Shouldn't we do the same?

[RoeBear]

DNA tests sought 'for every Briton'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3088920.stm

"Every single person in the UK should be compelled to have their DNA on the national database in an effort to prevent crime, a senior police officer has argued."

Any thoughts why this wouldn't work here?

[Wcross]

1. One little problem

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[xJlM]

2. That Bill Of Rights thing is so messy

Of course, if we give Bush enough time, he'll probably try to implement this.

[happyslug]

7. Hair and Blood samples do NOT violate the Fifth

A court can require you to give Blood and Hair samples, giving such "evidence" is NOT a violation of the fifth amendment's "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

Thus having you give your DNA to a data base does not violate the right not to incriminate yourself. As to being "deprived of life, liberty or property", your life is NOT being taken, your liberty is not being taken and property can be taken with "Compensation" and what value is your hair? No value no compensation (or worse give you a penny for it). No, do not count on the fifth to stop DNA data banks of every American, we must fight this in Congress.

[hansberrym]

10. what about the 4th amendment? Is there not a

"right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses,..."

What they are talking about is a "writ of assistance" to search and catalogue our persons. We do not have to rely on a vague notion of a "right to privacy" for protection, we have the actual text on our side.

[DoNotRefill]

24. correct me if I'm wrong, happyslug....

but doesn't there need to be a probable cause determination before a court can order hair and blood samples seized? Wouldn't it be an unreasonable search and seizure, especially given the fundamental privacy issue? And if the privacy issue fails, then what happens to the rationale behind Roe v. Wade?

your logic, if accepted by the courts, would destroy some core Democratic beliefs...

[iverglas]

29. and amazingly ...

"but doesn't there need to be a probable cause determination before a court can order hair and blood samples seized? Wouldn't it be an unreasonable search and seizure, especially given the fundamental privacy issue?"

... the same applies in the UK. Of course there has to be some valid justification (which will be determined by the courts on a challenge) for any search or seizure undertaken, in both places.

Anybody here know anything, anything at all, about rights and rights protection anywhere outside the US? Maybe even in the UK, since that's what so many are expressing opinions about?

One could always try reading the Human Rights Act, 1998.

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

1. - (1) In this Act "the Convention rights" means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in-

(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,

(b) Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and

(c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol,

as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention.

(2) Those Articles are to have effect for the purposes of this Act subject to any designated derogation or reservation (as to which see sections 14 and 15).

...

3. - (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

(2) This section-

(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;

(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and

(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.

4. - (1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right.


(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.

...

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm#aofs


That, of course, is just a recent expression and codification of rights that have long been recognized in their basic form. Where *do* you people imagine that the statement of those rights in your constitution came from?

Now, the thing is, in order to understand that Act, you have to read and understand the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK statute incorporates by reference.

So here ya go:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1

The Convention, like the Canadian Charter, expressly guarantees "security of the person". The Canadian Charter includes the right against unreasonble search and seizure separately, but my assumption is that the right to security of the person and privacy (also included in the European Convention) would pretty much cover it. And I have no doubt that any Brit to whom one proposed that his/her executive authorities (police) could just start searching closets and plucking hairs at will might think that one was quite nuts.


For those needing history lessons:

http://www.billofrights.com/

The Bill of Rights draws influence and inspiration from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and various later efforts in England and America to expand fundamental rights. George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights formed the basis of the amendments which comprise the bill.

Magna Carta ... England ... June 15, 1215 ... nearly 800 years ago, long before Europeans set foot in Virginia ... in which King John said:

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

Sounds like the dictionary definition of a prohibition on unreasonable (or actually, any) search and seizure.

Another handy, if unauthoritative, summary:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/declaration_independence/bill.htm

The origins of many of the other rights and liberties contained in the Bill of Rights can be found in the English tradition, dating as far back as Magna Carta (1215), a document that marked the first step toward constitutional law in England. For example, the clause in the Fifth Amendment, which declares that individuals cannot be deprived of their "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is rooted in Chapter 39 of Magna Carta.

England's Petition of Right (1628) and Bill of Rights (1689) further expanded individual liberties and placed increased limitations on the ruler's powers and authority. English liberties and rights, such as trial by jury and protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure, were, in fact, included in the charters establishing the American colonies. They were considered to be the "rights of Englishmen."

Me, I just never cease to be amazed at what some people know nothing about but feel compelled to express opinions about nonetheless ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

39. Once again, I'm amazed...

that you bring up so many excellent points, NONE of which have any relevance to anything I said. Please quote the language where I said anything about England NOT having a similar concept?

"Me, I just never cease to be amazed at what some people know nothing about but feel compelled to express opinions about nonetheless ..."

I feel the same way about people who interject straw men into a debate that didn't involve them in an attempt to start a flame war...

[iverglas]

44. follow the dots

The conversation you're involved in started out like this:

"One little problem
Amendment V"

The proposal made by someone in the UK is no more interesting than a similar proposal made in the US would be, for precisely the same reasons.

The protections of this sort that exist in the US **came from** the UK. Everything has to come from somewhere, eh? Unreasonable search and seizure **were already** prohibited in the UK when your Bill of Rights was written.

And just as the protection has evolved in the US, so it has evolved in the UK. Amazingly, I know.

The entire point of this entire thread is non-existent. It has been responded to by many AS IF there are some magical formulas in the US that would prevent such a thing happening there that DO NOT EXIST in the UK. This is, of course, bullshit. And in this thread it devolved beyond ignorant bullshit into bigoted bullshit.

While the little foray off into the US fifth amendment might be fascinating, the entire discussion is premised on some bizarre notion that there is protection in the US that doesn't exist in the UK. You were responding to someone who had responded to an assertion that something could not happen in the US, in response to an initial post that was an obvious attempt to portray it as something that *could* happen in the UK. Forgive me for speaking to the subject matter of the thread ... and point out where I applied any comment you object to to you, if you like.

.

[acerbic]

3. "Do the same"?

Which is: have one "senior police officer" argue so. Heck, why not. Doesn't make much difference to anything really... :shrug:

[Syrinx]

4. count me out

That's Orwellian.

[Pert_UK]

5. I posted this story in LBN the other day.......

With the comment that the policeman in question should go and fuck himself.

Why not put satellite trackers on everybody in the country so that you can always tell where everybody is?

This isn't going to happen - there is enough resistance to this kind of infringement of civil liberties to prevent it from happening. If it ever becomes law, then I'll leave the UK permanently.....and NOT because I have any crimes behind me that I don't want discovered!

I have no problem with anyone convicted of a significantly serious crime being DNA profiled - in my book, once you cross the line into crime then you lose certain rights as a member of society. Once you've chosen to commit a crime, then I don't see why the police shouldn't be allowed to check whether you've done any others.

P.

[-..__...]

8. I posted it as well...

didn't see yours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=299366

This isn't going to happen - there is enough resistance to this kind of infringement of civil liberties to
prevent it from happening. If it ever becomes law, then I'll leave the UK permanently.....and NOT because I have any crimes behind me that I don't want discovered!

Where's the resistance about the surveillance cameras placed at every street corner and public gathering spot all in the name of "curbing crime"?

What about the legal penalties (imprisonment), for not divulging ones PGP key to government officials (MI5)?

National security? Crime? Emotionalism? Disarmament?

Your citizens have willingly accepted compliance based on the above reasons. What makes you think a DNA database
would be any different? They already disarmed the public and they were willing to accept it.

England is a country of sheeple willing to accept whatever the government tells them is in their best interest.

INGSOC is not that far from your distant future. Possibly in our future too. At least here there's a willingness to question and effectively fight against it.

[iverglas]

9. yeah

"England is a country of sheeple willing to accept whatever the government tells them is in their best interest."

After all, they elected George W. Bush.


OOOPS!! I got confused there for a minute.


It wouldn't occur to me to say such piggish things about the country whose "sheeple" actually did do that, and any number of other equally stupid and evil things. The fact that one of them would say it about the population of another country ... well, what's really being said, and about whom ...

Acerbic said just about all that needed to be said about the article itself, and quite well, too.

.

[-..__...]

11. As bad as it is, I'm much happier here... Thank you.

"England is a country of sheeple willing to accept whatever the government tells them is in their best
interest."

After all, they elected George W. Bush.

As I posted, "possibly in our future too". The sheeple of Great Briton just seem to be be about 5-10 years ahead
of us in that regard. Even more telling, they seem to be willing to accept their fate.


OOOPS!! I got confused there for a minute.

A minute? Better check your watch, it's running a little slow.

It wouldn't occur to me to say such piggish things about the country whose "sheeple" actually did do that, and any
number of other equally stupid and evil things. The fact that one of them would say it about the population of
another country ... well, what's really being said, and about whom ...

As bad off as we are, we haven't quite lowered ourselves to the level of pervasiveness that the royal subjects have willingly accepted.


Acerbic said just about all that needed to be said about the article itself, and quite well, too.

Ideas (good or bad), usually start with one person. If the willingness of entire towns/villages to come forward by offering
too submit DNA samples doesn't tell you something about the complacency of the populace...

For the British, it takes something as simple as a rape. For us, it took 9/11. Big difference.

[iverglas]

13. keep displaying your ignorance

I get used to it around here.

Why just the other day, someone else somewhere at DU was pontificating about how Andrea Dworkin had helped to write Canadian pornography (called "obscenity") legislation and now her book was banned in Canada. And yet there it was at chapters.indigo.ca, shipped within 24 hours. Just one small example of the amazingly ignorant things I've had to get used to seeing; not that I'm surprised to hear them coming from south of the border (as I imagine that Brits are hardly surprised to hear them coming from across the pond), it's just that one harbours faint hopes of not hearing them from the "liberal" end of the spectrum. And opinions informed by that kind of ignorance are quite simply worthless.

"If the willingness of entire towns/villages to come forward by offering too submit DNA samples doesn't tell you something about the complacency of the populace...
For the British, it takes something as simple as a rape. For us, it took 9/11. Big difference."

I'm not quite that ignorant. I know that George W. Bush was elected BEFORE September 11, 2001. I give up ... what level of complacency did it take for that to happen be done?

You see volunteering to help the police, whom one employs, to solve a crime, as one employs them to do presumably because one wants crimes solved as part of keeping one's self and the rest of the public safe, as "complacency". There are many who would see it as behaving in a socially responsible and moral way. And they might see your refusal to do it as base and disgusting self-centredness. Matter of taste, these things.

For the Brits, it took a small crime for those in question to voluntarily offer their own cooperation to assist the police. For USAmericans, it took a large crime for them to voluntarily surrender other people's exercise of their rights to Bush. No one who does anything voluntarily can be presumed to be willing to be compelled to do it or to compel anyone else to do it. How it looks in the US is that an awful lot are not willing to voluntarily forego the exercise of a right in the interests of others' welfare, but are quite willing to coercively restrain others' exercise of their rights when the mood strikes them and it looks, to their short-sighted and self-interested selves, like it might be to their own benefit.

I could give you a litany of the things that "complacent" Canadians and Brits (and French and Germans ...) would never put up with that you folks just don't seem to mind at all ... especially when they're happening to somebody else. Denials of equal rights to various unpopular minorities, f'r instance. The war on drugs. Three strikes (and other barbaric mandatory minimum sentences, and the prison situation in general). Capital punishment. Arbitrary limitations on women's access to abortion services. Widespread denial of access to health care. One could go on.

Your portrayal of other societies' decisions regarding their priorities and purposes as "complacency", and them as "sheeple", says, as I believe I observed, far more about you than it does about anyone else. Those societies are free and democratic, and guarantee the same fundamental individual rights as are guaranteed in the US, and within that framework determine how best to arrange their affairs for their own benefit.

The persistent reference by you and your ilk to "royal subjects", once again, just betrays your own ignorance. The people of the UK are properly characterized as citizens of the UK. Your woefully inadequate educational system and its bizarrely simplistic portrayal of your own history seems to be the root of this anti-monarchist fetish so many of you exhibit; you have no clue about the role the monarchy played in your own history even, let alone what the nature and functioning of a constitutional monarchy in this century is. Which King George are you on these days, by the way?

If it's yours, it's gotta be good by definition (or you might have to actually examine it objectively and in comparison to what others have and risk finding out it's not so hot after all), which means that if it ain't yours, it's gotta be bad by definition (or else you might have to examine it objectively and in comparison to what you have and risk finding out that there's better stuff elsewhere) ... and since your whole self-image depends on being the biggest and bestest, why we just couldn't have that happening.

Nobody else much seems to feel such a need to be the biggest or bestest, having a slightly better grasp of the concept that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating a free and democratic society, and that there really are differing needs to be met and aspirations to be achieved in different places. Nobody else much thinks it necessary or even worthwhile to demean the approaches that others choose within the range of choices that can be made in free and democratic societies. And pretty much everybody else sees it, when you express your obvious need to do that, as rather good evidence of your own inadequacy.

But keep it up. You wouldn't want to go against stereotype, would you now?

.

[acerbic]

12. Surveillance cameras in public places? SKREEEEEM!!!!

That is truly the height of oppression in the world. Soon those miserable sheeple of England will certainly be blithely accepting indefinite imprisonment of people without trial based only on some appointed government official's say-so, because their government tells them that it makes them safe. That's just how gullible and spineless surrender monkey sheeple those English are. Yuck.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pert_UK]

17. With all due respect - you are talking absolute crap.

Paint England (or indeed the UK) however you like to fit your arguments and your preconceived ideas of how things work over there, but they're FAR removed from reality.

"Where's the resistance about the surveillance cameras placed at every street corner and public gathering spot all in the name of "curbing crime"?"

Well, oddly enough, it WAS done to curb crime. Hate to shatter your illusions there. It's been quite useful in reducing street crime and also for reviewing to track down criminals / terrorists who offend within view of the cameras. I mean, WOW, there's so much repression going on in England, it's terrible....what with the government actually being publicly grilled about its own misbehaviour and its files being opened for investigation.

The placement of cameras in busy shopping areas, car parks etc. does not entail that the government is monitoring the entire population 24x7. What it does entail is that it's harder to plant a bomb or commit a crime without being caught. Isn't that a good thing?

Disarmament?????? Oh for the love of God, we're not going over that again are we? UK citizens were NEVER (in recent decades) armed for self-defence and only a tiny minority of people shot pistols for sport. It's TERRIBLY undemocratic when a government brings in a law to ban pistols, with the backing of the VAST majority of the people, isn't it? THE HORROR!

Oh, and how absolutely AWFUL it is when people VOLUNTEER to provide their DNA to help the police catch a rapist within their community! (Incidentally, pretty tight laws exist around the destruction of fingerprints/DNA evidence when someone isn't charged with a crime). This means that the WHOLE COUNTRY will be queuing up to register their DNA for a nationwide database.

The UK is one of the few countries in Europe without the compulsory carrying of ID cards. The Home Secretary is currently trying to bring them in, and there is a lot of public opposition to it. Resistance against a nationwide DNA database is stronger.

"At least here there's a willingness to question and effectively fight against it."

??? In the UK we'll fight against stuff that we don't agree with, having thought about it. And at least we get somewhere.

I'm absolutely astounded that you feel able to write-off the entire UK population as a nation of "sheeple". I am especially taken aback that you feel able to do this when the UK gov is being dragged through the mill in front of the cameras whilst your own gov behaves appallingly and covers things up with impunity.

And while we're at it, consider the state of media reporting in each of our two countries.......which country gives its people a better insight into the more unpalatable facts of life? Which country actually has a media that throws things into the ring for debate?

Oh, and as for the "subjects" rather than "citizens" comment.....that is SO irrelevant. There is no "subject" mentality in the UK - there's a proud acknowledgement of (some) our history, but last time I checked the UK functions pretty well as a democracy.............we even manage to appoint the person who won the election, unbelievably enough.

Come on, man.....think about it before you post such utter rubbish.

[acerbic]

19. Just a moment...

The UK is one of the few countries in Europe without the compulsory carrying of ID cards.

I seriously doubt that carrying an ID card is compulsory in most countries in Europe...

[Pert_UK]

20. Hmmm....I thought it was, but apparently not....

"Eleven of the 15 nations of the European Union now have some form of ID card, even if they are not compulsory.

They have become widely accepted by their citizens. In France, for example, about 90% of the population carries one. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2090712.stm

I know that it is either compulsory in law or EFFECTIVELY compulsory (i.e. you don't have to carry one but you can't do anything without it) in some countries in Europe....but don't have time to do much research now.

P.

[Spentastic]

22. Lets try this again

Just for clarification, I happen to live happily in the U.K.

"Where's the resistance about the surveillance cameras placed
at every street corner and public gathering spot all in the
name of "curbing crime"?"

Every street corner? Really, every corner? To think, I live here and I failed to spot all those cameras bearing down on my freedom. Perhaps it was the info police and MI5 hassling me all the time that stopped me noticing. What with that and the Queen demanding that I bow and scrape to her all day I hardly ever get to look up anyway. In a recent study at lunchtime I visited at least 10 street corners and none of them appeared to be covered by CCTV. That renders your statement how you say, inaccurate. Some might even say that saying things that are patently untrue makes a person a liar. Not me guv, we're not allowed to utter that word.

As well as being factually challenged on your first point you seem to be unclear as to how camera placing policy is formulated.. Some places with high crime rates are surveilled by CCTV. Guess what? It gives people the freedom to leave their cars without the fear of returning to an empty space. It stops women being attacked it allows the police to turn up before brawls get out of hand. It can prove who was actually committing a crime avoiding the need for mass search and arrest operations. Several CCTV towers contain no cameras. It's that free rider argument that the gun bunnys seem so keen on. If you believe in a nefarious government scheme to track each individual you'd be better off worrying about having a credit card.

"Your citizens have willingly accepted compliance based on the
above reasons. What makes you think a DNA database
would be any different? They already disarmed the public and
they were willing to accept it."

Accept it? Don't be daft man our communities actually demand reasonable measures. It seems that a civilised society realises that there is in fact a balance between personal freedom / privacy and societal good. Just as there are in the U.S. You get caught being a criminal you go to prison. That's a restriction on freedom. However, the U.S happily just incarcerates some of it's own civilians in Gitmo without due process. I suppose that's not a problem?

As for the "subject" jibe. Once again, what exactly is your point, if you have one. I'm no fan of the monarchy but I'll tell you something for free. There is more chance of George Bush restricting your freedoms that there is of the monarch restricting mine.

"England is a country of sheeple willing to accept whatever
the government tells them is in their best interest."

Yeah and blacks are better dancers, women are objects, Americans are fat lazy and stupid and gun owners are murderous psychos. See the problem with your statement?

[jody]

14. Pert, the threat of a DNA database is enough to cause you say

"If it ever becomes law, then I'll leave the UK permanently.....and NOT because I have any crimes behind me that I don't want discovered!"

It seems to me that your reaction is the same as the reaction of gun-owners to registering firearms.

With a nationwide DNA database, we could quickly identify crimnals who leave any DNA evidence at the scene of a crime. Your suggestion about a tracking device is excellent and we could easily identify who was at the scene of a crime within a few meters. Aren't those the same arguments that the anti-RKBA group make for registering firearms and ballistic fingerprinting?

[Pert_UK]

18. Good point. But not really equivalent, IMHO.

One is the compulsory registration of ALL a country's population. The other is the compulsory registration of lethal weaponry and the people who have CHOSEN to own it.

I take your point though, and will try to give a more thorough answer if I ever get the chance.

P.

[jody]

31. The analogy is that both DNA and RKBA are

natural/inalienable rights or perceived rights.

The government is supposed to be subordinate to the natural/inalienable rights of the people from whom all authority and power is derived.

The problem arises when the people through inaction have allowed governments to infringe upon those rights. An individual then has a choice of (a) becoming subservient to a government controlled by the few or (b) leave the country.

We could discuss what is a natural/inalienable right, but that seems to me the situation in the US and UK.

[Pert_UK]

56. Various problems here, some of them just mine......

Let's get it out of the way...

I still have a tremendous amount of trouble accepting that RKBA is an inalienable right...I can kinda allow for the idea that self-defence is a "right", but even then there are restriction in law placed upon it - if a man threatens you with a stick of celery you can't stab him in the eyes with a sword, for example.

In the same way as I reject objective morality and the idea that the 10 Commandments are literally the Word of God, I cannot really accept the idea that something some guys decided 200 years ago is necessarily infallible for the rest of history.

This is my problem and I need to address it better to continue the argument....But to address your points specifically...

DNA is not a "right" - DNA is just something you have. My objection to DNA profiling of an entire population is that you effectively lose the choice over what you can and can't do with your own body. It is a physical invasion of one's privacy and the results have tremendous potential for misuse if they fell into the wrong hands. In the same way as I don't want my government opening all my mail just to check I'm not breaking any laws, I don't want them to have access to the innermost secrets of my very being.

When it comes to guns, then even if you accept that KBA is a "right" then that doesn't mean that this right outweighs everything else. Many people choose not to invoke their right to go around armed, and many people would prefer that society as a whole was not armed. That doesn't mean that they reject their right of self-defence.

I don't see how the RKBA is in any way infringed if an individual who exercises it is tested to ensure that they're entitled to it (e.g. not a criminal) and then tracked to ensure that if they commit a crime and lose their RKBA then their guns are removed from them. In addition, I believe that the rights of other citizens are infringed if there isn't sufficient control over who is able to legally purchase and keep firearms.

Rights are rights but without some control, enforcement & reference to other rights then they're meaningless.

As a final point - the people of the UK haven't given up their right to self-defence. They've willingly agreed with the government's assertion that there is no place for guns in public hands in the UK, and that guns are not suitable tools for self-defence. I'm not saying that this works in the US, but that's how it goes in the UK.

[jody]

57. You say "They've willingly agreed with the government's assertion that

there is no place for guns in public hands in the UK, and that guns are not suitable tools for self-defence."

UK's history included a king/queen supposedly appointed/annointed by God. The US has never had that view and in the Declaration of Independence, we stated,
QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE

The Constitution begins:
QUOTE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
UNQUOTE

As US citizens, we recognize only a government that derives its authority and power from the free consent of the People.

As to inalienable rights, the original fourteen states were sovereign separate states before the Articles of Confederation was accepted 1 March 1781, and retained their sovereignty under the Confederation.
QUOTE
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
UNQUOTE

Several states had adopted constitutions before they joined the Confederation. Pennsylvania and Vermont set an example followed by other states.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

It is interesting that CA, IA, and NJ both acknowledge that a citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property. State Constitutions

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE

IDAHO CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and
equal, and have certain inalienable rights, amoung which are enjoying and
defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property;
pursuing happiness and securing safety.
UNQUOTE

NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE


NINTH AMENDMENT: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

SCOTUS said in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

QUOTE
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
UNQUOTE

The states declared self defense is an "inalienable right" and as such, that right could not have been alienated when the states ratified the Constitiution. Keeping and bearing arms for defense of self and state is simply exercising the inalienable right to self defense.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

59. poor jody

She says she doesn't even read responses like mine own, and somebody is still on the lookout for things being said that might offend her.

"UK's history included a king/queen supposedly appointed/annointed by God. The US has never had that view and in the Declaration of Independence, we stated, ..."

Dear, dear. I thought, from that other thread of hers, that the US founders & framers also claimed to be taking their authority from a god. That "Creator" thingy. Damme, but I think I'm seeing a distinction w/o a difference here.

Jody plainly does not understand the theory of monarchy at all. It would be so nice if she would make the effort to learn something whereof she speaks from time to time. She might start with the notion that a monarch (like other types of traditional heads of state) is generally regarded by the people (where they accept the "divine right" business, which is kinda passé these days anyhow) as having been divinely appointed to act in their interests and administer their collective affairs as their trustee.

Kinda like any other government, including her own, which does indeed claim divine appointment, as the guarantor of those first principles of hers:

"The states declared self defense is an 'inalienable right' ..."

I wonder whether she even sees the farcical irony in the states "declaring" something to be an "inalienable right", and most especially in her citing that fact, apparently as some kind of proof of something.

"As US citizens, we recognize only a government that derives its authority and power from the free consent of the People."

And I say bully for you, sweetheart, and hip hip hooray! And: if only.

The problem is that this isn't what your constitution says, since it asserts those things as being "unalienable rights" -- things prior to your government and plainly regarded by your founders & framers, and presumably by consensus today, as endowments made by the "Creator". Your government *does* "derive its authority" from something/somewhere other than "the Peope". Your constitution is as much based on unproved and unprovable assertions of fact, of pre-existing principles which there is no basis for claiming, as is any absolute monarchy, let alone the modern constitutional monarchies that large numbers of your friends, neighbours and allies choose to operate with today.

(I mean, you did know, for instance, that Canada adopted a constitution in 1982 in which Canada, i.e. Canadians, through their elected representatives, chose a system of parliamentary democracy in which the monarch of Great Britain etc. would be the head of state, right? You knew that?)

The absence of creators and first principles just does make our base human lives difficult at times. So far, no state has managed to operate without making up at least one such thingy as the source of its own legitimacy. A monarchy operates according to the fiction that there is a divinity that wanders around appointing people to do things (although the actual fact is that the people of most monarchies today could simply vote their own particular bastard monarch out if they so chose, since so very few of those monarch folk maintain standing armies of their own these days, y'know?). The US operates according to the fiction that there are such things as "inalienable" rights (rights that cannot be transferred or sold or leased or given away, even though quite obviously they can be).

I find your fiction just as silly as mine. They both work, more or less, and yours is as much a matter of your own taste and choice as mine is mine, so I don't feel any burning need to make the constant insulting comment about the intelligence or integrity of the people who made your choice that you seem to feel must be made about people who made mine.

But I will still back Liz against Dubya in any kind of test of intellect or integrity that you choose, any day. There being no first principles by which to judge, and no divine appointers or creators to appeal to, I'll just stick with the results when it comes to deciding which *I* prefer.

I prefer mine, you prefer yours. I don't feel any need to insult or demean yours, you seem to find it necessary to constantly insult and demean mine. I wonder what that says, about what and whom.

.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Probably won't work there, either.

Most crimes don't leave DNA evidence, and as criminals get marginally smarter, there will be less. We already have rapists using condoms so they don't leave sperm around. Might work for victim ID.
a lot more than a national fingerprint database, which would be only marginally more efficient.

"OK, everybody-- here's your dates to line up for dna samples, fingerprints, retinal scans, full body profiles, and a few other things we'd like to know about you."

I fear the day that happens.

[hansberrym]

16. Questions: Is this an extreme right-wing...

or an extreme left-wing measure?

"Every single person in the UK should be compelled to have their
DNA on the national database in an effort to prevent crime, a
senior police officer has argued."


Does the Fourth Amendment protect a "Collective right" or an "Individual right" of the people to be secure in thier persons,
houses, papers,..

[RoeBear]

27. Not sure...

...if it's a left wing or right wing idea.

I'm sure there would be huge resistance to the idea if people were told that they had to come in and give a DNA sample. But what if DNA was just collectd at birth? They already blood type babies so the process is already in place.

[Shanty Oilish]

21. It quacks like totalitarianism

:thumbsdown:

[LibLabUK]

23. Can anyone..

offer an explanation of why a national DNA library is wrong, without referring to the US constitution or spouting off epithets (sheeple, subject etc)?

Personally, I'm undecided... For most political ideas I try to see both sides of an argument from a rational point of view. However, on this subject I'm having problems coming up with a negative argument that is based in the actual applications of current genetics/molecular biology.

[DoNotRefill]

25. For me...

it's simple. I don't want the government creating a database with my DNA. My DNA, just like my sperm and my wife's ovum, are none of the Government's goddamned business.

What's next? The government refusing to allow people with certain genetic markers to breed? Before you freak out and say it couldn't happen, check out what Oliver Wendell Holmes said about Eugenics...Paraphrasing from memory, it's something like "three generations of morons is enough" while talking about court-ordered involuntary sterilization of "morons".

[LibLabUK]

33. Ummm

"My DNA, just like my sperm and my wife's ovum, are none of the Government's goddamned business."

I take it that there are no laws regarding what you may or may not do with sperm, ova or other bodily fluids/tissues/substances where yuo live?

"What's next? The government refusing to allow people with certain genetic markers to breed?"

There are currently no restrictions on people breeding, even people with serious heritable medical conditions. Why would the government suddenly assume control of this?

Are you suggesting that the current government harbours Nazi sympathies/beliefs?

I seriously doubt any large scale genetic profiling would be feasible let alone worthwhile. The technique used for DNA fingerprinting isn't the same as the technique used for DNA sequencing. The fingerprint data would be useless for telling what colour eyes you have or whether you have Tay-Sachs.

[iverglas]

38. and here's an amazing bit

"There are currently no restrictions on people breeding, even people with serious heritable medical conditions. Why would the government suddenly assume control of this?"

Not only does the UK (and Canadian, and any other comparable government I can think of) not "assume control" of people's breeding practices ... it actually facilitates the exercise of free choice in that respect by paying certain major costs of the choices, i.e. by paying for the medical care associated with pregnancy and childbirth and also with any disabilities or genetic diseases a child is born with.

How "free" is someone to have a child with a strong possibility of inheriting a genetic disease, if s/he cannot pay for the medical care the child will need??

Yeah, kinda like how "free" someone is to walk the streets if s/he is constantly afraid of getting blown up.


"Are you suggesting that the current government harbours Nazi sympathies/beliefs?"

My tentative conclusion is that, bizarre as it sounds, an awful lot of USAmericans actually don't believe in progress. They are mired in the 18th century, and they're staying there, goddam it.

Someone alluded to Buck v. Bell http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/buckvbell.html as a sample of the dreadful things that governments and courts might get up to if given half a chance: the "three generations of morons are enough" justification for compulsory sterilization.

Nothing has changed in the world, or our understanding of it, since then (1927), you see. If everyone today doesn't dig in his/her heels at the least suggestion that there are some things that really are not "essential" liberties, and some things that really are not "little, temporary" safeties, and take up arms against whatever unnoticeable interference with his/her right is being proposed in order to protect the very lives of other people, well, some US state govt. might just up and start sterilizing morons again.

You can see where some people might be concerned ...

Haha! Joke! (Surprised even me, that one did.)

.

[DoNotRefill]

42. I'm sure you'd be concerned....

"well, some US state govt. might just up and start sterilizing morons again. You can see where some people might be concerned ..."

if it weren't for the fact that you're past child-bearing age...

You seem to be defending the current administration, in that you think they wouldn't try to bring back "the good old days". I have no such illusions. Do you REALLY think that the current administration wouldn't love to overturne Roe, or Buck, for that matter?

[iverglas]

46. oh lordy

We've reached "it takes one to know one" time, have we? Such witty repartee.

There's likely no copyright in the School of Witty Repartee, as I heard it.



Johnny is poor and has been all his life. He doesn't mind it much, except for
the fact that every year when the circus comes to town, he never gets to see
it. The years pass and every year he watches the circus come and go with a
tear in his eye. Then one year as the circus is leaving, he snaps. "Fuck it,"
he says." I'm going to get myself a job so I can see the circus."

The next day he applies for a job at a supermarket stacking shelves. He gets
this job and works his heart out. He works every night stacking shelves,
earning money. He spends very little, and saves heaps. He is the best
worker the supermarket has ever seen. A year passes, and the circus
comes to town.

As soon as the gates to the circus open, Johnny races up, first in line to buy
a ticket. the excitement overwhelms him. He walks around the circus. He
sees the animals, the freak show, buys a hot dog, plays on the clowns. And
then he sees it, what he's been waiting for all these years...The Big Top.

Johnny races into the tent and takes a seat. Pretty soon the tent fills up and
the show begins. It's a packed house and the buzz is electric. The dancing
horses come out, then the elephants, then everyone's favorite, the clowns.
The clowns run around and do their act making everyone laugh. When all this
is finished, the head clown picks up a microphone and says "Now we'd like
to pick a member of the audience to help with our show."

All the lights go out and a spotlight circles the crowd. and, as luck should
have it, it lands on Johnny. Johnny is ecstatic, he nearly shits his pants with
excitement. He can't believe his luck. The head clown comes up to him and
says..
"Hey mister, are you the horse's head?"
"No." Johnny replies.
"Are you the horse's ear?"
"No"
"Are you the horse's tail?"
"No"
"Then you must be the horse's ASS!!!!"

And then whole tent erupts into fits of laughter all of Johnny's expense.
Everyone is laughing, except for Johnny. He's as pissed as fuck. He vows
then and there that next year, when the circus comes to town, he'll get his
revenge on the clown.

As he's walking home, still fuming from the humiliation that the clown
caused, Johnny thinks of ways that he can get back at the clown. Death,
violence, poisoning....and then it hits him. Johnny will give the clown a taste
of his own medicine. Next year, Johnny will blast the clown with the biggest
insult ever!

The next morning Johnny flips through the phonebook looking for someone
who can help him with his revenge. Then he finds an ad.

INSULT SCHOOL
Sick of being picked on?
Come to our school and
soon you'll be verbally
attacking people with vigor!

'This is just what I need!!!" says Johnny. So he rings up the school and
enrolls the next day.

So every day Johnny goes to the insult school, studying hard so he can
learn the best and most harsh insult so he can get back at the clown. On top
of this, he still stacks shelves at the supermarket to get the money for the
circus. Day in, day out Johnny works his ass off.
Then his day arrives...

As soon as the circus opens it's gates Johnny barges to the front of the line,
pushing people out of his way. No longer is he a kind, considerate man. He's
a pissed off m.f. hell bent on revenge. He give the ticket seller the money,
snatches the ticket and storms off.

He sees all the regular shit. The animals, the freaks, the clowns. He's so
excited that he goes into the Big Top an hour before the show starts, just so
he can get a good seat. The tent begins to fill up and the show starts...

The dancing horses come out, Johnny yawns. Then the elephants, Johnny
tries to stay awake. And then the act Johnny has waited a year for, the
clowns. The clowns run around and do their act making everyone laugh.
Johnny wonders why everyone is laughing, it's the same shit they did last
year. When all this is finished, the head clown picks up a microphone,
exactly the same as last year ,and says "Now we'd like to pick a member of
the audience to help with our show."

All the lights go out and a spotlight circles the crowd. and, as luck should
have it again, it lands on Johnny. Johnny is sits cool, calm and collected.
The head clown comes up to him and says..
"Hey mister, are you the horse's head?"
"No." Johnny replies.
"Are you the horse's ear?"
"No"
"Are you the horse's tail?"
"No"
"Then you must be the horse's ASS!!!!

And again the whole tent erupts with laughter. Except for Johnny. He sits
there staring straight at the clown, a look of pure evil and hate on his face.
The laughter quickly dies down as everyone knows something is going to
happen. The crowd watched. This is Johnny's moment. He takes a deep
breath, looks at the clown and says...
"FUCK YOU CLOWN!"

.

No, you are.

.

[DoNotRefill]

40. 'k

"I take it that there are no laws regarding what you may or may not do with sperm, ova or other bodily fluids/tissues/substances where yuo live?"

Not yet....and I don't want to see any. Given time, I can easily imagine the current administration putting something like that into effect, especially considering the attacks on Roe that have happened recently.

"Are you suggesting that the current government harbours Nazi sympathies/beliefs?"

Do you have any doubts about this???

[LibLabUK]

49. I disagree

Not yet....and I don't want to see any. Given time, I can easily imagine the current administration putting something like that into effect, especially considering the attacks on Roe that have happened recently.

I would think that there are infact reams of legislation on what you can and cannot do with your body and the substances it issues. I know for a fact that the market in human organs is specifically outlawed in the US.

Do you have any doubts about this {Nazi tendencies of New Labour} ???

I am quite certain that new Labour has nothing in common with the Nazis. The suggestion that they do is infact quite offensive.

[DoNotRefill]

50. Since when....

is the Bush Junta "New Labor"?

Let's pretend that I WAS talking about the current British government. Given that, didn't the current British Government support the waging of aggressive war in Iraq? What was Ribbentrop executed for again?

[iverglas]

51. name that fallacy

Hitler brushed his teeth.
Hitler was a Nazi.

I brush my teeth.
Therefore I am a Nazi.

When you referred to "Nazi tendencies" in the context of this thread, were you *really* talking about tooth-brushing?

.

[LibLabUK]

53. Hmm.

is the Bush Junta "New Labor"?

Iverglas seemed able to comprehend that my question referred to the current UK government.

Given that, didn't the current British Government support the waging of aggressive war in Iraq? What was Ribbentrop executed for again?

Right, I fully expect Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw to don red armbands shortly.

[iverglas]

54. I think ...

that sometimes it's just awful hard for the mind to remain focused on something existing/happening outside those borders.

In a thread that is about something goin' on in the UK, you asked: "Are you suggesting that the current government harbours Nazi sympathies/beliefs?" ... and you just *had* to be asking about the current *US* government ...

.

[LastDemInIdaho]

26. compelled to have their DNA on the national database

Before they "compell" too forcefully they should first limit the peoples access to firearms. Oh, wait, they have performed tha step allready.

The coast is clear! Compell away!

[iverglas]

28. one silly question

"Before they 'compell' too forcefully they should first limit the peoples access to firearms. Oh, wait, they have performed tha step allready."
(emphasis added)


Who "they"?


Give us a noun for your pronoun, if you please (and if you'll forgive me fixing your grammar/spelling):

"Before ___?___ 'compel' too forcefully, ___?___ should first limit the people's access to firearms. Oh, wait, ___?___ have performed that step already."


Depending on your choice of noun, I'm pretty sure I'll have more questions ...

.

[Spentastic]

30. I reckon

It's that non elected government we seem to have. They keep compelling me to do things.

[iverglas]

32. ssshhhh!

Be very careful; if that videocamera embedded in every computer monitor sold in the UK misfunctions and all THEY see are the words you've been typing, and not the bemused/sarcastic expression on your face ... THEY will be busting down your door and tying you down and extracting bits and pieces of you for comparison to the stuff on your keyboard to find out who is responsible for giving away these secrets.

I've been watching "MI5" on the US A&E network. Kinda dumb, the same way "CSI" is ... lab rats solving crimes, junior cadet spies saving the world ... but interesting. The Yank bullies sure aren't the good guys.

And of course on the screen as in real life, terrorism goes on in the UK the way it has for nearly a century, with the moral and very generous financial support of a lot of those USAmerican "friends", some of whose peers do seem to think they're the only ones who have ever suffered from a terrorist attack. Hell, we've even had 'em in Canada, back before a number of our friends here were born of course.

The idea that people would agree to, even call for, a slight shift in the balance between freedom and security that might result in fewer people dying in random bombings, for instance, if they thought they might be caught on camera planting the bomb, and in no effect at all for the average individual, would just never occur to a USAmerican, would it now? And limiting the exercise of freedoms, or intruding on privacy, to enhance security (ostensible as the enhancement might be in that case), would just never occur to his/her government.

I wonder how often the operation of the NYC subway system is interrupted by bomb threats. I wonder whether any USAmericans know how common that is in London. I know how stupid I felt when I inquired about checking some luggage at a train station outside London, on a visit in 1994, and was looked at like an idiot for apparently thinking (I then realized) that the British rail system would offer me a place to stow a bomb for a small fee.

Yep, deadly terrorist attacks are not worth thinking about. The lives lost that might have been saved if the deterrence that comes with surveillance of public places aren't worth the "invasion of privacy".

Safety from deadly bombs going off in crowded public places is obviously just that "little, temporary safety" that Benjamin Franklin must have been thinking about.

.

[LibLabUK]

36. I agree...

"Safety from deadly bombs going off in crowded public places is obviously just that "little, temporary safety" that Benjamin Franklin must have been thinking about."

I prefer to think about it as "Freedom from being blown up", I don't intend to give up that freedom for the sake of being safe from closed-circuit television cameras. :)

[CO Liberal]

34. I Think The Fundies Would Fight This One

Having everyone on a ntional database would be necessity assign everyone a number - "the mark of the beast" from Revelations.

[LibLabUK]

35. Hmm

Having everyone on a ntional database would be necessity assign everyone a number - "the mark of the beast" from Revelations.

We already have two numbers issued at birth, our NHS number and our National Insurance number.

For that matter, don't you guys in the US get given a Social Security number?

[Character Assassin]

37. Two words: fuck no.

Why on earth would you ever even consider giving the gov't that sort of power?

Where would you be able to justify it in the Constitution?

[Liberal Classic]

41. Vulgar, but highly accurate

You have my vote for most succinct rejection. Thank you.

[Character Assassin]

43. One word: Welcome

As in, "you're".

The fact that not everyone here is viscerally opposed to this is both predictable and dangerous.

Double-plus bad, as it were.

[RoeBear]

45. What power are you referring to?

"Where would you be able to justify it in the Constitution?"

Where would I be able to justify just about anything in the Constitution? LOL

[Liberal Classic]

47. Good point

But one that seems lost on a great majority of people unfortunately.

[Character Assassin]

48. That's the point: it's not there. Not that that makes any difference

to the fans around here, and there are plenty, of completely unfettered expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal gov't, but it's still good to point it out.

[iverglas]

52. name two

If you'd be so kind.

[Character Assassin]

55. Oh, I think I'll let you make your own call on this one, Ace.

Get thee hence to GD and absord the love of mother gov't. It's really hard to miss.

[Ergotron]

60. Are you being serious?

Would you willingly step up and surrender your DNA to the government, to use as they wish?