Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and said that "it has to end."

[Dric902]

2 minutes ago, Moshe said:

But, when someone declares they can, and everyone cheers, but does not do it the right way as, I illustrated so simply even Trump can get it.

It depends on of your actually trying to get anything done (ie; wall, suppressors, national reciprocity, etc) or just trying to get votes and donations.

Actions speak louder than words when the cheering stops

 

.

[Moshe]

4 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

It depends on of your actually trying to get anything done (ie; wall, suppressors, national reciprocity, etc) or just trying to get votes and donations.

Actions speak louder than words when the cheering stops

 

.

The cheering did stop.  That is why the House is Blue.  If he stopped firing people who tell him he can't take apart any Amendment at will, and violate Posse Comitatus with the Army.  This is guy is supposed to be Commander and Chief and he fails to understand the Separations of Powers, that the Army and Air Force cannot violate Posse Commitatus, but the Marine Corps and Navy can?  He gets into an argument to make the Army violate the law?  When it would be simple to send in the Marines, if they wanted to perform combat with those of us who have combated the Mexican Military for years?  Hell, I would have loved to hose the other side of the Rio Grande when the Mexican Military would hid in the bamboo across the Rio Grande and shoot at us with HK .308's.  Going war with those Marines against those bastards would be a wet dream for me. 

[Dric902]

Apparently somebody has been listening, Trump can close the border. I guess all the people who thought I was full of it agree with me now

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-whole-border-with-mexico-if-immigration-becomes-uncontrollable

Trump threatens to shut down 'whole border' with Mexico if immigration becomes 'uncontrollable'

[Moshe]

8 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Apparently somebody has been listening, Trump can close the border. I guess all the people who thought I was full of it agree with me now

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-whole-border-with-mexico-if-immigration-becomes-uncontrollable

Trump threatens to shut down 'whole border' with Mexico if immigration becomes 'uncontrollable'

Yes, he did.  And here is the backstory to that.  He got into a fight with DHS, and his military advisors, who told him Posse Commitatus applies to the Army.   He threatened to fire everyone, unless they violated the law by his command.  They gave in.  It is looney tunes up there.  The whole fight could have been resolved by sending the Marines, to whom this does not apply.  What he has the authority to do, is secure the Borders with the USBP, and the Marine Corps.  He can deny visas or entry from any country of his choice under the Executive, as that is his prerogative.  That means expelling the Embassies and Consulates from the United States as well, and not recognizing each other's countries.  To be fair to the President, no judge can tell him he can't get rid of Daka, as that was an Executive Order by Obama, and not a law, which can be pencil whipped erased.

My theory?  He is going to beat his chest, play the 500 pound Gorilla, and then just send an angry tweet to Mexico to knock it off, with some language CNN and Giraldo will brand racist somehow,.  However, given the mixed countries going to the Port of Entries and claiming Asylum would eliminate pretty much Mexico and all of Central America.  Seeing as he wants to be elected, again he will throw a fit, but in the end do nothing real about it.  The problem he is encountering is a 5th Column.   All these News Crews following the caravan, I can guarantee you have private bar immigration attorney's telling them to claim fear at the Ports of Entry in violation of 8 USC 1324 and 1325.  Essentially, they are advising illegal aliens to make false statements in order to further their entry into the country.   The rub about claiming fear at a Port of Entry, having worked side by side with Asylum for years, serving their documents, on our detained population is according to the INA, again created by Congress into law and signed off by whatever President there was at the time,  an illegal alien claiming fear at a Port of Entry is paroled into the United States for the purpose of reviewing their fear claim.  They are given their rights, a list of free attorney's in their area, and their claims are heard by an Asylum Officer via telephone or tele video.  Then they are given a negative or positive decision by the Asylum Officer.  If it is negative, they can quit there and begin the process of getting a ravel document back to their country (unless they re from Mexico),  or they can opt to have their case heard by and Immigration Judge,  If the Immigration Judge decides they have no valid claim, the illegal alien can then appeal to the BIA in Church Falls, Virginia,   If they don't like that, they can go to District Court, which normally denies it.  But, here is the crappy part, because it is Parole, their attorney can start the whole Asylum process over for them a second and last time.

The fact that they illegals are educated on this issue is because someone is with them coaching them.  Now, Trump can do what Obama did.  Every time an Asylum Officer would issue a negative decision on Middle Eastern potential terrorist, D.C. would force them to make it a positive.  Now,,  Trump can play the same card, and every positive Asylum claim that is done, he can under the Executive demand it be re-reviewed for a negative finding.

[Dric902]

Not sure where you got your information. Passé Cumitatas applies to all military personnel;

 10 U.S.C. § 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity

[fortyofforty]

19 hours ago, Moshe said:

He violated the separation of powers and abused his authority.  However, he never went so far as saying he could eliminate a section of the Bill of Rights carte blanche.  I am not his fan, I never voted for him.  Frankly, I hated the bastard.  But, saying, because THIS is MY guy, so he can trample on the Bill of Rights, leads to a downfall and a destruction of Representative.  I have always been a Patriot and Served my County in a Law Enforcement capacity.  I am not, however, a Cult of Personality to no man.  I am not in to Nationalism.  You realize the term Nationalist makes people like me stress out, due to a little thing called National Socialism.   I believe in the Bill of Rights, and believe no man is worthy of stripping them away from the American people, no matter how orange his comb over.  My thought is, you believe in the Bill of Rights, or you don't.  If you don't try going to other countries.  I have.  It is fun watching someone get hauled off as they declare their freedom, and get thrown in a jail a monkey would be ashamed to live in.  There are other countries, if you hate the Bill of Rights that protects the American People.  I have seen people taken into a concrete room and have their law enforcement beat the living hell out of them (Nicaragua).  Why are we trying to screw with the Rights accorded to Citizens born here in the United States, in the name of Nationalism?  How American do you have to be to live here?  Obama tried, so my guy can?  Wow, that is the mentality that makes the okay sign by the hip.

There is a big difference, at least in my mind, between an interpretation of what was meant by the intent of an Amendment, and blowing some guy up without due process.  If Trump has lawyers and Constitutional scholars who believe that the drafters would never have intended for citizenship to be granted to those who sneak in, pop out a baby, and declare that they must be allowed to stay because of that birth.  If you don't see that the entire history of this country is replete with discussions, arguments, and disagreements over the meaning and intent of the Constitution and all its Amendments, there are plenty of countries that would welcome you.  If you decide that you can violate the laws, rules and regulations of a country, just how subject to the jurisdiction thereof are you, exactly?

[fortyofforty]

A single judge in the Ninth Circuit will issue a decree from on high that prevents Trump from shutting down the border.  Because, well, judge, and you know, judiciary and coequal, and all?

[Moshe]

9 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

There is a big difference, at least in my mind, between an interpretation of what was meant by the intent of an Amendment, and blowing some guy up without due process.  If Trump has lawyers and Constitutional scholars who believe that the drafters would never have intended for citizenship to be granted to those who sneak in, pop out a baby, and declare that they must be allowed to stay because of that birth.  If you don't see that the entire history of this country is replete with discussions, arguments, and disagreements over the meaning and intent of the Constitution and all its Amendments, there are plenty of countries that would welcome you.  If you decide that you can violate the laws, rules and regulations of a country, just how subject to the jurisdiction thereof are you, exactly?

Ironic, considering your tag line.  Amendments cannot be dicked with by the Executive.  If you think this, guess what?  The Liberal regime that is already taking over, with decide the same thing about the Second Amendment.  It is dangerous territory to say, "My guy/gal" can do whatever they want because I like them.  I have friends from my former career and life.  I like them.  However, I wouldn't let them root around my house and poke in any drawer they found interesting.  Liking someone, having someone violate someone's rights are completely different.  You could think Trump poops golden eggs for all I care.  But, when he decides to the skirt the law, because the last guy/gal did, we are on a trip down a lane where the Constitution is in tact, it is just ignored.

[steve4102]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Gun Rights are Civil Rights

BTW, Gun Rights and not Civil Rights.

They are Constitutional Rights.

Civil Rights are are specific Laws written by Congress to protect a specific class of people, Minorities, Women, Elderly, Veterans, etc. 

[fortyofforty]

10 hours ago, Moshe said:

Ironic, considering your tag line.  Amendments cannot be dicked with by the Executive.  If you think this, guess what?  The Liberal regime that is already taking over, with decide the same thing about the Second Amendment.  It is dangerous territory to say, "My guy/gal" can do whatever they want because I like them.  I have friends from my former career and life.  I like them.  However, I wouldn't let them root around my house and poke in any drawer they found interesting.  Liking someone, having someone violate someone's rights are completely different.  You could think Trump poops golden eggs for all I care.  But, when he decides to the skirt the law, because the last guy/gal did, we are on a trip down a lane where the Constitution is in tact, it is just ignored.

They can be interpreted by the Executive, and ruled on by the courts.  That's how our system has worked for hundreds of years, whether you like it or not.  If Trump has legal scholars who argue in court, then we'll see what happens.  Do you believe you have the right to keep and bear antitank rockets and antiaircraft missiles, or do you think the Second Amendment has some limitations, despite the clear language?  The issue is whether someone who willingly and consciously breaks the law to enter this country is truly placing themselves as being subject to its jurisdiction will be for the courts to decide, not you or me.

[fortyofforty]

8 hours ago, steve4102 said:

BTW, Gun Rights and not Civil Rights.

They are Constitutional Rights.

Civil Rights are are specific Laws written by Congress to protect a specific class of people, Minorities, Women, Elderly, Veterans, etc. 

Nope.  Civil Rights are rights we possess outside the Constitution.  We have the Civil Right to defend ourselves, and the only effective means available to do so are firearms.  They are merely guaranteed by the Constitution, and would exist even if Congress or the Constitution did not.  The right to keep and bear arms predated the United States, and all its political institutions.  There was some debate as to whether the Bill of Rights was even necessary, since in the eighteenth century, most people understood they could keep and bear arms, for example.  If you rely on the government to grant you your rights, good luck.

[steve4102]

17 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Nope.  Civil Rights are rights we possess outside the Constitution.  We have the Civil Right to defend ourselves, and the only effective means available to do so are firearms.  They are merely guaranteed by the Constitution, and would exist even if Congress or the Constitution did not.  The right to keep and bear arms predated the United States, and all its political institutions.  There was some debate as to whether the Bill of Rights was even necessary, since in the eighteenth century, most people understood they could keep and bear arms, for example.  If you rely on the government to grant you your rights, good luck.

God Given Rights (self Defense) are NOT Civil Rights.

What Are Civil Rights?

Protecting civil rights is an essential part of the democratic values of the United States. Everyone realizes that interfering with another's civil rights is a violation that creates an action for injury, but before you can protect your civil rights, you must recognize and know what they are. However, articulating an exact definition of civil rights can be difficult to pinpoint because it is a very broad set of laws. Civil rights are an expansive and significant set of rights that are designed to protect individuals from unfair treatment; they are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, public accommodations, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.

Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics. In the U.S. this has included not only the African American civil rights movement, but also movements that were inspired by the civil rights movement such as the American Indian Movement and the Chicano Movement which occurred during the same time.

Where Do Civil Rights Come From?

Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, through federal legislation such as the following laws:

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Fair Housing Act (FHA)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Voting Rights Act of 1965

Civil rights also come from federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision).

States also pass their own civil rights laws (usually very similar to those at the federal level) through the state constitution and other laws. The state laws can also be more protective of civil rights than their federal equivalents, including protections for people who identify as LGBTQ. Municipalities like cities and counties can also enact ordinances and laws related to civil rights.

 

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

Civil rights are different from civil liberties. Traditionally, the concept of civil rights has revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.), while civil liberties are more broad-based rights and freedoms that are guaranteed at the federal level by the Constitution and other federal law such as fundamental rights including the right to vote, free speech, or the right to privacy.

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html

[fortyofforty]

2 hours ago, steve4102 said:

God Given Rights (self Defense) are NOT Civil Rights.

What Are Civil Rights?

Protecting civil rights is an essential part of the democratic values of the United States. Everyone realizes that interfering with another's civil rights is a violation that creates an action for injury, but before you can protect your civil rights, you must recognize and know what they are. However, articulating an exact definition of civil rights can be difficult to pinpoint because it is a very broad set of laws. Civil rights are an expansive and significant set of rights that are designed to protect individuals from unfair treatment; they are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, public accommodations, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.

Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics. In the U.S. this has included not only the African American civil rights movement, but also movements that were inspired by the civil rights movement such as the American Indian Movement and the Chicano Movement which occurred during the same time.

Where Do Civil Rights Come From?

Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, through federal legislation such as the following laws:

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Fair Housing Act (FHA)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Voting Rights Act of 1965

Civil rights also come from federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision).

States also pass their own civil rights laws (usually very similar to those at the federal level) through the state constitution and other laws. The state laws can also be more protective of civil rights than their federal equivalents, including protections for people who identify as LGBTQ. Municipalities like cities and counties can also enact ordinances and laws related to civil rights.

 

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

Civil rights are different from civil liberties. Traditionally, the concept of civil rights has revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.), while civil liberties are more broad-based rights and freedoms that are guaranteed at the federal level by the Constitution and other federal law such as fundamental rights including the right to vote, free speech, or the right to privacy.

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html

Nope.  You have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  There's that pesky word RIGHT.  Read it again.  RIGHT.  What does it mean?  It means a RIGHT.  You might not like it.  You might hate the country.  You might hate the Constitution.  You might hate Trump, the Bill of Rights, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.  It doesn't matter.  You have the civil right to keep and bear arms.

 

Gun rights are protected under the bill of rights, which is a compilation of American civil rights. The bill of rights (and all constitutional amendments thereafter) are a compilation of American civil rights. Because the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, gun ownership is technically a civil right that any law-abiding American citizen is allowed to lawfully exercise. This is one of the reasons a gun ban will never be successful.

 

Gun rights and civil rights, historically, have gone hand in hand.

 

[fortyofforty]

And even this, from the Second Amendment Foundation:

Is gun ownership a civil right?

 

World Net, from Princeton University, defines a “Civil Right” as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

[fortyofforty]

So, nice try.  Thanks for playing.  Now, do you want to stop hijacking the thread and get back to the topic at hand?  I suspect not, because liberals love to derail a debate and argue minutiae that go nowhere and waste time.

[steve4102]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Nope.  You have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  There's that pesky word RIGHT.  Read it again.  RIGHT.  What does it mean?  It means a RIGHT.  You might not like it.  You might hate the country.  You might hate the Constitution.  You might hate Trump, the Bill of Rights, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.  It doesn't matter.  You have the civil right to keep and bear arms.

 

Gun rights are protected under the bill of rights, which is a compilation of American civil rights. The bill of rights (and all constitutional amendments thereafter) are a compilation of American civil rights. Because the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, gun ownership is technically a civil right that any law-abiding American citizen is allowed to lawfully exercise. This is one of the reasons a gun ban will never be successful.

 

 

 

Now you are talking stupid.

If you do not know the difference between a CONSTITUTION RIGHT (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and a Cilvil Rights law (

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Fair Housing Act (FHA)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Voting Rights Act of 1965

) then there is no point in trying to educate you, but I will try one more time.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a fair court trial. You also have the right to vote and the right to privacy. Americans are very familiar with these rights, but are they considered civil rights or civil liberties? "Civil rights" and "civil liberties" are terms that are often used synonymously, interchangeably, but the terms are actually very distinct. This article explores the differences between civil rights and civil liberties, with specific laws corresponding to each term.

Civil Rights

Civil rights concern the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment, education, housing, and access to public facilities. A civil rights violation occurs in designated situations where an individual is discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic. Most civil rights laws are established through the federal government via federal legislation or case law.

Civil Liberties (Constitutional Rights)

Civil liberties concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted or inferred through the years by legislatures or the courts.

Civil liberties include:

• The right to free speech
• The right to privacy
• The right to remain silent in a police interrogation
• The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
• The right to a fair court trial
• The right to marry
• The right to vote
• The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Civil Rights v. Civil Liberties

The law differentiates between civil rights, which means the basic right of freedom from discrimination based on certain personal characteristics such as gender, race, or disability, and civil liberties which are basic freedoms. Civil liberties concern the actual basic freedoms; civil rights concern the treatment of an individual regarding certain rights. Unlike civil liberties, where the government grants broad-based rights to individuals, civil rights are not only granted by the government but also contain a protective aspect of those rights based on certain characteristics.

One way to consider the difference between civil rights and civil liberties is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected.

For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." However, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee's gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender.

Here's another example: the right to marry is a civil liberty, while gay marriage is a civil rights matter. If a couple (either same-sex or opposite-sex) is denied a marriage license because the court clerk has decided not to issue them at all, then their civil liberties have been violated. But if the clerk denied marriage licenses only to LGBT couples, it is a civil rights violation.

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by steve4102

[steve4102]

Not only that, but The Bill of Rights (Constitutional Rights) Restricts what the Government and it's agents can and cannot do to American Citizens, NOT what American Citizens can and cannot do to each other.

Take the First Amendment for example, the right to free speech.  The Government or it's agents cannot infringe on your right to speak freely.  A private citizen can however tell you what you can and cannot say while on their property, in their establishment, etc.  Like this forum, we are guest here and we are bound by rules of conduct and rules regarding what we can and cannot say.  If we say something that violates a forum rule we can be booted off the forum.  In other words, the owner and his agents have a right to infringe on our right to speak freely.

Civil Right Laws on the other hand restrict what businesses, housing and education systems etc. cannot do.  A business cannot post a sign saying No Blacks, or No Women, that is against the Law, a Civil Rights Law.  This forum can keep me from saying what I want to say, but it cannot keep me off this forum just because I am Black or White or a Woman.

[Jammersix]

3 hours ago, steve4102 said:

This forum can keep me from saying what I want to say, but it cannot keep me off this forum just because I am Black or White or a Woman.

Actually, not only is that not true, (try signing up at Storm Front as a Black man) but it can be extended to things that are voluntary. (Try signing up at Storm Front as a Jew) If I wanted to start the Real Men's Tool, Truck, Shootin' Shop, Dive Club & Bait Store Forum, and restrict access to men who owned tools, trucks, guns and were certified divers and trout fishermen, (bass fishermen have a seat and come back when you've caught a trout) I'd have nothing but public opinion restricting me. It can be any subset of humanity imaginable. Try signing up as an Army Ranger over at armyranger.com. You can look at the public forums, but unless you're entitled to wear the tab, there are forums you just ain't getting into.

You're going to do better in this debate if you read rather than cut and paste, and then use your own words. It's hard to imagine someone actually reading everything you pasted and then making a mistake like that.

Other than that, carry on. It's the only thread in which you've said anything even remotely accurate or interesting.

Fortyofforty, not certain how you got where you are, some of your stuff is exactly as I was taught, other stuff, well, let's say those groups are just a little larger than I thought they were. They're the right words, and they're sort of in the right order, but somehow the drink that comes out tastes like you stirred it with a metal spoon.

Now. Beer, popcorn, continue.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Jammersix

[steve4102]

Can a Business put up a sign that says, "No Blacks Allowed"? No.  Why not?  That would be a violation of a specific Civil Rights laws passed by congress.

Can a business put up a sign that says, "No Guns Allowed"? Yes. Why? Because doing so does not violate any Civil Rights Laws or the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights protects us from infringement by our Government or it's agents, not from each other.

 

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by steve4102

[fortyofforty]

11 hours ago, steve4102 said:

Now you are talking stupid.

If you do not know the difference between a CONSTITUTION RIGHT (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and a Cilvil Rights law (

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Fair Housing Act (FHA)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Voting Rights Act of 1965

) then there is no point in trying to educate you, but I will try one more time.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a fair court trial. You also have the right to vote and the right to privacy. Americans are very familiar with these rights, but are they considered civil rights or civil liberties? "Civil rights" and "civil liberties" are terms that are often used synonymously, interchangeably, but the terms are actually very distinct. This article explores the differences between civil rights and civil liberties, with specific laws corresponding to each term.

Civil Rights

Civil rights concern the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment, education, housing, and access to public facilities. A civil rights violation occurs in designated situations where an individual is discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic. Most civil rights laws are established through the federal government via federal legislation or case law.

Civil Liberties (Constitutional Rights)

Civil liberties concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted or inferred through the years by legislatures or the courts.

Civil liberties include:

• The right to free speech
• The right to privacy
• The right to remain silent in a police interrogation
• The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
• The right to a fair court trial
• The right to marry
• The right to vote
• The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Civil Rights v. Civil Liberties

The law differentiates between civil rights, which means the basic right of freedom from discrimination based on certain personal characteristics such as gender, race, or disability, and civil liberties which are basic freedoms. Civil liberties concern the actual basic freedoms; civil rights concern the treatment of an individual regarding certain rights. Unlike civil liberties, where the government grants broad-based rights to individuals, civil rights are not only granted by the government but also contain a protective aspect of those rights based on certain characteristics.

One way to consider the difference between civil rights and civil liberties is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected.

For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." However, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee's gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender.

Here's another example: the right to marry is a civil liberty, while gay marriage is a civil rights matter. If a couple (either same-sex or opposite-sex) is denied a marriage license because the court clerk has decided not to issue them at all, then their civil liberties have been violated. But if the clerk denied marriage licenses only to LGBT couples, it is a civil rights violation.

 

How idiotic.  I did not say "law".  That is the word you entered.  You have the right, as a civilian, to keep and bear arms.  The government did not give it to you.  The government cannot take it away from you.  That right, in order to defend yourself, predated the creation of the United States.  It is a natural right.  Whether your stupidity allows you to understand it or not, that's the way it is.

[fortyofforty]

3 hours ago, steve4102 said:

Can a Business put up a sign that says, "No Blacks Allowed"? No.  Why not?  That would be a violation of a specific Civil Rights laws passed by congress.

Can a business put up a sign that says, "No Guns Allowed"? Yes. Why? Because doing so does not violate any Civil Rights Laws or the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights protects us from infringement by our Government or it's agents, not from each other.

 

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Why do  you keep bringing up Civil Rights law?  Now, do you want to keep arguing off topic like a moron or do you want to get back to the original topic of the discussion?

[fortyofforty]

I am reminded of the old saw, "Never argue with a moron.  He'll pull you down to his level and beat you with experience."  I will allow the resident morons to continue apace, not understanding the civil rights with which they are born.  Their loss, but no skin off my teeth.

[fortyofforty]

A company is allowed to ban an item from its premises.  That's the gun.  As far as I've seen, no business has banned gun owners.  A company can ban food items brought in from the outside, like a movie theater, although you can still buy and eat Milk Duds at home.  A company can ban glass containers, like a swimming pool, although you can still buy and drink Yoo Hoo in glass bottles at home.

Who, exactly, says it's NOT "OK to be white"?  I haven't heard anyone say that, lately.

Edited November 24, 2018 by fortyofforty

[Jammersix]

10 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

The government cannot take it away from you.

This is not true.

When we lock someone up, we take most of their rights away while they're locked up.

When we execute them, we take all their rights away.

Carry on.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Jammersix

[fortyofforty]

9 minutes ago, Jammersix said:

This is not true.

When we lock someone up, we take most of their rights away while they're locked up.

When we execute them, we take all their rights away.

Carry on.

OK, without due process, as they do with all your other rights.  No freedom of assembly in solitary confinement, for example.