Civil rights

[milk man]

What is the name of your state? Kansas

What are civil rights?

I think our civil rights are spelled out in the Amendments to the constitution. Is that true.

Do we have other rights that are not called Civil rights.

The only reason I ask is because I'm arguing with other people that think seat belt, and smoking laws are eroding our Civil rights.

 

[quincy]

Civil rights are our individual rights of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, and by the Bill of Rights, and by Amendments to the Constitution, and by various legislation (such as the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act).

Civil liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom from government interference or restraint, and refers usually to our freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

None of our rights are absolute and unlimited rights, however. We have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, as one example among numerous others. Other values, in other words, may take priority when there is a conflict of rights.

There are a multitude of laws that regulate our behavior - in fact, most of our nation's laws are statutory. These statutory laws, made by legislatures, are what allow for the existence of seat belt laws and smoking bans. It is when a law seems to violate a constitutional right, however, that courts hear about it .

 

[milk man]

Thank you!

Very good information presented in a manner even I can understand.

Is it okay to make the following statement? We elect representatives that create laws, individuals do not create law. If we do not like these laws then we need to elect other representatives that will change these laws, or challenge them in court.

 

[quincy]

Your statement sounds okay.

Individuals may push, or lobby, for the passage of certain laws (smoking bans, for instance) or for the elimination of certain laws (seat belt laws, for instance), or individuals may even be responsible for the passage of certain laws by personally demonstrating the need for these laws (think Brown v. Board of Education, which was a precursor to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). And individuals can always challenge the constitutionality of a law.

But who we, as individuals, elect will often be the determiner as to what bills get introduced in the legislature, and what bills get buried in subcommittees, what becomes law and what doesn't. That is why it is important to know, not only what candidates for office say during a campaign but, more importantly, what they believe - which is often indicated by their past voting records on various issues, or how they live their daily lives.

So, yes, by voting for candidates who most closely reflect your beliefs in their own, you hope to have a government that represents you well. It doesn't always turn out that way, however, since "your" candidates don't always win an election, but that is the reason why we continue to vote.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

we do not have a constitutional right to drive, if we want the privilege of driving we have to follow the laws and rules of the roads, including seat belts.

there is no constitutional right to smoke and you have no right to smoke up my air

 

[quincy]

Ahh, but Veronica, who owns the air inside a bar or restaurant? The bar and restaurant property owners, or the state? If the property owners own the land, and the building on that land, doesn't it make sense that they also own the air inside their building that sits on their land? And if they own the air, the state should not be allowed to dictate what is put into that air - whether it be incense, Glade Air Freshener, smoke from a wood-burning fireplace, or cigarette smoke. Right?

 

[milk man]

we do not have a constitutional right to drive, if we want the privilege of driving we have to follow the laws and rules of the roads, including seat belts.

there is no constitutional right to smoke and you have no right to smoke up my air

This is great! 100% agree.

How would you answer the people that insist the government is interfering with their "parental right" of not strapping children into car seats. Unbelievable!

 

[VeronicaLodge]

Ahh, but Veronica, who owns the air inside a bar or restaurant? The bar and restaurant property owners, or the state? If the property owners own the land, and the building on that land, doesn't it make sense that they also own the air inside their building that sits on their land? And if they own the air, the state should not be allowed to dictate what is put into that air - whether it be incense, Glade Air Freshener, smoke from a wood-burning fireplace, or cigarette smoke. Right?

Thats an interesting question but I think I would answer it like this. Obviously the government doesnt make it illegal to smoke in ones own residence so we don't have to address the smoking issue as it pertains to property ownership. However, like the drivers' license, businesses have to have a license to operate and thus rules, laws, and restrictions must be followed in order to obtain that license and run that business. there is no constitutional right to run a business.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

This is great! 100% agree.

How would you answer the people that insist the government is interfering with their "parental right" of not strapping children into car seats. Unbelievable!

I guess that goes a long the lines of protecting the child against negligent parenting? I mean we don't allow parents to assert "constitutional right to parent" when they starve their children, beat them, sexually molest them, etc. right?

 

[quincy]

Veronica -

Your answer to the smoking question is exactly why all states are able to, and many states do, impose bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Ditto for seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.

State licenses, and the laws established to get and keep these licenses.

If you want to drive a car, you must obtain a license, and with this license comes certain conditions and restrictions - you must follow speed laws (which vary by state), you must be sober when driving ("sober" is defined differently in different states), and you must strap your child into a safety seat - all laws passed by legislatures in states as conditions to obtaining a license to drive. If you don't follow the laws that condition this license, you can lose your license. Likewise, if you want to operate a business, you obtain a state license, and with this license comes conditions. Some states have made it a condition to obtaining the license that you do not allow smoking in your business. I believe some states have tried to impose smoking bans in cars, as well - not sure of the success of this however.

We have a very strong bar and restaurant lobby here in Michigan, and they have successfully fought off smoking bans in their establishments so far. The "air" argument is one that I have heard used.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

well here in middle tn, our smoking bans just went into effect on october 1, and my lungs are tummy are glad

 

[>Charlotte<]

Restaurants have long been required to adhere to certain regulations in the interest of public health--such as proper food storage, pest control, etc. The "second-hand smoke" theory seems to fit in with that issue.

 

[blindedbytrust]

Discretionary Constitutional Rights?

It is when a law seems to violate a constitutional right, however, that courts hear about it .

What remedy is there when the court violates a constitutional right?
By attempting to prevent the further abuse and exploitation and possible suicide of a mentally ill friend, I have been denied my rights as a U.S. citizen under the 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Having "reason to believe" that my friend is an endangered adult, I reported him as such to Adult Protective Services, the officials of which determined that my report was unwarranted based on prejudicial opinion instead of reasonable investigation. In response to my ongoing attempt to appeal its decision, APS officials met with the endangered adult in question for the first time 6 months after I had filed my report to influence him to file a petition for an order of protection against me by convincing him that my attempt to help was "stalking." When that did not make me "go away," they attempted to use their positions as well as the office of county prosecutor in an attempt to get me fired from my job. (violations of U.S.C. 18 sections 241, 242, and 245)
I requested a hearing during which I argued that the petitioner is not a reasonable person due to mental illness and his being subjected to an ongoing program of coercive persuasion, that the matter had arisen from my report of adult endangerment and from the misconduct of APS officials, and concurrently filed motions to quash the void ipso facto protective order because it denied me immunity under Indiana code and equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to order an IME of the petitioner/endangered adult.
The judge denied my motions, thereby denying my 6th Amendment right to present exculpatory evidence in support of my defense and ordered that the protective order would remain in full force and effect for 2 years, thereby denying me immunity from all civil and criminal liability arising from my having made a report of adult endangerment in good faith and equal protection under that law under the 14th Amendment.
The judge stated in court that he is a "scientologist" and that he is "brainwashed in the Constitution. Since Scientology doctrine eschews psychiatrists and psychiatry and teaches that those who are deemed "suppressive" to scientology have no rights, he is in direct violation of the Judicial Rules of Conduct, specifically Canon 2(C).
My motions to correct prejudicial error have all been denied.

 

[quincy]

It is not considered proper forum etiquette to "hijack" someone else's thread.

I suggest you re-post this information to get the best responses.

 

[blindedbytrust]

My sincerest apology

I don't post to online discussion forums very often, and I didn't realize that I was doing anything wrong.