Sign the Second Bill of Rights

[ss4699]

http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/act...ction_KEY=4796

Economic security shouldn’t be a privilege only the richest in our country have access to. It should be a right for everyone in the United States.

All of us should have a right to full employment and a living wage, full participation in the electoral process, a voice at work, quality education and a secure, healthy future.

We need to hold politicians accountable for their votes on these issues and make sure they listen to us after November, not just their deep-pocketed donors.

Take action below by signing your name in support of economic rights for all and tell us which issues are most important to you:
We the People want to strengthen our nation, as a beacon of equality, economic opportunity and freedom for all.

We hold these rights—a right to full employment and a living wage, full participation in the electoral process, a voice at work, quality education and a secure, healthy future—to be essential to our vision of America and believe that the principles contained therein should guide our government, business leaders, organizations and individuals in our common goal of a just and fair society.

Email*

ISSUES:
Living Wage

Worker's Rights

Voter Protection

Education

Healthcare

Unemployment

Retirement Security

So what is on your list?? What is important?

[joe bloe]

This is the kind of nonsense that bankrupted Europe. You socialists just never learn. Where do you think the money is going to come from for all the giveaways? We've already got a hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilites.

You people are nuts.

[CuteOldGuy]

The one we have now is fine, if people would pay attention to it. I'm not sure the AFL-CIO is an organization I'd trust to change it.

[Dawgs]

I wouldn't sign that list for anything, that is nothing but pure communistic thought. Where is the desire to excel at anything as long as I am guaranteed a job and retirement. Hell I can hold up a broom as well as the next guy. It'd be like 1960's USSR (Russia for you younguns)

[CuteOldGuy]

The main difference between our original Bill of Rights, and this piece of crap, is that our Founders believed that our rights as people were inherent. We have these rights simply because we exist. They used the phrase "endowed by our Creator" which means they didn't come from a government decision. They exist, because we exist. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, among others, eloquently described in the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution.

These are rights government cannot alienate. (Although they have, illegally). These are areas where the government is not allowed to regulate or interfere, because they emanate from a higher authority - the People themselves (or Our Creator).

We have allowed government to trample these rights, and have sold them these rights in exchange for security. Government, in its ongoing quest for power has accepted these terms, and hands out pittance in exchange for security, while stealing liberty.

It's a shame anyone would think that our Bill of Rights needs an overhaul. That's not the case. It's the ones charged with guarding it that need overhauling.

[joe bloe]

“Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.”


― Norman Vincent Peale

[theaustinescorts]

Uhhhh....I think a guaranteed job and income has been tried, and it was called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Try this one out for size.....

1.No police authority can hold a suspect in jail on any charge lest he first be brought before a Magistrate for Magistration.

2.The right of habeous corpus shall not be infringed by any authority.

3.No authority shall have the right to kill or cause to be killed any citizen of the United States without due process of law.

4.No authority shall deny any citizen the use of his property without due process of law.

5.No law shall be found to be valid in any criminal code if the proscribed behavior possesses no malicious intent, and no intention to bring about harm, injury, or damage to personal property.

NOW THOSE ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS WE DON'T NOW HAVE!!!!!

[UB9IB6]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Uhhhh....I think a guaranteed job and income has been tried, and it was called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Try this one out for size.....

1.No police authority can hold a suspect in jail on any charge lest he first be brought before a Magistrate for Magistration.

2.The right of habeous corpus shall not be infringed by any authority.

3.No authority shall have the right to kill or cause to be killed any citizen of the United States without due process of law.

4.No authority shall deny any citizen the use of his property without due process of law.

5.No law shall be found to be valid in any criminal code if the proscribed behavior possesses no malicious intent, and no intention to bring about harm, injury, or damage to personal property.

NOW THOSE ARE RIGHTS!!!!!!!

#5 is sketchy. "well, when I left the bar drunk.....
I didn't MEAN to kill anyone while driving ."
According to your reasoning, this would be ok?

[CuteOldGuy]

Ostensibly, tae's first four are already rights, even though they are routinely ignored. The fifth one would require a lengthy definition of intent. A person driving drunk, for example, is showing a reckless disregard of the life, liberty and property of others, so that activity is, and well ought to be, prohibited. However, a law against paying money to have a companion engage in certain activities, which would be lawful but for the payment, ought not be a crime.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by UB9IB6

#5 is sketchy. "well, when I left the bar drunk.....
I didn't MEAN to kill anyone while driving ."
According to your reasoning, this would be ok?

If someone kills someone because they are careless or negligent that should be a factor in assessing their punishment. The particular carelessness might be the daydreaming that led a soccer mom in 2005 to run a red light and hit me head-on while I waited at the intersection for the light to change. Why is her carelessness any less significant than that of an intoxicated driver? Yeah I know people are killled and maimed by drunk drivers but people are killed and maimed by drivers thinking about their football team rather than the road.

Carelessness and negligence happen all the time while driving, and there's no reason to wall off the one kind of carelessness of driving while intoxicated and make it a criminal act just because we loath drunkenness.

But the biggest misuse of the criminal codes for social engineering has nothing to do with careless drinking or driving. It has more to do with tax enforcement, insurance requirements, wearing restraints in cars, not showing up for class in High School, not paying a debt like child support, using the wrong size box while packaging imported fish [people are in Federal prison as we speak for that]....and on and on......

In all these cases WE HAVE THE REMEDY OF THE CIVIL LAW....

If the government wants to collect taxes let them sue for them, get a judgement, get a writ and execute it.

But don't throw the guy in prison!

If the state wants to encourage people to put their kids in child seats let them enforce a civil fine for it. Get a judgement and writ and execute it.

But don't throw the parents in prison!

Get the idea....

This is nothing more than STATE TERROR.

[JD Barleycorn]

The biggest load of crap I've seen today.

How do you guarantee anything without taking it from someone else?

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The biggest load of crap I've seen today.

How do you guarantee anything without taking it from someone else?

In case you haven't noticed the US has more people in prison over nothing than any country in the history of the world.

Is that your idea of a free society?

What exactly is being guaranteed by keeping all these people in jail?

Not exactly working is it?

[CuteOldGuy]

We've criminalized mental illness. It's insane.

[theaustinescorts]

By the way....

All five of these planks are rights that everyone used to have under common law, but which have been thrown away in the last hundred years by liberals.

It's the liberals that have done away with five hundred years of common law protections WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS BECAUSE NO ONE EVER DREAMED IN 1800 THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN.

In 1800 it was assumed that no one would, say, allow a police officer or Sheriff to put a man in jail without magistration first.

No one would have ever believed it.

Today any park policeman of any city can throw anyone in jail and it can take days before that poor schmuk even sees a judge.

Today any policeman has the power to incarcerate anyone without process.

"Put that camera away or I'll lock you up.."

"Get off that grass or I'll lock you up.."

"Don't give me any lip about your rights. Turn around you're under arrest."

[theaustinescorts]

The major reason we've lost all the basic rights we used to have began with Lincoln's illegal trashing of the constitution to carry out an invasion of his own country in order to end slavery by revolution because it couldn't be done any other way.

And today most people think it was a grand idea just because the end was noble.

When any country adopts the idea that "the end justifies the means," then there's no way any rights can be salvaged.

At that point the Republic is over.

The same thing happened in Germany after World War I, but they faced real dangers of a communist takeover and other imminent threats.

What real threats has the US ever really faced?

Maybe raids from Mexican bandits a hundred years ago, that was all.