ARTICLE IV, ARTICLE VIII and ARTICLE IX: Are they still valid?

[Tsiyu]

KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE IV, ARTICLE VIII and ARTICLE IX: Are they still valid?
"ARTICLE IV

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."


Okay, does that multi-comma'd sentence mean anything anymore? Seriously. It means nothing, and I have heard lawyers and DAs say the very same and have witnessed cops acting on that premise. We have no rights anymore as spelled out in Article Four. It hurts to know this.

This was a right reserved for the people for a very good reason. This was a right which once belonged to each and every one of us, even if sometimes only in theory.

Today, the Supremes and the top prosecuters and lawmakers in this nation have decided that our rights are no longer precious or of any value to us, while they reserve the rights to decent health care, good schools, fancy parties and....oh yeah....feasting on America until she just dies.

What would the Founding Fathers think of legislators who have allowed a unitary executive carte blanche to just carve up and consume whole Articles of our Constitution, essentially removing the protections granted to each and every one of us?

I believe they would be horrified.


"ARTICLE VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Spend some time in the local courthouse and you will see what kinds of fines are levied and against whom. As Congress has allowed corporations the right to do as they please, our government now runs off the backs of the poor. Consider the young man I know who had possession of $60 worth of plant material considered "dangerous." What is dangerous is that the State of Tennessee wants $3000 in taxes for that offense. This is excessive and not actually related to any revenue produced by the fined, but the legislators have to get their money from somewhere.

(When do we start drug testing the legislators, by the way?)


He just served thirty days in the county jail. He was allowed work release but every evening upon returning, had to have his anus examined. That's right. For thirty days, large, pasty cops got to stare at his asshole.

Is this a gross invasion of privacy or do I live in another dimension? This kid's crime was a first offense for a small amount of plant material.

What would Jefferson - who grew hemp - think of today's laws which say it is perfectly moral for old men to stare at a young man's asshole for thirty days, but completely immoral for that young man to have a few grams of hemp?

And what about Sippy Cup Mom? Did law enforcement just want the chance to stare at her asshole as well? What is wrong with us as a society when we completely invade others' bodies and persons and effects for essentially no good reason?

Cruel and unusual punishment indeed.

This administration has shown us very clearly that it believes torture is appropriate. Our prison system and judicial system back them up, and as they cloak themselves in the costumes of the godly, you begin to imagine that What Their Jesus Would Do is put a mask over a prisoner's head and electrocute his gonads.

I'm getting depressed as I realize that Article Eight is pretty much devoured by the greedy and violent and power-hungry, and I wonder why the Founders wrote the damn thing at all.


"ARTICLE IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


This here, folks, is our out. We need a new leader who will draft us a new set of rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

And a new Congress that will back up those rights.

We the people are lost without them, at the mercy of perverts and scavengers.





P.S. Wear clean underwear.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Then there is Article X

Federal civil rights legislation is authorized by Amendment XIV, 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.

Congressional power to force speed limits and drinking ages is iffy (technically, the federal laws restrict federal highway funds to states that do not comply and do not impose anything on the states.) But some things, like the federal drug laws, are a blatant and unconstitutional violation of Article X.

[Tsiyu]

2. We need some new articles pronto

since there is a plethora of pasty white guys who think the document means squat.

It's time to put their feet to the fire and demand that our rights be respected or else we will draft new rights and keep drafting them until the greedy find some other nation to pillage.

[Crabby Appleton]

3. Don't you mean Amendment IV, Amendment VIII,

Amendment IX? as opposed to "Article"

[Tsiyu]

4. Either is appropriate

I used the term "article" to draw attention to the whole Constitution rather than only to the Bill of Rights.

More importantly, we have a Constitution.

It is specific about the rights of the people.

Nitpicking about the vernacular doesn't much solve anything or does it for you?

Just asking.

As you did.