Forum - Banjo Ben Clark

Rule of Law - Rights

#1

Please feel free to join if you are interested in this discussion. The reason for this post is multi-fold but mainly for awareness.

In the year beginning, elsewhere I expressed my views on rights in a corporate context with respect to intellectual property. Soon after, the Reddit content moderation case, which is now in the Supreme Court, where a user account was removed, caught my attention, to which I shared my same views.

So, here they are.

  • Individuals have constitutionally protected inalienable rights defined under the First 10 amendments of the US Constitution.
  • Another individual’s right or a group’s collective rights may take precedence, however, over an individual’s right based on gravity of the right or the situation.
  • Corporations do not have rights as such, they only have interests.
  • Corporations are licensed under state laws and governed by state/federal laws.
  • The state enacted laws under which corporations are licensed cannot diminish an individual’s right - neither directly nor by proxy basis. (Per 14th amendment “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”)
  • In order for corporation interest to take precedence over an individual’s right, it should be a compelling interest supported by a narrowly tailored law.
    .
    Now, what is rule of law?
    The law is the Constitution (the supreme law) and all the laws enacted and applied within this Constitution/framework. A rule under this law is rule of law. When a law is outside and enforced, it is rule by law!

With the above in mind, there is no special law required to prevent companies from infringing an individual’s right, particularly upon 1st amendment prohibition of viewpoint discrimination in freedom of speech. (However, Texas and Florida enacted some laws to uphold the first amendment rights. Those are not necessary but are enacted probably to avoid impact I’ll later describe!)

So, this my opinion is not a game changer, this changes things upside down!! People should have the rights by default! The rights lost by people from a corporate 3-card Monte should be back in people’s hands now! :slight_smile:

Not only that, imagine the impact. The liability companies have to face for playing by different rules from flawed thinking that they are not state entities to infringe people’s rights, when SC verdict goes out!

So, how come people would not know or would not act until I have to share this?!

This is the power of resurrection!

#2

That’s not how Earl would do it.

6 Likes
#3

Hi @BanJoe, did I wake you out of your slumber? :wink: OK I will listen to some of Earl’s songs before I’d know how he would do it.

#4

I can’t speak for everyone, but at least a few of us, and definitely me, come here to escape the constant barrage of politics that inundate us on all other social media platforms.

So if you find engagement on this post rather light, that’s probably why.

8 Likes
#5

@JohnM I come here for banjo, fun and social banter not for politics. This is a great friendly forum, please keep it free from politics @BanjoBen

3 Likes
#6

Where is politics here, @Mark_Rocka and @Archie? My post is about people’s rights and laws. Let’s keep it to that subject, and not introduce politics by commenting outside of it.

Btw, anything can be made out to be politics. Remember, the discussion on fingernail growth size for picking here a few years ago. There was politics on that discussion too!

#7

Probably the part where the entire post is about the government and constitution… :rofl:

5 Likes
#8

@JohnM If you can’t see it, then you can’t see it. We can and this is NOT the place for it.

1 Like
#9

@Mason_Crone, haha… But it is not about current, past or about future government administration. It is about Constitution that was before the government and the guard rails it provides for a government administration. :slight_smile: It is for your rights and everyone else’s here too!

#10

@Archie, are you suggesting courts are playing politics?? Maybe in the past but not anymore. Because on right related issues, Constitutionality is black and white. Either the matter is constitutional or unconstitutional. Privately (not publicly) I suggested the Justices who give dissenting opinion in a right related matter should be scrutinized and removed for violating the Constitutional oath that they have taken. “They will pack the Court; we will pack the Justices” was what I said. This was snooped upon and taken note. Now, you see mostly unanimous decisions on things involving rights on the Supreme Court! So judgments, courts should be above politics, as this thread/post is! :slight_smile:

#11

@JohnM I have said all I am going to say. I am done with this!

1 Like
#12

John, it seems like you’re trying to force a conversation. I have no problem if others want to engage with you on this. I was simply trying to let you know you may not get much engagement and why. Take that any way you want.

3 Likes
#13

Understood, Mark! No worries. Since it is a legal matter/discussion, many would be hesitant to offer their opinions without proper understanding of law. I know you and a few others would usually share some thoughts. We will see who would be interested in joining on the subject matter.

#14

Don’t confuse an unwillingness to participate with a lack of knowledge. As I said, many of us come here to get away from this type of stuff.

2 Likes
#15

Some here have expressed their lack of understanding of law and hence my statement. And I do not want to read too much into why someone would not participate. But SC is deliberating, and I think we will know the outcome soon. But why would and no one should feel forced though.

#16

I don’t agree. The wording of many of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are far from black and white. An example would be the 4th amendments protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. What is reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another.

#17

@Scot, that’s how people (some Judges/legal experts) obfuscate matter to introduce politics and write their dissent/opinion. That is exactly what is getting exposed now! What is reasonable or not is universally understandable and acceptable. What it requires to understand what is reasonable is good and clear conscience. Of course, both sides (all sides) would claim of good and clear conscience. But a time
test (Proverbs 12:19) would reveal which side has (or had) it. In free exchange of ideas, this will come to light easily and quickly. And if you dig a little deeper, you can easily find out envy and greed is the root of such obfuscation.

Let me ask this. If everyone can make it up as they go, what good is a Constitutional oath?

So, what I say can be proved though. Take some SC verdict on right related matters and scrutinize the dissent. It is going to be embarrassing for the Judges and to the legal experts! If the judges are holding office, it is going to put pressure on them - to either amend or to leave office.

Or you provide a specific instance of search and seizure. It would not require much think through, and a good conscience would be able to tell it is reasonable or not. Arguments can then be added to support the decision for the world to see whether it was really reasonable or not!

#18

It appears a unanimous decision on a right issue on SC today/yesterday! That is good!

For law institutions… Only originalism should be used for constitutional interpretation! As otherwise, keeping a flexible goal post (non-originalism) is no goal post at all. But of course, application for a given situation/context could use a different meaning (than what the text says) to produce substantive results, which is still within framer’s intent and Constitution. But if it would be without and cannot be accommodated (no reason why not), then constitution should be amended and applied.

#19

However, some argue originalism can struggle with issues unforeseen by the framers. For example, how do you apply the Constitution to the internet, something they couldn’t have imagined? In those cases, some believe considering evolving societal values is necessary.

Perhaps the key is finding a balance

#20

@sandi.bike1,

Good question and I have faced this before.

People lack the vision and understanding the framers had and hence the problem today! Keep in mind, constitution is truth-based, therefore it does NOT evolve! At most it would require some adjustments to handle any deviation from truth if any.

Framer’s intent is the spirit of the Constitution. Interpreting with that spirit is what is originalism.

When so, in what way interpreting it in a way other than intended would be justifiable? What is corruption If that is not corruption? Who are held accountable for such corruption of the constitution via alternate interpreting principles?

Laying out the spirit in letter has limitations, and thus it is possible the constitution left out what was intended or included what was not intended. Those are the judges’ duty and the case laws are to clarify such things.

Now, if there is omission or commission in the Framer’s intent (i.e. commission or omission on the spirit and not on the letter of the constitution), it is deviation from truth. Add or remove such intent via the amendment process!

Framers do not need to have foreseen the future. But they have understood what the people’s (God given) rights are and how those should be protected. So, they have conveyed it via the constitution which acts as a framework or guardrail! The constitution does not go and define every detail like with internet communication. But in what way, constitution is a barrier to the internet? It may be a barrier to a business but not to the people! Legislate law and regulate internet so it fits within the constitution! I remember seeing proposals and diagrams and how data could be stored locally, privately and securely for internet communications! Find out and enforce such solutions and be in compliance! Or face the music! :slight_smile:

Make sense?