Does anyone remember the term "Inaliable rights"?
153608
It the scares the shit out of me ! To our ignorant friends heed the words of ben Franklin: THOSE WILLING TO GIVE UP FREEDOMS FOR SECURITY WILL HAVE NEITHER. \n\nAnd to our apathetic friends I quote Martin Niemoeller, one of the most respected Protestant leaders in WWII Germany.\n\nFirst they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--\n    because I was not a communist;\nThen they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--\n    because I was not a socialist;\nThen they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--\n    because I was not a trade unionist;\nThen they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--\n    because I was not a Jew;\nThen they came for me--\n    and there was no one left to speak out for me.
775823
I believe that this Act was inacted due to the fact that there was no monitoring on landlords. Someone that owned a property and wished to rent it out would have been able to only rent to someone that held their same race, religion or beliefs, hence, allowing for discrimination.
238004
Sad thing is that a few years back, some students from Stanford did an experiment...they put the Bill of Rights into contemporary language and presented it as a petition for a month, explaining that they were gathering signatures to get this on the next ballot.... a majority of the people who read the "petition" thought is was some sort of leftist manifesto and wanted nothing to do with it... Poor Mr. Jefferson is STILL spinning in his grave.
407622
Wow! Are you American? That kind of thinking isn't allowed here. What do you think this is a free country? Seriously  states do make these decisions didn't you know prostitution is legal in Nevada? But i do agree the government takes too much control of peoples rights you would think what goes on between two consenting adults is there decision...but there are allot of issue more pressing where the government takes control of peoples rights. How about imminent domain?
123500
Definitely, the constitution of this once great country has become a joke, your rights are guaranteed to you only as long as it is convenient.
184490
Assuming you mean in the hinie (thanks Yahoo filter), the 2001 US Supreme Court case of Lawrence vs. Texas makes it your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bugger somebody.  Though they couldn't point to the specific constitutional phrase...\n\nWonder what Jefferson and Madison, et al, would have thought about that?
386861
Admendment 9\nOther Rights of the People (1791)\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\n\nThe rightsof the people are not limited to thoses stated in the Constitution.\n\nUsing the quote you put in, it's the\n\nAdmendment 10 Powers of the States and the People (1791)\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.\n\nPowers not granted to the United States government and not forbidden to the states are left to the states or to the people.
819201
The liberals I have read up on want to doll out rights that infringe on the rights of others. That is not good....
48823
First of all, the ACLU would have nothing to do with this case. They generally only take cases involving the government infringing on people's civil liberties.\n\nSecond of all, where's your source for this case? You have a few specific details, so surely you must have some news story or a link of some kind to more information? I have a hard time believing your statement.\n\nThird of all, the answer to your question is "no."
841778
There are no loaws - the Constitution preserves our RIGHTS - that is why laws must always be Constitutional and guarantee our freedoms under the Constitution.   Have you read it lately??  The Govt we have today needs to refer to it.
531123
For the people that don't know what that is:\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\n The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nIt really is sad to see those soldiers fighting for freedom when freedom is being taken away.
38670
Yes!\n\nThe US Constitution does not specifically say the word "privacy" but the 9th Amendment clearly states that just because a right is not specifically enumerated doesn't mean it isn't protected.\n\nOther enumerated rights (such as in the 5th and 14th) create rights of privacy. Unless the government has a compelling interest, they can't get into the private liberties of individual citizens. Now, exactly which interests are compelling and which areas of life are private are open to judicial debate.
67577
You're correct. \n\nThe Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is \n"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
716014
Yes. But this has become a gray area, because it used to be that the Federal law was limited by the Constitution to certain areas, and denied the rest. However, this has changed, and the Federal government is now, and has been for decades, legislating on things they have absolutely no constitutional authority to be meddling with.\n\nAnd the majority of Americans think this is a good thing, which it isn't, and they fail to connect this usurpation of powers with the  fact that they feel their freedoms and rights are being taken away. Un-believable.
1156984
An unfortunate fact of the " Zero Tolerance" policy that allowed seizure of property obtained by illegal means, is that MUCH of the property winds up MISSING!!\n\nWhether it is the POLICE who are 'spiriting it away', or simply terrible bureaucratic recordkeeping is unclear, but the fact still remains that the missing property does not end up fattening the public coffers through public auction as it should.
93590
In what country?  \n\nIf you mean the U.S., under certain circumstances it is possible.  The legal term is "adverse possession."
710304
An illegal act that is felt to have no direct or identifiable victim\n\nExample: For example, Margaret Sanger who founded the first birth control clinic in New York City was accused of distributing obscene material and violating public morals. Information about birth control is no longer considered obscene (see the U.S. case law examples).