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

To: outlawcam
The Fourteenth specifies STATE if you take the time to read it; in case you don’t understand the term it refers to government, not private citizens. People sue the government and win when their constitutional rights are violated. Have you ever heard of a murder victim suing the government for a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights because there was no due process of law before the murder happened? They may have tried but never won the case. Have you ever heard a murderer being charged and convicted of violating Fourteenth Amendment rights? Are you now going to pretend that the Fourth forbids burglary and since age is not mentioned a parent can’t legally search their child’s room or read their diary without first obtaining a search warrant? The Fourth never mentions either State or government. It does not matter which constitutional law book you read none of them will support your contention. As for your condescending attitude educate yourself before you adopt it.
178 posted on 04/23/2002 10:25:58 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]


To: Free the USA
The Fourteenth specifies STATE if you take the time to read it.

Perhaps you should reread my post before you lose your temper. I specifically said (and I quote), The fourteenth is the only one that mentions a restriction on any type of government, specifically the state. The fifth mentions no type of government, but only the freedoms and rights that the federal government has been charged to protect." Don't get upset just because the English language can't be manipulated to suit your ends. It's just a fact. I'm simply an impartial observer. That you interpret it as condescending is indicative of the emotional stake you have, which is understandable.

Have you ever heard a murderer being charged and convicted of violating Fourteenth Amendment rights?

It hasn't been needed up until this point, as states have generally had laws against murder. Frankly, though, the dead aren't in any position to sue. I would consider it, however, if a family member in Oregon was put to death by a physician, and that physician was not held accountable by state or federal authorities. Part of the reason the fourteenth was worded the way it was is specifically because states weren't adequately protecting the rights of blacks according to the fifth amendment, as the ones habitually persecuting blacks fallaciously claimed the fifth amendment only applied to the authority of the federal government to infringe on those rights. The sitting Congress of the time disagreed, but wanted there to be no room for debate.

Are you now going to pretend the Fourth forbids burglary and since age is not mentioned a parent can’t legally search their child’s room or read their diary without first obtaining a search warrant?

Burglary is forbidden, and except for the income tax (another sore point), the states generally protect against it. As to the "child's room" argument, don't be silly. Of course the parent can search it unless the child has been granted autonomy from the parents through the usual, legal means. The room belongs to part of the house, which belongs to the parent, not the child. We seem to be veering off course. with these scenarios. How would you suggest we get back on track?

179 posted on 04/23/2002 11:01:45 AM PDT by outlawcam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | 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