can you give me some examples?
2007-08-06 18:27:56 · 8 answers · asked by me 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The proess of doing things slowly -- bit by bit.
In honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.
Then they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.
Then they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.
Then they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.
Then they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.
Then they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.
Then they came for the 5th Amendment, ...... and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
2007-08-06 18:29:56 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Example: slowly denying the right to habeas corpus to a small segment of the population as a prelude to destroying the great writ entirely. If the government can convince us that it's ok to deny the right to challenge confinement to people in Guantanamo Bay, for instance, then after a while it will be able to convince us that it's ok to do so to 'suspicious' Americans at home.
Hardwoodrods: That's funny, I don't remember the part of the Declaration of Independence that said, "All American citizens are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We'll make a deal. YOU find the part of the Constitution that says the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens, and I'll telepathically stop you from getting cancer. Deal? Deal!
2007-08-06 18:31:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Basically, it amounts to losing freedom bit by bit. Typically, the argument applies to laws that start by trying to define the grey areas. (E.g. rules against foul language on TV). In these areas, its easy to make an argument that its not really constitutionally protected and that its in everyone's best interest (but it is a restriction on freedom). Then they will move to something a little more restrictive (like compelling reporters to disclose sources) Again, a legitimate argument can be made that its not really encroaching on constitutional rights. The fear is that if you keep on allowing nicks and cuts around the edges, you will soon be allowing intrusions into basic freedoms.
2007-08-06 19:08:09 · answer #3 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Steadily encroaching on liberties!!
Free speech areas.
Broadened Eminent Domain laws.
Warrantless wiretapping.
There's three right there!!
Give in to these and soon they will want to take more!!
We cannot afford to give an inch!!
2007-08-06 18:56:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Losing it bit by bit.
Example- Gun Controll- right to bear arms turns into right to bear most arms turns into right to bear some arms turns into we actually just meant police and military and you get nothing.
2007-08-06 18:29:52 · answer #5 · answered by thetyranyofevilmen 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would suggest finding a new country to move to before that happens while your still allowed to
2007-08-06 18:49:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
gwb decides to listen to your phone calls, you don't care because your not a terrorist so you don't see the need to protect your constituional right
2007-08-06 19:23:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
First they control all the guns, then they take what they want.
Adam, why do the people in Gitmo have rights under the US Constitution? They are not citizens, so no rights.
2007-08-06 18:30:16 · answer #8 · answered by hardwoodrods 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋