"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
From the article:
During the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky stood out a bit when he cited America’s second president.
It came during a heated exchange with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about how much government intrusiveness was needed to keep Americans safe from terrorism.
"I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans," said Paul, who has been a leading voice in his party for privacy from government intrusion. "The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence, and I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights, and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights."
During the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky stood out a bit when he cited America’s second president.
It came during a heated exchange with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about how much government intrusiveness was needed to keep Americans safe from terrorism.
"I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans," said Paul, who has been a leading voice in his party for privacy from government intrusion. "The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence, and I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights, and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights."
My point, however, is that I was promised that my health records were not to be examined by anyone but the physicians that provided treatment to me, so where did this letter come from? I know my doctor didn't take the time to report on my non-compliance with unnecessary tests, procedures, and counseling, so I can only conclude that a non-physician produced the letter, with the help of a computer program that scanned my medical records looking for compliance.
Truth is the rarest element to be found in government, and the larger the government becomes, and the more power it is granted, the rarer that scare element becomes. The biggest abusers of government power are the unelected mandarins within the agencies, ruling their fiefdoms with total disregard for those affected by their decisions. I see the election of any head of state who is ready to destroy those fiefdoms by wholesale mass reduction of personnel as the only hope of preventing the total loss of our dignity and privacy.
On the tour, I had the great privilege of getting Otis' name badge. Thus the story in Boston is exactly as Rand Paul told it.
Christy using the excuse of protecting the American People, allows the massacre of the 4th Amendment. His failure to respond to Paul's accusations labels him as a dictator waiting in the wings. We already have a violator of the Constitution in office. We don't need another.
At least some of today's controversial police actions are much more wrong on the part of the police. But we must resist the black people's narratives that say (1) all or most abuses by police are aimed only at them, and (2) justified killings such as those of Martin and Brown should be lumped in with the unjustified killings.
If lower-class black people get to "own" this movement of resistance, their eventual revolution, if successful, will make things a lot worse, not better.
[Lecture given at The Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on April 19, 1964. Published in The Objectivist Newsletter, August 1964.]
"[A]lthough the political aspects of Atlas Shrugged are not its central theme nor its main purpose, my attitude toward these aspects—during the years of writing the novel—was contained in a brief rule I had set for myself: 'The purpose of this book is to prevent itself from becoming prophetic.'"
...
"The political aspects of Atlas Shrugged are not its theme, but one of the consequences of its theme. The theme is: the role o! the mind in man's existence and, as a corollary, the presentation of a new code of ethics—the morality of rational self-interest."
...
"The story of Atlas Shrugged shows what happens to the world when the men of the mind—the originators and innovators in every line of rational endeavor—go on strike and vanish, in protest against an altruist-collectivist society."
"The story of Atlas Shrugged presents the conflict of two fundamental antagonists, two opposite schools of philosophy, or two opposite attitudes toward life. As a brief means of identification, I shall call them the "reason-individualism-capitalism axis" versus the "mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis." The story demonstrates that the basic conflict of our age is not merely political or economic, but moral and philosophical—that the dominant philosophy of our age is a virulent revolt against reason—that the so-called redistribution of wealth is only a superficial manifestation of the mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis—that the real nature and deepest, ultimate meaning of that axis is anti-man, anti-mind, anti-life."
As I posted recently to FB:
If somebody busts into a house in the middle of the night without presenting a warrant and gets shot, they are not a hero or a victim of anything. The entire purpose of getting a warrant is to present a warrant. A warrant that authorizes its own non-presentation violates both the spirit and the letter of the 4th amendment.
It's like the Seinfeld bit about the car rental agency. You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to keep it. And keeping it is the most important part of the reservation.
Except in this case, the police know how to obtain the warrant, they just don't seem to know how to present it. And presenting it is the entire purpose of the warrant.
Directive 10-289 is coming unless we stop this erosion of our Constitution.
Gotta get with the times you are arguing history.
In any case, we have not only to be cautious about the government checking our information without warrants, but Win. 10, if users do NOT go in and turn off all the default settings which allow sharing of a lot of information. People are making it easy for information to be taken from them.
He is another "lesser of two evils" primary election candidate I would refuse to vote for as well as Sir Jeb of the Royal House of Bush.
Poltifact may be right - "mostly true" - but quoting John Adams alone does not express the entire range of ideas and sentiments among the founders. As in another discussion here about "Libraries of the Founders" John Dickinson refused to sign the Declaration, though he did later serve in three capacities as a soldier in the Revolution. So, it is important not to over-generalize from a single instance. That said, I believe that if any one complaint enunciated the essence of the revolt, it was the quartering of troops in private homes, a direct violation of the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Moreover, those men, and John Adams among the leaders, wrote thousands of words - in some cases a million - over decades of their lives. Like Rand Paul in an televised debate, what was a passing observation or suggested opinion and what was the deepest faith depends on the breadth and depth of context across and along the lifetime of the author.
Paul Revere's ride (and others by different routes that arrived much later) from Boston was to confirm that the British had left Boston for Concord. He arrived in Lexington before the British did and continued on to Concord with two others, Prescott and Dawes, who knew the local woods. Prescott lived in Concord. All three were confronted by British in Lincoln (between Lexington and Concord) but got away. Prescott was the first to escape, not being captured at all, and continued to Concord to deliver the news of the British forces on the way. They heard the volley of shots in Lexington, but didn't know the details.
There are several dramatic stories published on the battle at Lexington and Concord, but two excellent scholarly accounts are:
Frank Warren Coburn, The Battle of April 19, 1775 in Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Arlington, Cambridge, Somerville and Charlestown, Massachusetts, 1912 and
Allen French, The Day of Concord and Lexington, 1925.
The minutemen at the North Bridge knew of casualties at Lexington and thought their homes in the town were being burned (the smoke came from "bonfires of military stores"). That was the trigger that caused them to start down the hill from the Buttrick farm towards the British on the other side of the bridge, required to get into the town to defend it. After a volley of fire from the British wounding one minuteman came the command: "Fire, for God's sake, fire".
Lexington and Concord have been arguing over where the war started ever since. But it was all one event with the British escalation of marching out to Lexington and Concord to capture leaders and destroy military supplies. The minutemen had known they were coming and were prepared for it (many of the supplies had already been hidden), but didn't know when until the Paul Revere alert. The result, in some form, had been inevitable before the British left Boston.
According to the historical record the "bloodshed" at Lexington occurred about 5AM. The battle at the North Bridge in Concord occurred between 9 and 10AM, 4 to 5 hours later. The minutemen consisted of well-organized companies from the numerous surrounding towns, which descended on Concord after having been alerted, according to plan. They were not "passive observers" and their preparations and actions were not "irrelevant to the start of the war". Several companies took positions and maneuvered on the hillside at the Buttrick farm overlooking the North Bridge, almost 500 men total. Sixty two of them were from Lincoln, the town between Lexington and Concord, and they did know that there had been "bloodshed" at Lexington.
The British did not turn back after Lexington because the plan was to go to Concord as the main objective and they had not been stopped at Lexington by Captain Parker's band of 60-70 men against 300-400 British. The British went through, and had planned to go through, Lexington on the way to Concord. The First and Second Provincial Congresses had just been held in Concord. The last meeting before the battle had just adjourned 4 days earlier. Concord was the center of revolutionary activity and organizing. The British hoped to capture leaders like John Hancock, President of the Provincial Congress, in Lexington, but were headed to Concord, where the main supplies were stored and where they especially hoped to capture Colonel Barret, the local head of the minutemen.
That is why the Revolution began at the North Bridge in Concord when it did, as a result of the British escalation marching on Concord -- and the preparations and courage of those fought back despite their lack of military experience.
The more detailed discussion of the historical events resulted from the incorrect assertions you insisted on in your own responses.
Between 9 and 10 AM Major Buttrick and Captain Davis, seeing smoke rising from the vicinity of the town and knowing what had happened at Lexington, advised that they should "march into the middle of the town for its defence, or die in the attempt". "Colonel Barret then gave the order to Major Buttrick to lead an advance over the Bridge and to the centre of town", but "not to fire unless fired upon".
The company leading the advance towards the bridge was one of three companies from Acton, led by Captain Isaac Davis. They were not "passive observers" and their preparations were not "irrelevant to the start of the war". They were advancing on the British over the bridge.
The first volley from the British slightly wounded Luther Blanchard, the fifer from the lead Acton company, then very near the Bridge. That is when Major Buttrick gave the order to fire on the British. The names of all 38 men in Davis' company as well as the other companies are recorded. The opening volley against the British killed one private and wounded Lieutenants Hull, Gould, Kelly, and Sutherland, and several other British soldiers.
The British responded to the fire, killing Captain Davis and Abner Hosmer of the lead Acton company and wounding Davis' brother Ezekiel and another private, and Joshua Brooks of the Lincoln company. There were additional causualties before the British retreated back into the town. The two British who were killed at the bridge, one immediately and the other quickly after, are still buried there. (The annual Patriot's Day celebration in Concord every April 19, now with political correctness, gives equal time to the British.)
These wonderful thinkers wrote in abstractions.
They realized human nature would eventually take over the government and the Bill of Rights was written so that citizens would be free from an overbearing, problem-creating government.
Hopefully, Rand has some impact in the area of abstractions and can "dumb it down" for the average citizen.
The problem is that the voting populace needs to have it articulated in simple terms such as: Think about how you would live in a society where there was no internet and no electricity.
Now: Think about how the government could suddenly make that happen without your knowledge not permission.
THAT is an abstraction upon an abstraction.
Based upon what our government actually is doing it isn't such a remote and non-personal possibility.
Something as simple as having on board books such as Emergency Navigation seems to escape a lot of people these days. So my opinion of them is "you cared so little for your lives why should we risk ours now that you are in trouble."
The nice thing about living in an area with on again off again internet reminds me I can look out the window for a weather report, look down the street for a traffic report and as for the rest of it there's not much of real importance.
I'm sure I would miss my occasional Amazon orders far far more than anything the news has to offer. Preceded or followed by instant research. But it augments not replaces any decent library if there is such a thing any more.
As for our permission? When was that made a requirement? Certainly not since the 1930's for broadcast information such as tv and radio or just communication such as cell phones.
As far as electricity is concerned I flip two switches and change to full solar and wind generated electricity. then think of what I should cook in the little freezer unit which is going to take 24 to 72 hours to thaw out anyway.
If you can't say the same thing the next move is knees on floor hands clasped and lots of intense supplications Who knows it might work?
That is basically how I think.
Use your mind...or perish.
It's pretty clear that the first amendment is intended to restrict congress (the federal government). Private army issues are a civil matter with potential criminal implications. These are left to the state. Consider the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I think that's pretty clear.
Therefore, any store owner that puts up a sign forbidding me from keeping or bearing arms is violating my 2nd amendment rights.
Your example is not "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights". You also ignore the topic of this discussion, which is the 4th amendment, not the 1st or the 10th.
You are going to ignore the text of the rest of the bill of rights ? Sorry, not rational or convincing. If you want to say SOME of the bill of rights specifically restrict government, while others are broader and protect rights against all, then I would agree. ;^)
You are going to ignore the text of the rest of the bill of rights ? Sorry, not rational or convincing. If you want to say SOME of the bill of rights specifically restrict government, while others are broader and protect rights against all, then I would agree. ;^)