Posted: 11/11/2007 12:12:24 PM EDT
|
I thought we might take a minute and go over our rights in both the Georgia Constitution and the Federal Constitution. Not an exhaustive list and I'm not trying to qualify all the exemptions that have come up. Most everyone here has read the Federal Constitution, but when was the last time you read the Georgia Constitution? GA Constitution You have the right… 1. To petition the government for a redress of grievances 2. To Own, Keep and Bear arms (in GA Const the “own” isn’t there) 3. To be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures 4. To a speedy and public trail 5. To trial by Jury of 12 people for felonies and 6 people for misdemeanors 6. To trial in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred 7. To be arraigned 8. To confront witnesses under oath in person 9. To have compulsory process to obtain witnesses 10. To a lawyer 11. To be free from excessive bail 12. To not have excessive fines imposed 13. To not have cruel or unusual punishment imposed 14. To not be forced into involuntary servitude unless you have been duly convicted 15. To vote both in primaries and in general elections provided you are 18 16. To not be deprived of life liberty of property without due process of law 17. To Equal protection under the law 18. To worship God freely without control or interference 19. To speak, write and publish sentiments 20. To peaceable assembly 21. To prosecute or defend yourself and your interests in court 22. To have a copy of your charges and the witnesses of the state 23. To Habeas Corpus (review of sentence) 24. To be free of abuse while under arrest or confinement 25. To only stand trial once fro the same crime 26. That neither banishment nor whipping will be imposed as punishment 27. To not be imprisoned for debt 28. To not have to pay court fees if you win FYI A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, so that the court can determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." |
|
215 Ga. 27; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS v. STREET The Bill of Rights does not confer rights. They are the "shall nots" of what the government, its agents, or those acting under the aegis of its authority, cannot do respecting the enumerated rights of the individual. The Declaration of Independance contained 27 specifications of the wrongs that the English King and Parliament had inflicted upon individuals living in the American Colonies. Magna Carta was a declaration of protest against trespass by government on the rights of individuals, and an affirmation of the natural rights of man so forthrightly set forth more than five hundred years later in the Bill of Rights. Chapter 39 of Magna Carta declared: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold or liberties or free customs or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed; nor shall one go upon him, nor send upon him but by the lawful judgment of his peers or by law of the land." The Bill of Rights preserves the untouchable rights of the individual where in their exercise, no harm or injury results to others or to the public. Coercion or compulsion is the antithesis of freedom or liberty. In the area of choice, support or association of or with the political or economic views of others, the individual has the natural right not only to disagree but to rebel against either regimentation or restraint in the exercise of his own judgment. Mr. Justice Douglas in his dissenting opinion in Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (72 S. Ct. 813, 96 L. Ed. 1068), in discussing the meaning of liberty as used in the Fifth Amendment, said: "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom... Compulsion which comes from circumstances can be as real as compulsion which comes from a command." Certain observations of the late Mr. Justice Jackson, in writing the majority opinion for the court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628), a case involving the constitutionality of rules adopted by a local board of education under authority of a state statute, requiring students in public schools to salute the flag and pledge allegiance to the United States, upon penalty of expulsion for refusal to comply, are worthy of repetition here. In holding that such compulsory action violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Mr. Justice Jackson said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections [at page 638]... Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard [at page 641]... We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent [at page 641]. ... If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us [at page 642]." |
|
Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Did I miss something Malum?  I am more then willing to admit it but just looking at the plain text here the GA Constitution implies ownership but doesn't expressly state it. Granted I don't profess to be a GA constitutional scholar. 
|
 No, I guess not. Maybe I should ask whether the "own" provision is in the Second Amendment?I tend to think "keep" means "own" and "bear" means "carry," but I realize I am hopelessly biased. Maybe I am the one who missed something, as I do not understand the siginificance of your statement in number 2. |
|
I just find it curious that while the United States constitution saw it necessary to codify the right to "own" arms as well as keep them and bear them, Georgia did not. Obviously the U.S. constitution provides the base line standard of rights that no state can drop below, but state constitutions can endow more rights then the U.S. Constitution. Georgia seems to either infer ownership through the substantive rights of keeping and bearing or Georgia only protects those higher rights and relies on the U.S. constitution to regulate and protect the ownership factor. With the constantly eroding federal protection of firearms ownership I find the later hypothesis troubling. If Georgia is dependent on the federal government to define who can own firearms, our rights are tied to public sentiment in Massachusetts and California. However, I don't really want Justice Sears deciding the issue of how to define that clause either... |
Therein lies the foundation of the secession of the south. Perhaps not on firearms particularly, but the premise that the matters of one state could affect the rights of another, and that the politics in one state could influence legislation over all states. |
If I'm keeping them, I am owning them
|
|
To not be imprisoned for debt. I have always wondered how a man can be jailed if he gets behind on child support payments. Jailing someone does nothing to help get money or improve the situation. I am lucky and don't have to worry about these things, but have known others who have really been harassed by the courts at the whim of their ex. |
Me too, those dirt piles in my back yard are nothing but bullet stops, yeah bullet stops. I thought for certain firearm crimes there is banishment from the state? I saw it on a billboard in Atlanta so it must be true! |