Bingo... Your freedom of religion ends where the rights of children begin.Kmarion wrote:
And what of the rights of exploited children? I wish things were perfect, but a little visit in exchange for tremendous freedom is hardly destroying the bill of rights.SenorToenails wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Heh... well, I'm not advocating watching people 24/7. I support the inspections idea. There has to be a compromise here for the sake of order.Bill of Rights wrote:
AAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!! THE AGONY!!!
nowhere. it was introduced in the 60's by the supreme court.God Save the Queen wrote:
wish I knew where it said in the first ten amendments anywhere about a right to privacy.
Who needs to get visited? All parents? Or just those of religious groups?Kmarion wrote:
And what of the rights of exploited children? I wish things were perfect, but a little visit in exchange for tremendous freedom is hardly destroying the bill of rights.
Seriously, how many children are put at risk due to 'cults' compared to the number at risk in regular families?
That died a long time ago. The right to privacy is almost as obsolete as the 3/5 of a vote clause that was repealed.God Save the Queen wrote:
wish I knew where it said in the first ten amendments anywhere about a right to privacy.
Right next to where it says your rights may not infringe on another persons rights.S.Lythberg wrote:
nowhere. it was introduced in the 60's by the supreme court.God Save the Queen wrote:
wish I knew where it said in the first ten amendments anywhere about a right to privacy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
talking about the bill of rights, not modern judicial interpretations. bill o' rights. 1st 10 amendments. Even then, it is not written anywhere in the constitutuion, it its implied through the contemporary courts. that could change in the future as we see today.SenorToenails wrote:
Who needs to get visited? All parents? Or just those of religious groups?Kmarion wrote:
And what of the rights of exploited children? I wish things were perfect, but a little visit in exchange for tremendous freedom is hardly destroying the bill of rights.
Seriously, how many children are put at risk due to 'cults' compared to the number at risk in regular families?
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-05-29 20:11:33)
As far as I know regular families get visits also. Britney Spears much?SenorToenails wrote:
Who needs to get visited? All parents? Or just those of religious groups?Kmarion wrote:
And what of the rights of exploited children? I wish things were perfect, but a little visit in exchange for tremendous freedom is hardly destroying the bill of rights.
Seriously, how many children are put at risk due to 'cults' compared to the number at risk in regular families?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We don't know, actually, because the inspections aren't being made in these isolated communities.SenorToenails wrote:
Who needs to get visited? All parents? Or just those of religious groups?Kmarion wrote:
And what of the rights of exploited children? I wish things were perfect, but a little visit in exchange for tremendous freedom is hardly destroying the bill of rights.
Seriously, how many children are put at risk due to 'cults' compared to the number at risk in regular families?
We do have inspections for families that are at risk in mainstream society -- it's called social work.
Doesn't that operate on a basis of complaints? Not random visitations?Kmarion wrote:
As far as I know regular families get visits also. Britney Spears much?
from the Goverment?God Save the Queen wrote:
wish I knew where it said in the first ten amendments anywhere about a right to privacy.
4th amendment
from other citizens?
nowhere
Pretty much, but it shouldn't be hard to see why the system would have to be different with isolated cults.SenorToenails wrote:
Doesn't that operate on a basis of complaints? Not random visitations?Kmarion wrote:
As far as I know regular families get visits also. Britney Spears much?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Reciprocity wrote:
from the Goverment?God Save the Queen wrote:
wish I knew where it said in the first ten amendments anywhere about a right to privacy.
4th amendment
from other citizens?
nowhere
thats left for the court's interpretation.
Indeed it is... and the scariest part is how there is no right to privacy from corporations. Credit agencies violate our privacy more than any other group when they sell our information to others.God Save the Queen wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Reciprocity wrote:
from the Goverment?God Save the Queen wrote:
wish I knew where it said in the first ten amendments anywhere about a right to privacy.
4th amendment
from other citizens?
nowhere
thats left for the court's interpretation.
4th amendment says bench warrants are unconstitutional too.Turquoise wrote:
Indeed it is... and the scariest part is how there is no right to privacy from corporations. Credit agencies violate our privacy more than any other group when they sell our information to others.God Save the Queen wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Reciprocity wrote:
from the Goverment?
4th amendment
from other citizens?
nowhere
thats left for the court's interpretation.
Not just complaint.. suspicion. I'd say hiding from the majority of society is suspicious.SenorToenails wrote:
Doesn't that operate on a basis of complaints? Not random visitations?Kmarion wrote:
As far as I know regular families get visits also. Britney Spears much?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
as well as the 9th and 10th amendments.God Save the Queen wrote:
thats left for the court's interpretation.
One of the funtions of the court system is interpreting laws. It's sorta their job.
If that's true, then that must be the most overlooked interpretation ever.God Save the Queen wrote:
4th amendment says bench warrants are unconstitutional too.Turquoise wrote:
Indeed it is... and the scariest part is how there is no right to privacy from corporations. Credit agencies violate our privacy more than any other group when they sell our information to others.God Save the Queen wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
thats left for the court's interpretation.
The State constitution takes precedence here I think. Of course it can be appealed up.
Edit: referring to interpretation.
Edit: referring to interpretation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Indeed. I still don't like it...but I don't run things.Kmarion wrote:
Not just complaint.. suspicion. I'd say hiding from the majority of society is suspicious.