100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Whats NOT in the constitution, | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The Right to a Fair Trial You will not find you exact words, no. However you will find synonyms or explanations of those words. I will start with one that is more obvious; "Fair" in "The Right to a Fair trial", is subjective. In our constitution; In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. "Public trial", by an "impartial jury", being "informed of the nature and cause of accusation", be "confronted by the witnesses against him" and "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" as well as "to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense", more specifically outlines a "fair trial". If the constitution were to say the words "fair trial" than people would be left to their devices on interpretation of what "fair" actually means. So to revisit, when saying we have a "right to a fair trial" is slang used to sum up the above mentioned amendment. Its a heck of a lot easier/quicker to say, and it sums things up fairly accurately. I respectfully disagree that these things equal a 'fair' trial, especially since having 'counsel' does not mean one receives a defense, let alone a 'fair' one,,, let alone that 'impartial' is possible, but that is a whole other debate,,, Of course you would, words have no real meanings, do they? fair: adjective, in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. adverb, without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage. problem is they have MANY 'real' meanings in the English language, which may be why they are chosen the way they are in writing things like the Constitution fair: treating people in a way that does not favor some over others : not too harsh or critical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
part of the problem is using todays dictionary to define words used get the 1776 dictionary if you wnt to define words in the constitution not rocket science to know that definitions evolve |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some confuse the definition of words in common usage to the way they are used in legal matters. It is not the same. US law us based on the English "Common Law" system that goes back hundreds of years.
The mention of the words "fair trial" in English Common Law clearly defines a trial by peers, etc, etc, etc, and is as much a part of the constitution as other parts. In fact, it is the MOST clear and precise portions of the Constitution. It is the parts unique to our government like "separation of powers" that we seem to have the most trouble clearly defining. Of course a major reason there is trouble "clearly defining" the separation of powers is when one branch "clearly violates" the separation. The term needing definition to some clearly is "good faith". It has equal meaning in the President breaking the law and court not giving a "fair trial". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the challenge find these nine phrases Innocent until Proven Guilty: 2. The Right to a Fair Trial 2. Right to a Jury of Your Peers: 3. The Right to Vote 1. The Right to Travel 2. Judicial Review 1. The Right to Marriage 1. The Right to Procreate 1. The Right to Privacy anywhere in the US CONSTITUTION or continue debating individual INTTERPRETATIONS Of what is actually, literally, there,,, 1. - would be covered under the 9th Amendment. 2. - Would be covered under the 6th Amendment. 3. - Would be covered under the 15th Amendment. Most things were not specifically stated because of the obvious. Do we need to list that you have the right to walk, eat, drink, cut down a tree, swim, build a house, ride a horse, etc? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#PAitIRHYdIJGeSwD.99 The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#PAitIRHYdIJGeSwD.99 -------------------------------------------------------- the second is why you stop after doing the first and yet, no one can point out the given set of phrases in the the US CONSTITUTION,,,,, 
which I thought was a pretty 'simple' challenge,,,lol only insist that their interpretation means its there,,,or that everything somehow that is in some document predating it therefore means it is also in the constitution by default, even if never mentioned IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSSELF,,, showing the constitution isn't to be taken so literally after all, but up for 'interpretation',, i didnt interpret it i just said what it says literally and asked questions --------------------------------------------- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world ----------------------------- ****WHO IS GOING TO HOLD THE GOVT ACOUNTABL AND ENFORCE THE DECALRATION OF INDEPENDANCE ENTER THE 2ND AMMENDMENT ---------------------------- U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment Second Amendment - Bearing Arms Amendment Text | Annotations A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ---------------------------- DEFINITIONS ----------------------------- Main Entry: in•fringe Pronunciation: in-'frinj Function: verb Inflected Forms: in•fringed; in•fring•ing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in•fring•er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another en•croach (n-krch) intr.v. en•croached, en•croach•ing, en•croach•es 1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land. 2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland. 3. Football To commit encroachment. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ peo•ple (ppl) n. pl. people 1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people. 2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality. 3. pl. peo•ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life. 4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people. 5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson. 6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the. 7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people. 8. Family, relatives, or ancestors. 9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people ------------------------------------ SO IF THE GOVT INFRINGES (see DEFINITIONS) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (SEE DEFINITIONS) TO BEAR ARMS WHO IS GOING TOENFORCE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE GOVT BEGINS ABUSING THEIR POWERS ------------------------------------ deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ------------------------------------ AND BEGIN RESTRICTING THE ------------------------------------ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ------------------------------------- WHO WILL STEP IN AND REMOVE THE ------------------------------------- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ---------------------------------- AND INSTITUTE THE NEW GOVT DO YOU THINK THE GOVT IS GOING TO DO IT IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER AND THE GOVT ARE THE MASTERS WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE ------------------------------------- deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials.
1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Right to a Fair Trial You will not find you exact words, no. However you will find synonyms or explanations of those words. I will start with one that is more obvious; "Fair" in "The Right to a Fair trial", is subjective. In our constitution; In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. "Public trial", by an "impartial jury", being "informed of the nature and cause of accusation", be "confronted by the witnesses against him" and "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" as well as "to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense", more specifically outlines a "fair trial". If the constitution were to say the words "fair trial" than people would be left to their devices on interpretation of what "fair" actually means. So to revisit, when saying we have a "right to a fair trial" is slang used to sum up the above mentioned amendment. Its a heck of a lot easier/quicker to say, and it sums things up fairly accurately. I respectfully disagree that these things equal a 'fair' trial, especially since having 'counsel' does not mean one receives a defense, let alone a 'fair' one,,, let alone that 'impartial' is possible, but that is a whole other debate,,, Of course you would, words have no real meanings, do they? fair: adjective, in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. adverb, without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage. problem is they have MANY 'real' meanings in the English language, which may be why they are chosen the way they are in writing things like the Constitution fair: treating people in a way that does not favor some over others : not too harsh or critical judicial system uses legal dictionary [such as blacks] not the common dictionary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
part of the problem is using todays dictionary to define words used get the 1776 dictionary if you wnt to define words in the constitution not rocket science to know that definitions evolve lol,,,do a 'find' of any of the things in the op,,,they are not there whatever dictionary we use,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pretty sure fair is more of the legal definition since we are talking trials. 1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. Thus the unbiased part is why you have the right to an impartial jury and innocent until proven guilty. interpretation but THE CONSTITUTION,nowhere states that there is a right to a 'fair' trial,,, an 'impartial' jury is not going to happen in the media age,,,,, It also doesn't say you have the right to eat. So what? It doesnt have to explicitly say everything. and therefore, though I may argue that I have the 'right to eat', I could not use the COHSITTUON as the basis most likely I would use the popular and vague 'inalienable right' argument about 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you do not need a law to say you can do something you can do what eber you want until there is a law against it the bill of rights are laws prohibiting laws that prohibit various actions thus you have the right to do those things and have those things happen or other things not happen because of the bill of rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#PAitIRHYdIJGeSwD.99 The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#PAitIRHYdIJGeSwD.99 -------------------------------------------------------- the second is why you stop after doing the first and yet, no one can point out the given set of phrases in the the US CONSTITUTION,,,,,
which I thought was a pretty 'simple' challenge,,,lol only insist that their interpretation means its there,,,or that everything somehow that is in some document predating it therefore means it is also in the constitution by default, even if never mentioned IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSSELF,,, showing the constitution isn't to be taken so literally after all, but up for 'interpretation',, i didnt interpret it i just said what it says literally and asked questions --------------------------------------------- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world ----------------------------- ****WHO IS GOING TO HOLD THE GOVT ACOUNTABL AND ENFORCE THE DECALRATION OF INDEPENDANCE ENTER THE 2ND AMMENDMENT ---------------------------- U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment Second Amendment - Bearing Arms Amendment Text | Annotations A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ---------------------------- DEFINITIONS ----------------------------- Main Entry: in•fringe Pronunciation: in-'frinj Function: verb Inflected Forms: in•fringed; in•fring•ing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in•fring•er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another en•croach (n-krch) intr.v. en•croached, en•croach•ing, en•croach•es 1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land. 2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland. 3. Football To commit encroachment. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ peo•ple (ppl) n. pl. people 1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people. 2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality. 3. pl. peo•ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life. 4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people. 5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson. 6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the. 7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people. 8. Family, relatives, or ancestors. 9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people ------------------------------------ SO IF THE GOVT INFRINGES (see DEFINITIONS) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (SEE DEFINITIONS) TO BEAR ARMS WHO IS GOING TOENFORCE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE GOVT BEGINS ABUSING THEIR POWERS ------------------------------------ deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ------------------------------------ AND BEGIN RESTRICTING THE ------------------------------------ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ------------------------------------- WHO WILL STEP IN AND REMOVE THE ------------------------------------- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ---------------------------------- AND INSTITUTE THE NEW GOVT DO YOU THINK THE GOVT IS GOING TO DO IT IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER AND THE GOVT ARE THE MASTERS WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE ------------------------------------- deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, does this post have anything to do with what is WRITTEN IN THE US CONSTITUTION? cause, thats what the thread is about,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you do not need a law to say you can do something you can do what eber you want until there is a law against it the bill of rights are laws prohibiting laws that prohibit various actions thus you have the right to do those things and have those things happen or other things not happen because of the bill of rights again, the thread is not about whether I 'can do something' the thread is about what is WRITTEN IN THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Tue 07/08/14 06:04 PM
|
|
you do not need a law to say you can do something you can do what eber you want until there is a law against it the bill of rights are laws prohibiting laws that prohibit various actions thus you have the right to do those things and have those things happen or other things not happen because of the bill of rights again, the thread is not about whether I 'can do something' the thread is about what is WRITTEN IN THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES you sure its not about whats NOT in the constitution 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you do not need a law to say you can do something you can do what eber you want until there is a law against it the bill of rights are laws prohibiting laws that prohibit various actions thus you have the right to do those things and have those things happen or other things not happen because of the bill of rights again, the thread is not about whether I 'can do something' the thread is about what is WRITTEN IN THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES you sure its not about whats NOT in the constitution its about whats NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION literally,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 07/08/14 06:35 PM
|
|
you do not need a law to say you can do something you can do what eber you want until there is a law against it the bill of rights are laws prohibiting laws that prohibit various actions thus you have the right to do those things and have those things happen or other things not happen because of the bill of rights again, the thread is not about whether I 'can do something' the thread is about what is WRITTEN IN THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES you sure its not about whats NOT in the constitution its about whats NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION literally,,, like --------- separation of church and state exactly, another phrase that can be found NOWHERE In the US constitituion instead , paraphrased rather safely from ,,, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof CONGRESS ( A very specific political designation) must not respect religion nor prohibit others from exercising theirs,,, CONGRESS should stay out of religious matters,,,, the latter two are more paraphrasing and INTERPRETING what is in the constitution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you do not need a law to say you can do something you can do what eber you want until there is a law against it the bill of rights are laws prohibiting laws that prohibit various actions thus you have the right to do those things and have those things happen or other things not happen because of the bill of rights again, the thread is not about whether I 'can do something' the thread is about what is WRITTEN IN THE CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES you sure its not about whats NOT in the constitution its about whats NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION literally,,, like --------- separation of church and state |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exactly, another phrase that can be found NOWHERE In the US constitituion instead , paraphrased rather safely from ,,, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof CONGRESS ( A very specific political designation) must not respect religion nor prohibit others from exercising theirs,,, CONGRESS should stay out of religious matters,,,, the latter two are more paraphrasing and INTERPRETING what is in the constitution Edited by msharmony on Tue 07/08/14 06:35 PM which means govt funds should not be spent to support a religion and govt officials have no right to stop any one from practicing their religion no matter where they practice it actually that phrase is taken out of context from a writing of Jefferson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exactly, another phrase that can be found NOWHERE In the US constitituion instead , paraphrased rather safely from ,,, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof CONGRESS ( A very specific political designation) must not respect religion nor prohibit others from exercising theirs,,, CONGRESS should stay out of religious matters,,,, the latter two are more paraphrasing and INTERPRETING what is in the constitution Edited by msharmony on Tue 07/08/14 06:35 PM which means govt funds should not be spent to support a religion and govt officials have no right to stop any one from practicing their religion no matter where they practice it actually that phrase is taken out of context from a writing of Jefferson http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts I only slightly disagree, as the government is bigger than just the congress, but yeah, I think it means the CONGRESS (as the legislative branch of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) cannot make LAWS regarding religion, pro or con,,,, |
|
|
|
|
