LibraLabRat wrote:I have been in such situations. And let me tell you this, it is not a Bill of Needs. It is a Bill of Rights. Who gets to decide what I need?
The Constitution may be the final word when it comes to US law, but morality and ethics are a bit more subjective.
With respect to the Bill of Rights:
- I do not believe that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (2nd amendment).
- I would personally feel my rights were infringed if soldiers were quartered in my house without my consent, even in wartime (3rd amendment).
- I believe that excusing the military from due process in wartime is unjust (5th amendment).
- I believe that the Canadian approach to testimony from the accused (accused can be compelled to testify, but testimony can't be used against the accused) works just fine (5th amendment).
- I think that setting the threshhold of $20 at which the right to a civil jury trial comes into effect is overly arbitrary (7th amendment).
- I think that in many cases, consolidating some government functions at the federal level, rather than the state level, would create efficiency without infringing the people's rights (10th amendment).
And I'm sure I could come up with a long list of rights I consider inalienable that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
As a document, it is not an exhaustive list of all universal rights that a person does, or should, have. The American Founding Fathers do not have a monopoly on philosophical thought.
This is like the junk gun laws: Congressmen with armed guards telling people who live in bad, high crime neighborhoods that they shouldnt be allowed to buy inexpensive guns.......It smacks of class warfare.
I agree - that's messed up and hypocritical.
But by the same token, when I ask myself the question "what's the best solution for a neighborhood that's dirt-poor where people aren't safe in their own homes?", the first answer that pops into my head is definitely not "cheap guns".