Are our rights as U.S. Citizens fading away?


We have many rights as defined in the Constitution but an increasing number of court cases flooding our judicial system raise this question. I have a high regard for the judicial system we have in this country but there have been cases, some of which have been overturned concerning our rights we have as citizens. I have no problem with individuals filing cases within our judicial system but there have been many examples where the cases filed attack the very rights and privileges we have come to expect.

We are a nation of multiple ethnic backgrounds and beliefs and the fact that we have survived as a country with this diversity says much about the character of the citizens and the country. Today it seems that anyone can file a lawsuit simply for the reason they do not like something someone has done or what government has allowed. It does not make a difference if there have been no violation of laws except in their own interpretation. One example is the Display of the Ten Commandments on public property. Individuals filing these lawsuits must understand individuals who want these displays are the public. I also agree individuals filing this kind of lawsuit are also the public but just because they disagree with this kind of display does not mean they have the right to have it removed.

Today our judicial system is strained with the number of cases it needs to process. While it is a great system when any system becomes overloaded changes need to be made. I am not against any individual or organization filing a lawsuit when they feel they have been harmed as this is their right. There are however, organizations while they have good intentions file lawsuits which have little if any merit as presented to the court for consideration. Some give the impression the sole purpose of the lawsuits are to flood the judicial system with cases that are not substantiated or clearly based on laws in place.

Our rights as we know them are impacted by many of the cases filed each year. If it is not permissible already it should be that courts should be able to refuse as case if it is not based on sound evidence or a clear connection to laws in place. Another aspect to consider is whether the subject has previously been addressed in our court system and the decision finalized or is being appealed. Having multiple cases on the same issue creates additional costs to running the government whether it is local, state or federal.

Our rights are truly sacred to the principles upon which this country was found and any effort to alter those rights should be fought to the full extent of the laws in place. This includes the Constitution which should be the basis for any legal decision made. This has not always been the case as there have been times when decisions made by judges and courts involve legislating from the bench. This issue has been presented and discussed in the media several times. Our rights as citizens as defined in the Constitution and laws of the land should be upheld in all court cases brought into our judicial system.


More by this Author


Comments 7 comments

mortimerjackson profile image

mortimerjackson 5 years ago from California

Rights fade and bounce back over time. It seems to be the trend. When you consider that in WWII the Japanese were interned, their rights taken away from them. Now the rights of Asian Americans are pretty well kept (considering). But now the rights of other groups are being diminished. And well, I unfortunately don't see this trend changing anytime soon.


Dennis AuBuchon profile image

Dennis AuBuchon 5 years ago Author

Thanks for stopping by and giving your input.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

Interesting. So, by claiming that your "rights" are being taken away...solely based upon the number of course cases "clogging" up the system...you want to change the Constitution, and limit other people's legal rights. Hmmm...interesting logic.

What "rights" of yours are being taken away right at this very moment because of the flood of court cases in the legal system?

Finally, you think courts should get to turn away cases that "are not based on sound evidence or a clear connection to laws in place."

Do you realize how ridiculous that is to write? Of course you don't, let me explain: How do you think the courts find out if the evidence is sound or if there is a clear connection to the laws in place? They find that out via a trial, the very trial you want to give them the right to refuse?

You have some clear motivation as to writing this hub, purely based upon you...something you are working on or going through. It isn't clearly thought out.

Try again.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

Dennis - I am also concerned with your article on Helium. You appear to believe that our country was discovered by Columbus. I am curious to read your books, as the logic and background knowledge displayed is quite subject sir. I look forward to a candid debate in the future, pending your explanation of this hub...as this one makes not a lick of sense logically.


Dennis AuBuchon profile image

Dennis AuBuchon 5 years ago Author

Thanks for your comments. I stand on what I have said. Our rights as we have known them in the past are fading away. It was not my intention to restrict any rights we have in relation to court cases but I feel that cases brought before a court can have some connection to the laws they say are being violated.

Before a court case can be filed there needs to be a clear connection to the current laws in place surrounding the issue at hand. I feel this is not something that is out of the question.

Also I feel as I mentioned the display of the Ten Commandments is being restricted through court decisions when in fact they have been publicly displayed until someone complained they felt it violated their rights. They are not required to look at the display.

Another point I want to make is we cannot have prayers in many places today based on court decisions. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution provides the right of freedom of religion but yet we cannot openly pray or have prayer at school events. We have the right to disply and exercise our right to pray but that right is being restricted today.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

And now we get to the motivation of the hub.

First, you can pray anywhere within the entire country, on your own. There are no legal restrictions in place by any measure that will restrict your personal prayer.

Second, there is no law within the entire country that states you cannot personally display in a public manner, the Ten Commandments. You can put them on your house, your shirt, your forehead, anything that is yours.

The "rights" which you claim are being "taken away" are the right to post the Ten Commandments in a public place, like on a courthouse or the state capital I am assuming, as that is the matter of contention. In addition, you claim that "your rights" are being "taken away" by claiming that we cannot have open prayer at school events.

Both of these are predicated on the opinion that it is "your right" to impose your beliefs upon all of us.

The public place in question is paid for not just by your taxes, but mine, athiests, Muslims, and Hindus alike. You have no more right to post your beliefs than they, theirs. That is the concept of Separation of Church and State. If you post your Ten Commandments, why can't I post my 532 Commandments of the Smurfs on the same building?

Prayer is allowed at school events as well. Any person at any school event can pray all they want. However, it is a restriction to do things like have school organized prayer or to have a prayer read over the intercom. Why? It is imposing the reader's religion upon all of the kids, in a place that again, Christian taxes alone didn't pay for. Would you be comfortable with prayer being read over the intercom to your kids, directed at Allah? What if Christian Protestants got 2 days a week, Muslims 2, and Hindus 1...then we push out Protestants and put in Cathollics the next week? Would you be comfortable with that? Of course you wouldn't. You want to impose YOUR religion's prayer, in the manner that YOU see fit, upon all of the children of the country. That is considering it your "right" to impose YOUR beliefs upon all of us.

By definition, that is taking away other's rights, their ability to display their religious beliefs in and on a public venue, on or in property paid for by them. Your "rights" are no more important and do not supercede other's rights Dennis.

As for your idea:

"Before a court case can be filed there needs to be a clear connection to the current laws in place surrounding the issue at hand. I feel this is not something that is out of the question."

Your initial hub discussed how your rights were being taken away because the court system was so clogged. In an effort to eliminate the clogging of the court system, you want to create another step within that judicial structure, to do the very thing that court cases are designed to do.

Without knowing it, you just stated that your solution is to create another court system to go through before you get to the set court system, in an effort to alleviate the clogging of said court system, because the clogging takes away your rights, rights that we have discussed are nothing more than imposing your beliefs upon others, thus restricting their rights.

That is the most ridiculously flawed logic I have seen in quite a while. How in the world did you write books, man?


Dennis AuBuchon profile image

Dennis AuBuchon 5 years ago Author

First the Displaying the Ten Commandments is not the public supporting or identifying a specific religion. You mention the subject of separation of church and state as part of your argument. The concept of separation of church and state is not even written into our Constitution. It is however associated with the freedom of religion clause in the 1st Amendment.

Another point to identify is the fact that the Ten Commendments is on the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. yet you do not hear lawsuits about this display on government property. The reason the case would not be accepted.

The display of the Ten Commandments have had some acceptances by some courts and not being in violaton of the Constitution. The concept of separation of church and state rest on the fact that the government cannot identify a specific religion as a religion of the land. Freedom of religion and our freedom of speech is impacted by the fact that court cases have held that performing such acts is a violation of the Constitution.

We have one God and along with that we have several religions which believe in a supreme being. Prayer is universal and restricting the performance of this act at public events as has been done for years only changed when someone complained.

I am not against any religion. You mentioned that imposing my beliefs on others and mention about respecting other religious beliefs yet they do not respect ours and file lawsuits to impose restrictions of opportunities we have had in the past to express our religious believes and to pray whether it is at a school event or other public event.

Praying before sports events is only asking that the individuals playing are protected as they play the game.

In terms of the issue about court cases and adding an extra step to identify a connection to laws in place which have supposedly been violated. Any lawsuit that is brought forth in our court system should specifically identify the law or Constitution which is perported to have been violated. This I believe would reduce the volume of court cases and speed the process of cases being heard. This should always have been the case.

Another point to make is multiple lawsuits are filed for the same issue which clogs the system. The only exception is where different specifics are in place that are not identified in other cases. If an issue has been finalized in terms of Supreme Court decisions or decisions have been accepted by parties in other cases more cases should be rejected. Allowing more cases is wasting the time our judicial system has and slows the process. Currently it may take years for a case to be heard. Cleaning out or identifying the specifics of cases in relation to laws or the Constitution would provide more support for the lawsuit.

The books I have written have no connection to the issue in this hub. I have had great reviews of both and received great comments from those who have read them. Another point to make is that this hub has been written my several individuals and there have not been any comments such as the ones you have made.

I respect that you have a right to your opinion but I have a right to mine. This is what writing is all about. You do not have to agree with what any writer has in their content but I have the write to present my opinion on issues in hubs such as this. This involves the right of freedom of speech. I appreciate the fact that you have provided some explanation of your comments as to the issues in this hub

Thank you for providing your input.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working