Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The "Right" to Bear Arms before the Court - So who is right?« on: June 30, 2008, 03:04:51 PM »
Quote from: Burning Sands, Esq. on June 27, 2008, 12:04:11 PM
Stevens does have a good point - no fundamental right in the Constitution is absolute. The government can always regulate our fundamental rights for the safety of the public, as it should.Quote
13th. Amendment Right to Freedom
to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Why are you citing the 13th Amendment on Slavery?
"Stevens does have a good point - no fundamental right in the Constitution is absolute. The government can always regulate our fundamental rights for the safety of the public, as it should."
If the Court accepts that "no fundamental right in the constitution is absolute", the fundamental constitutional right to freedom (13th Amendment) would not be exempt from 'regulation' "for the safety of the public."
Some would suggest that such regulation may be the next wave in protecting the public from violent criminals who in the District of Columbia, for example, are primarily people of color.
See post above:
Lanier plans to seal off rough ’hoods in latest effort to stop wave of violence
Michael Neibauer and Bill Myers, The Examiner2008-06-04 07:00:00.0
"D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.
Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest...."
Is this constitutional because it's temporary? (as of now) If no fundamental constitutional right is absolute, it could be determined by the Court to be 'constitutional' even if made permanent in a more virulent form, " for the safety of the public" at large, as protection from those initially absolutely free men who have demonstrated an inability to adjust to the public order requirements of the social contract.