Prosecutors rebuked in Limbaugh inquiry (FREEP ALERT-Florida Bar)

Sun-Sentinel ^ | 1/29/2004 | Peter Franceschina

[antiRepublicrat]

Ummmmm.... because he didn't commit a crime and Clinton did? Not complicated. I wonder why you can't see that?

Because there is probable cause to think that Rush did commit a crime, at least apparently according to the pharmacy records. You don't know he didn't, because you haven't seen the doctor records that could exonerate him by showing that all of the doctors made informed prescriptions. Or they don't, and he's guilty, in which case I'd expect the upstanding, responsible man I've liked on the radio for years to fess up and take his punishment as he's always suggested for others.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

I agree with you that the Constitution does not grant rights to individuals. And although it grants certain rights to government, I believe that it is written so as to preserve individual rights that the Founding Fathers considered to be already in existance.

Thomas Jefferson wrote these words in the Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

This is one of many expressions by our Founding Fathers that we the people have 'certain unalienable Rights' and that Governments are instituted to secure these rights.

Althought the Constitution is not about the 'granting of rights', it is about 'securing these unalienable rights that we have.'

What you say is correct. My thought on TigersEye's comment was that he was suggesting that the Constitution is not about rights. If we were not concerned about the securing of individual rights, we would not need a Constitution.

[Phsstpok]

Because there is probable cause to think that Rush did commit a crime, at least apparently according to the pharmacy records. You don't know he didn't, because you haven't seen the doctor records that could exonerate him

There is no probable cause or he would have been indicted by now, only inuendo. And you haven't seen the so called "pharmacy records," only read the ILLEGAL leaks and faked rumors in the tabloids.

People who hate Rush (or Bush) for political and idological reasons will hate him, regardless of facts. That's never bothered those who hate for hates sake. Are you one of them?

I'm sorry... I'm being really judgemental tonight... I usually enjoy collegial debate and that really is what you're doing. Forgive me... YOU NEFARIOUS ...... No, no, I won't go there.....

[Born Conservative]

1. Do you know WHY it was excerpted? If not, you would do best to find out before you go shooting your keyboard off.

2. The original article was posted 12 days ago. 3 weeks = 21 days. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO COUNT?

3. If you don't like the article, DON'T READ IT!

[realpatriot71]

It's rather unfortunate how the "media" has handled this case, but, like so many good conservatives here say, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"

[steve50]

shall not be infringed.

shall not be violated

No warrent shall be issued

enumeration , listing rights is not granting or limiting them to those listed.

As a whole, the BOR is worded to forbid government from legislating in these areas, not to establish these rights. Our rights are inalienable, not granted.

[antiRepublicrat]

There is no probable cause or he would have been indicted by now, only inuendo. And you haven't seen the so called "pharmacy records,"

Neither have you. But we know there was enough probable cause for a judge to let the prosecutor see the doctor records, although Rush's lawyer managed to fight that back because of the prosecutor's misconduct. Prosecutorial misconduct does not automatically mean the defendant is innocent.

That's never bothered those who hate for hates sake. Are you one of them?

I already said I like Rush. I used to listen to him every day until my schedule recently changed so that I can't listen as often anymore.

[TigersEye]

Ummmm, I'm not sure how I got into this. GGpaX4DumpedTea was responding to steve50, not me. I'll try to clarify my own position.

The Constitution is most certainly about rights among other things. It does not grant rights though. Not to the people and not to the government. If in doubt about what the framers had in mind read the DoI. People derive their rights from their "Creator." Government derives its power (not rights) from the "consent of the governed." That be us, "the people."

The body of the Constitution defines the division and application of power by the government. The BoR's spells out limits on that power in regards to individuals and later Amendments further define division and application of power. Only the DoI says anything about where rights and power come from and neither come from any document.

I'm not nitpicking. It is very important to understand that distinction otherwise, if rights and powers are granted by a piece of paper, they can be changed by the stroke of a pen. And they have been for the simple reason that people have passively accepted that the paper IS the magic fount of freedom.

[gitmo]

I concur.

[hershey]

Rush and Roy Black should sue the state of Florida back to the swamp.