KNEW that eventually, the whole system would come crashing down around our ears, and that is exactly what is happening. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You can see it coming, know exactly why it happened, probably even pointed it out to the folks in charge, in the vain hope they would do something about it...... and all you get is lip service, and 'it was HIS fault'...... Yeah. It's sad to see a once-great country go down the tubes, because the government is filled with people that are only concerned about lining their own pockets, and securing more power for themselves....... But, that's a rant for another topic. :D

[TheMastersSon]

IMO we are victims not of failure but of one of the longest and most remarkable successes in human history. It ended with Nixon imo, it's been a one-way trip to eventual bankruptcy and collapse ever since. The belief or claim that our government somehow provides, allows, issues etc constitutional rights will be especially dangerous if our federal government fails. I don't see such a collapse as anything but desperately overdue and needed, and aside from the tiny handful of truly essential functions of a federal government (print currency, mail letters, protect borders, provide for citizens who cannot provide for themselves etc), the other 1500+ departments, agencies and bureaus could disappear in their entirety and nobody other than the perpetual public teetsuckers would even know it happened. The Russians discovered this in 1992. :)

 

Here in CA we're rooting for it, since we're a net provider (by a long margin) to the feds, our state is already running a surplus and on many if not most issues, federal law is obsolete and disregarded wholesale by the people. It's true from immigration to cannabis. The feds have become, by far, a net obstacle to freedom instead of a facilitator of it.

Edited October 20, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

IMO we are victims not of failure but of one of the longest and most remarkable successes in human history. It ended with Nixon imo, it's been a one-way trip to eventual bankruptcy and collapse ever since. The belief or claim that our government somehow provides, allows, issues etc constitutional rights will be especially dangerous if our federal government fails. I don't see such a collapse as anything but desperately overdue and needed, and aside from the tiny handful of truly essential functions of a federal government (print currency, mail letters, protect borders, provide for citizens who cannot provide for themselves etc), the other 1500+ departments, agencies and bureaus could disappear in their entirety and nobody other than the perpetual public teetsuckers would even know it happened. The Russians discovered this in 1992. :smile:

 

Here in CA we're rooting for it, since we're a net provider (by a long margin) to the feds, our state is already running a surplus and on many if not most issues, federal law is obsolete and disregarded wholesale by the people. It's true from immigration to cannabis. The feds have become, by far, a net obstacle to freedom instead of a facilitator of it.

Yeah, it seems that you and I are indeed on the same page. :) For the most part.

 

Major problem I have though, is I am one of those 'perpetual teetsuckers' that only survives because of the federal government. (social security disability.... I have MS, and am not exactly capable of holding down a full-time job......) When the collapse comes, there goes my support structure, so, I will be just another casualty of the fall. Provided I live long enough to see it. (open for debate....)

 

In any event, I know it's coming, just not when. Things simply cannot go on as they have, without something major changing. Eventually, our debt is going to catch up with us, and our money is going to become worthless. I suspect that when the fall does come, it isn't going to be JUST the US that suffers, we are going to take a good chunk of the world economy down with us.

[TheMastersSon]

The reason Reagan went after Social Security so rabidly (as does, to this very day, the same machine that supported him) is because it's an entitlement and is not tied to tax collection. Reagan lobbied heavily to not even have COLA adjustments, which would have certainly relegated the benefits to pointlessness etc. But fortunately the American people contribute separately into SS via FICA contributions. Being disabled you'd be one of the relative few who, at least as long as the American people decide to continue enforcing our Constitution, continue receiving federal paychecks, because legally there is no justification to stop paying them as long as FICA contributions are made. Also it's why that last item was included in my list of valid functions for federal government. It's one of a very few imo. Edited October 20, 2017 by TheMastersSon