Bill of Rights - How many remain intact?

[justice4all]

It's spelled "eminent", not "imminent" domain.

 

[braindead0]

Imminent domain" is a legal way that a governmental body (fed, state, or local) obtains land owned by a citizen in order to build pubilc works. Usually, this means that a gov't will condemn the land and then offer the landowner a price (usu. comparable w/ market value) that the landowner must accept or the land would be seized--sort of an "offer that you can't refuse".

And many State and Local governments have used it to steal land from people and give it to private organizations to build malls, pro sport stadiums and the like. None of which are public works by any stretch of the term.

They've all been infringed to one degree or another....

The establishment clause refers to the then common practice of taxing the people to support a particular church ala the Anglican Church in England.

Just like the "Faith based" poop King George is foisting on everyone.

 

[mashaffer]

Not quite

Just like the "Faith based" poop King George is foisting on everyone.

Not quite. The "Faith Based poop" only allows equal (or nearly) equal access to existing grant programs rather than making religion a disqualifying factor. That is it eliminates (or at least reduces) religious discrimination in the grant application process.

 

[voilsb]

seeker_two:
voilsb: S'alright. All our rights are under attack, but just b/c they're not RECOGNIZED doesn't mean that they don't EXIST...

agreed. I accidentally mixed "intact" and "not-infringed." no biggie.

mashaffer:
Actually not taxing churches is an example of amendment 1 being upheld. The power to tax is the power to control or destroy. Allowing the government to tax the church would be an infringement on the free excercise of religion.

The establishment clause refers to the then common practice of taxing the people to support a particular church ala the Anglican Church in England.

didn't know that. I was thinking "establishment of religion" as a noun, rather than a verb. of course, there are many other infringements on the first, so it's a moot point. thanks for that update, which makes a lot of sense in the context you gave.

Ian:
Frankly, I believe that the Supreme Court would happily shred any amendment if the existance of a major government power was at stake.

I definately agree. I think it's a sad situation, although I definately agree that it is the case.

 

[Dash Riprock]

The sixth amendment is pretty well toast also, at least the part about public trials. The government now has the right to conduct trials for suspected terrorists in secret courts.

King Henry VII started a court like that back in Merry Olde England. It was called the Court of the Star Chamber. They could take jurisdiction over any case they wanted to, they met in secret, and they answered only to the Crown.

It was started with the best of intentions; it was a way to curb the abuses of members of the baronage who never would have been brought to justice in an ordinary court. It soon devolved into a convenient way for the government to get rid of people that they could not otherwise convict. How much does anybody want to bet that our terrorism courts follow the same pattern?