Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MileHi
"The people" referred to the enfranchized body politic. Not everyone. Not every citizen. In 1792, these were the white male citizen landowners.

"Could they be imprisoned without trial for writing their opinions?"

Where does the U.S. Constitution say that "the people" have a right to free speech? It doesn't say that. Where does it say that "the people" have a right to a trial? It doesn't say that.

"Could the government arrest them for attending church?"

Where does the U.S. Constitution say that "the people" have freedom of religion? It doesn't say that.

You're making this "crap" up.

As to the fourth amendment, the original proposal from both New York and Virginia was:

"That every Freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers, or his property..."

In 1792, women were not Freemen.

270 posted on 07/08/2007 4:47:19 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Where does the U.S. Constitution say that "the people" have a right to free speech? It doesn't say that. Where does it say that "the people" have a right to a trial? It doesn't say that.

Where does the U.S. Constitution say that "the people" have freedom of religion? It doesn't say that.

You're making this "crap" up.

You have completely jumped the shark on this one. You no longer have any credibility.

272 posted on 07/08/2007 4:52:32 PM PDT by TigersEye (My heart is broken but my conscience knows its cause.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
Where does the U.S. Constitution say that "the people" have freedom of religion? It doesn't say that.

You're making this "crap" up.

Um, in the Bill of Rights, I think. That is part of the U.S. Constitution, ain't it Boss?

As to the fourth amendment, the original proposal from both New York and Virginia was:

"That every Freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers, or his property..."

And that language was NOT adopted, right? ....RIGHT!!!

So what IS your point? Except an entire thread of you pulling stuff out of your @$# and making a fool of yourself? WHAT, bobby? So you hate freedom, and worship government power. We all know that. Ad Nauseam, we know that. If there is a question of meaning, I prefer that interpretation that expands freedom and reduces government power, clearly you prefer the opposite. And that is well noted here. But you must really be embarrassed by the lengths you must go to in order to defend your predetermined conclusion. At least, I am embarrassed for you.

278 posted on 07/08/2007 5:32:45 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson