Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

Steven Champeon wrote:


> I'm confused. So, freedom depends on your right to be an *anonymous*,
> drunken, child abusing danger to yourself and others, in public? 
>
>    "Based on a report from a witness, Hiibel was suspected of hitting
>     his daughter, who was inside the truck. Hiibel also was suspected of
>     driving under the influence of alcohol, based on his eyes,
>     mannerisms, speech and the smell of alcohol."
>
> Mmmm...oKay.

Nice spin attempt Steve.  In truth, it was Mr. Hiibels daughter that hit
him, and he wasn't driving drunk, nor posing a danger to himself
or anybody else.


> The Constitution doesn't grant you the
> right to remain silent, either, according to this:
>
>  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20021209.html
>
> Now, we probably /should/ have that right, but it's not clear that we
> do, or that we ever did. 

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, and it never did.  We would have
exactly the same rights, even if there were no Constitution or Bill of
Rights.  All the Constitution does is explicitly guarantee certain 
rights that were deemed especially important.

As I understand it, a large part of controversy over adding the Bill
of Rights was the idea that if such a thing were added, it might be
interpreted as a list of the ONLY rights of the people...  hence the
inclusion of the 10th Amendment...

Sadly, as we can see from your response, many people ARE under the
mistaken impression that the Constitution grants rights, and that if
it's not listed in the BoR, we don't have it.


TTYL,

Phil
--
When the 1st Amendment no longer protects your voice.
And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your stuff.
Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives 
that enough is enough.
It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.

FREE AMERICA
Vote Libertarian
www.lp.org