jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (8 posts)

what law is there that you think the government had no right to implement?

  1. nightwork4 profile image60
    nightwork4posted 7 years ago

    what law is there that you think the government had no right to implement?

    whether it's an infingement on your rights or your freedom or whatever your reason is.

  2. arthurchappell profile image37
    arthurchappellposted 7 years ago

    the imposition of police stop and search rules which invade privacy, fail utterly to prevent crimes of any kind and just harrass innocent citizens

  3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image98
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 7 years ago

    If something doesn't line up with the United States Constitution, then it can not be a law in this nation; despite anything that "they" might claim to the contrary.

    The "patriot act" comes to mind specifically.

  4. shynsly profile image57
    shynslyposted 7 years ago

    Jiminey Christmas... where do I start!? That's not just a hub-topic, but a whole series of hubs all on it's own!

  5. Wayne Brown profile image82
    Wayne Brownposted 7 years ago

    Basically anything to do with the first ten amendments to the Constitution would be a good start. Once the government is able to restrict or modify our rights under the Constitution, the all bets are off in any other arena because the Constitution is the only place where your rights are guaranteed and restricted by the Constitiution to be denied of you by the government. WB

  6. japtaker profile image90
    japtakerposted 7 years ago

    The government has no right to regulate what we put into our own bodies. If someone commits a criminal act under the influence of drugs, they should be charged for the crime they committed, not for using drugs.

  7. L.L. Woodard profile image76
    L.L. Woodardposted 7 years ago

    Laws against drug abuse or any other thing we do to ourselves is unconstitutional. The Patriot Act--what an insult of a name it was given--is anything but patriotic and takes away freedoms in the name of national security.

  8. Tusitala Tom profile image61
    Tusitala Tomposted 7 years ago

    Conscription to fight in a war.   The assumption here is that the country owns its citizens, rather than its citizens own the country.   What right, really, has any government, elected or otherwise, to coerce a person into going away to kill people who have never done harm to them, on the proviso that they 'might do harm' to them.   

    If a country looks like it is in danger, such as Australia when the Japanese were invading, the volunteers will come forward.   But Australia sent men to the Boer War in 1899, Word War One in 1914-18 and to World War Two in 1939 - well before Pearl Harbour...because we were expected to.  To me, this is a sort of insanity.

    Of course, we did it out of fear: the fear that Great Britain would not help us if we were in peril.   The same reason the Australian governments sent troops to support American military operations in more recent conflicts.   "Gawd!  We gotta do this.  We might need the Yanks one day."

    Military conscription, that's the law I think no government has the right to implement.