h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And it is worth remembering that it's never simply ongoing upward progress. There are setbacks, and swings of the pendulum.

The Prop. 8 court decision was interesting. It seems the current legal ruling is that once marriage equality has been granted, it cannot be rescinded, which is a remarkably narrow finding, applying only to California. (That one's not got to the Supreme Court yet.)

There are other court cases on DOMA. The outlook for gay rights in the USA is fairly bright in the medium term. (By contrast, the fight for trans* rights still has a long way to go.)

TRiG.

<>

That is because we do not hsve a written constitution, our laws are regularly tested through the courts and it is not uncommon for senior ministers to get a good kicking from the law lords and this has been the case regarding the detention without trial of terrorist suspects where the successive governments have been forced to back-down by our independent judiciary.

Are you comfortable with the way in which your Sempreme Court judges are choosen?

"We haven't lost all our rights. We have many rights that our ancestors did not have 100 years ago. The Constitution was not repealed. The Bill of Rights is still intact. The Supreme Court still strikes down bills that it considers unconstitutional. "

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't worth the paper they're printed on if your government grants itself the right, at whim, to imprison you without charge or trial for as long as it likes.

They've deemed that legal. While that's the case, any "rights" you may think you have are an illusion. In what sense can you be said to have the "right" to, say, free speech, if your government can lock you away forever without a trial if they don't like the look of you?

It gets worse- the House has unanimously passed another law intended to deprive US citizens of our rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

HR 347 will make it a Federal offense for protestors to gather anywhere near any political function, or any other function where Secret Service are present. It will be a Federal offense for striking Federal employees to walk picket lines. It will be illegal to be there regardless of whether the public has been informed that any protected individual is present. And don't forget that most former heads of state are afforded Secret Service protection for life.

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

*Almost* unanimously.



~*~Are you comfortable with the way in which your Sempreme Court judges are choosen?~*~

It's worked quite well for the last 200 years, so yes.



~*~The Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't worth the paper they're printed on if your government grants itself the right, at whim, to imprison you without charge or trial for as long as it likes.~*~

And I maintain that if they attempted such a thing unjustly they would be thrown out of office. And I further maintain that if they tried to order our military to "pacify" the population, for example, that same military would turn around and shoot them. But it would never come to that anyway.



~*~In what sense can you be said to have the "right" to, say, free speech, if your government can lock you away forever without a trial if they don't like the look of you?~*~

It can't. It wouldn't be /allowed/ to happen.

Let me explain something to you: to the American mind, the "rights" that are outlined in the Declaration and the Constitution aren't considered to be benevolent gifts from the government when it chooses to provide them. They're birthrights that everyone, everywhere, is entitled to. And if said government tries to suppress those rights it deserves to be, and will be, ripped apart and replaced. First through peaceful means, then, if that should prove inadequate, violently if need be.

Well said, Mister X.
That's the America I've been missing!


Now I have to ask who you'll be voting for.

You don't have to tell me of course because
you have the right to remain silent.

No, actually it's still for the very good reason
that a secret ballot is a necessary evil being the
lesser of what would happen if people knew who
you voted for and wanted to show their disapproval.


~jwf~

"~*~In what sense can you be said to have the "right" to, say, free speech, if your government can lock you away forever without a trial if they don't like the look of you?~*~

It can't. It wouldn't be /allowed/ to happen."

Is this thing on? It's *already happened*. OK, not "forever". But you've already had at least one US citizen interned for years without charge or trial, and nobody seemed to mind. Of course, the people getting locked up aren't rich or white, so...

"to the American mind, the "rights" that are outlined in the Declaration and the Constitution aren't considered to be benevolent gifts from the government when it chooses to provide them. They're birthrights that everyone, everywhere, is entitled to"

Could you tell me how many years elapsed between the writing of the Constitution, and the year when women were benevolently gifted the right to vote?

Also, could you tell me how many years later the government made it illegal to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or colour?

~*~Could you tell me how many years elapsed between the writing of the Constitution, and the year when women were benevolently gifted the right to vote?~*~

140, give or take. And, in line with my argument, it wasn't "given" to them, they took it.



~*~Also, could you tell me how many years later the government made it illegal to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or colour?~*~

On paper it was in 1865. In practice about another 50-80ish years after that, depending on which state you were in.

I have no interest in defending the crimes of the past, so you need not bring them up. It's irrelevant now, anyway. What matters is how people /today/ will react.

">>Also, could you tell me how many years later the government made it illegal to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or colour?~*~

>On paper it was in 1865. In practice about another 50-80ish years after that, depending on which state you were in."

Incorrect, I'm afraid. Correct about the "on paper" 1865.

But the voting rights act, which actually made it illegal to discriminate was not 50-80ish years later, but exactly one hundred. A whole century between pretending to benevolently give some citizens the same rights as everyone else, and actually delivering what was promised.

"It's irrelevant now, anyway. What matters is how people /today/ will react"

It's relevant that your Constitution is not the unchanging infallible guarantor of universal inalienable rights you make it out to be. Never has been, never will be.

And as for how people today will react, my guess is that just so long as the US citizens getting locked up without charge or trial have names that are hard to pronounce with lots of Q's and K's in them, the average US citizen's reaction to the removal of their rights will be "Good.".

I never said it was.

Believe what you want. Time will prove which of us is right.

"But you've already had at least one US citizen interned for years without charge or trial, and nobody seemed to mind. " [Hoovooloo]

To be honest, I hadn't heard about that until it was brought up in this thread. The political problem for the people interned at Guantanamo Bay is that the U.S. government can't proceed with trials for them without blowing the cover of the intelligence sources that they need to use in order to try them. For the record, I was *never* in favor of having them locked up without trials, whatever their citizenship status was. I don't even know if this problem can ever be solved. The little that I do know about it is that lawyers have been busy trying to get justice for them. President Obama went into office with the intention of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility. Then he was blindsided by an intensely hostile Congress dominated by the so-called "Tea Party" people.

"Could you tell me how many years elapsed between the writing of the Constitution, and the year when women were benevolently gifted the right to vote? Also, could you tell me how many years later the government made it illegal to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or colour"

How likely is it that the citizens of *any* country would put in the hard work of changing their government for the better if they were met, every time, by lectures about how little their efforts mattered?
After awhile, many (perhaps most) of them would give up. What we have is a long history of looking at the Constitution and trying to see ways in which we could do a better job of making it work for people.

The tenor of your argument is rather platonic. There is a perfect government somewhere, and as long as we fail to attain it in even one small particular, we are no good. I'm not coming from that point of view, as it is too close to theology for my liking. I read the Constitution when I was a freshman in high school. I took a course in American history. If there are any lawyers reading this thread, I would gladly defer to their expertise. I doubt that they would have any good reason to join us, though. We are not a deliberative body here. Nothing that we decide will have the force of law.

"you've already had at least one US citizen interned for years without charge or trial, and nobody seemed to mind. " [Hoovooloo]

To be honest, I hadn't heard about that until it was brought up in this thread. "

Doesn't that worry you? That you, an intelligent, apparently engaged individual, were unaware that this had even happened?

Doesn't it make you question how many other times it might have happened, that *I* don't know about so I can't tell you about it?

And don't you think that now that it's explicitly legal to do it at the drop of a hat it's probably going to happen more often, not less?

Hey SoRB- as you stand in the doorway of your crystal palace, be sure not to hit any black boys on mopeds with your first stone. Or anyone wearing a scarf.

>>> At this point, do any of you now wish you'd protested harder (or at all) against what was being done at Guantanamo Bay?

Hoovooloo, what makes you think we weren't and aren't protesting? Just because it isn't covered by corporate controlled media doesn't mean it isn't happening.

The Screwtape Dialogue, part I, 2012

"Bad news, Sir.The Americans have just made another improvement to
their system of government."

"Don't tell me, let me guess. Another state allows gay marriage now?"

"Yes, that's it. How did you guess?"

"It's my profound understanding of human nature. Listen, any time the Americans -- or any other nationality -- grants more rights or perfects the ones they already have, we can slam them by pointing to how wretched they were *before* they made improvements. Let the world think we're intellectually dishonest, or narcissistic, or even solipsistic. At the end of the day, most humans are basically lazy."

"How so, Sir?"

"The Americans have rights that they hardly ever use. Even in presidential elections, it's all too common for 40 to 60% of the voters to stay home. Another right is the right not to endure cruel or unusual punishment. Heck, with plea bargaining the way it is,
all too often there are ways to avoid most punishment altogether."

"What if you're an American who is held indefinitely without a trial?"

"That would be good for our cause, especially if the American involved didn't even *realise* that he was being denied a right that he was entitled to. In any event, some publishing company could offer him a book deal and make a fortune based on his right to a free press. Or, Michael Moore could make a documentry about him. There's always *somebody* around who enjoys being a nuisance, and getting well-paid for doing it. I love it when people use their
constitutional rights to get rich."