Replies

For forty years, the Left has been working to undermine the Constitution. This effort has been pursued on many fronts, but some of the most subtle attacks have been against the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

One of the most successful lines of attack against these Constitutionally enumerated rights has been to restrict their coverage in various incremental ways. Examples of this are rife... when head-on attempts to eliminate the right to bear arms came to grief, the incrementalists went after particular catagories of firearms, particular types of gun accessories, particular types of ammunition, etc.

Another attack of this type has been to restrict the venues in which the First Amendment could operate. This started (it can be argued) with the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" formulation of Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.

In the last few decades, the left has succeeded in setting up precedents for the idea that the Freedom of Speech -- arguably the most revered of all the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution -- ceases to operate the moment a person passes through the doors of a business. A group of businessmen gives up their right to speak freely in the public square, apparently because of the possibility that their financial means might make it possible for them to purchase a particularly powerful megaphone.

The restriction of this freedom does not apply to the management of labor unions, or of large philanthropies, or (it goes without saying) to members of the various media organizations and members of the government.

In its decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to this back-door movement to restrict our freedoms, but the Left is not giving up. They feel an instinctive drive to control speech in the public square, at least when that speech comes from directions that they think will inconvenience them.

The biggest subversion of the Bill of Rights has been pursued by Republicans, to wit the War on Drugs.
As I posted on another thread about the supreme court when Scaila came up:

Revel: It is time to understand the USSC is a lawless bunch who rule for political and devilish reasons.
Theoria: That was Scalia and crew with Heller. They helped put limitations on gun ‘rights’.
Despite what some people think, Scalia is not a Constitutionalist; support of the War on Drugs and Constitutionalism are mutually exclusive, as the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”
Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King
”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”
In other words: Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!

Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.

Or, to put it into a picture format that describes the political situation: