freedom of thought, which amendment protects that?

Doer said:

WE declared certain rights to be inalienable. So, those are. Yet, there are no rights beyond Might. There are only, Might declared and protected, freedoms.

So, there are inalienable rights, for us, if we say so, and are willing to die for that. And we have granted ourselves these rights until Might takes them back..

So, Might makes it "right?" True, but hardly the point. There are no Rights of Man. Hogwash. And there is no right to die, there is only the obligation.

And if we were not bloodied enough to keep our own Constitution, there would be not even those self granted rights.

Click to expand...

and what use are those words if 'we' arent continuously vigilant in the pursuit and security of such self declared freedoms?
if ya dont use it ya lose it as they say...and 'we' simply havent used it in any meaningful way while at the same time certain interests have and are continuing to in spades...

burgertime2010 said:

OK, well wouldn't coca, poppys, and mushrooms also be human rights then? I think what is reasonable is the medicinal value being understated and the people who cant get free, natural medicine because of interests that are not related to the patients. It is a cause of unnecessary suffering. I don't think human rights are gonna hold up

Click to expand...

to grow any plant for your own needs and use etc is a 'human right' imo and such can help or hurt you depending on how you use such etc so that logic holds no water for me, but the question itself cuts across party lines and religious stand offs and reaches into the consciousness of every farmer etc because the question effects all humans rather than just a certain group like medical patients or whoever...

canndo said:

Slipping testamony that is barred to an accepting jury is not really a way to "change the discussion" is it?

Click to expand...

canndo what are you talking about?
are you referring to a criminal proceeding?

canndo said:

Slipping testamony that is barred to an accepting jury is not really a way to "change the discussion" is it?

Click to expand...

i can only guess that you are referring to a criminal proceeding because in a criminal proceeding is where that type of lack of due process exists in court...
the post you were responding to speaks to civil suits and civil law where due process is more reachable do mainly (but not only) to the fact that one becomes a plaintiff rather than a defendant and the rules are somewhat flipped etc so all that would be kept out of a criminal proceeding in that respect would become directly relevant to a civil proceeding of the type described in that post...

all apologies for posting again after my last 4 in a row (im not trying to be a trout trout trout...Doer might get that one lol) but wanted to continue the thought of a coordinated simultaneous filing of civil suits...
i've come to realize that timing may not be everything but its a whole lot, especially in the kind of 'supplanting' tactic that the whole notion is aimed at accomplishing...
right now 'marijuana' is holding strong at one of the top 5 stories constantly being 'reported' on across the country and due to WaCo as well as federal legislative ideas swirling around, the top 5 status is not likely to change any time soon so the time is ripe imo to step in and attempt to supplant the national question...
doing so through the simultaneous filing of civil suits in at least 9 different fed court jurisdictions based on a reach to the 9th amendment for a 'human right' would imo have a hell of a good shot at getting media coverage and possibly shifting the national question to being 'does a human have the right to grow any plant for there own use etc'...such would be taken completely outside of the context of commerce etc and would force a very uncomfortable situation for at least 9 different fed district court judges to say the least...
many folks might have the more accessible chance to suddenly think in a different context etc...

Does a human right argument have any precedent? Do we need lawyers?

burgertime2010 said:

Does a human right argument have any precedent? Do we need lawyers?

Click to expand...

there are different answers to both questions imo, but i like the second question first and best...no, no one need use a lawyer, in fact the better dynamic emerges from speaking for yourself in this scenario and forcing what one might refer to as amistad moments...
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/amistad/supreme-court-opinion.html

[video=youtube;WzCgOrQn0GM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzCgOrQn0GM[/video]

part of the tactic is to structure the cases so as to hopefully force a judge into a clear ruling on the question no matter how he or she rules etc...
any ruling on the question itself would cause ripple effects either way and i assure you most judges will reach for any port to avoid answering such a direct human rights question and so it becomes quite a cat and mouse deal in the writing of the suit(s) and sometimes lawyers (if just the right lawyer and the far majority are simply not officiant in constitutional law) can be helpful in structuring/writing a suit like this, but its not necessary...
the question of precedent for 'human rights' cases in the us courts is some what complicated but the simple answer is no there is no direct category of law in the us courts known as 'human rights'...up to now its mostly been about using the 14th amendment and claim equal protection etc and the 9th amendment is kept in some what of a taboo status with lawyers and judges etc...but its not taboo by law or statute etc so we as individuals can stumble into court all day long and make them explain to us and the public why we 'have no merit' when we bring such a question linked to the 9th amen even (and especially) if we can show standing for the question etc...and such standing will be lost to any new fed law etc as i stated before.

seems a bit far out there i know, but i have traveled to similar places in the local, state, national and world media and in court and if you need something to measure against, training for this opp would be far easier than astronaut training for example...but not unlike training for any special opps that one might perform in a battle where words are your ammo...
explaining the finer specs on how such an effort would be laid out is a bit difficult here in short attention span land, but i hope at least some faint picture of what im talking about is coming through...?
either way thanks to all who have posted and been engaging this thread, good job to all imo...

DNAprotection said:

seems a bit far out there i know, but i have traveled to similar places in the local, state, national and world media and in court and if you need something to measure against, training for this opp would be far easier than astronaut training for example...but not unlike training for any special opps that one might perform in a battle where words are your ammo...
explaining the finer specs on how such an effort would be laid out is a bit difficult here in short attention span land, but i hope at least some faint picture of what im talking about is coming through...?
either way thanks to all who have posted and been engaging this thread, good job to all imo...

Click to expand...

Sorry brother, my sound capability is making the video difficult for me. I think it needs a lot of savvy legal minds arguing multiple fronts....

burgertime2010 said:

Sorry brother, my sound capability is making the video difficult for me. I think it needs a lot of savvy legal minds arguing multiple fronts....

Click to expand...

no worries about the sound on that vid, the amistad reference goes more to the case itself, the judge was put in the awkward position of having to determine if without legitimate contract are the dark skinned folks from africa 'slaves' or free human beings...it was a shocking and unexpected ruling for its day...
as to the 'legal minds' part, yes if they are regular folks, as in preferably not lawyers because lawyers are trained to think in terms of 'whats already been done' etc and its very hard for them to think outside the box so to speak...
so in my view the most important ingredient in an opp like this is that the 9 individuals have a solid grip on who and what they are as human beings and that they be able to tell that personal truth to a judge in open court...besides the paper work being filed, thats all we really need when it comes to 'legal minds'..

DNAprotection said:

no worries about the sound on that vid, the amistad reference goes more to the case itself, the judge was put in the awkward position of having to determine if without legitimate contract are the dark skinned folks from africa 'slaves' or free human beings...it was a shocking and unexpected ruling for its day...
as to the 'legal minds' part, yes if they are regular folks, as in preferably not lawyers because lawyers are trained to think in terms of 'whats already been done' etc and its very hard for them to think outside the box so to speak...
so in my view the most important ingredient in an opp like this is that the 9 individuals have a solid grip on who and what they are as human beings and that they be able to tell that personal truth to a judge in open court...besides the paper work being filed, thats all we really need when it comes to 'legal minds'..

Click to expand...

I am to tell a personal truth?

burgertime2010 said:

I am to tell a personal truth?

Click to expand...

your personal 'truth', not necessarily someone elses 'truth', but in this scenario the 9 plaintiffs would need to have similar personal 'truths' especially in the area of knowing you have the human right to grow any plant for your own use etc...

especially when it is a safe and potentially non-intoxicating cure for a disability. The right I have to pursue health through plant medicine this way, has a bit more meat to it.....no?

burgertime2010 said:

especially when it is a safe and potentially non-intoxicating cure for a disability. The right I have to pursue health through plant medicine this way, has a bit more meat to it.....no?

Click to expand...

yes but why leave it there?
why speak to only the wing or the breast when we can reference the whole bird?
food, clothing, shelter, meds etc...maybe its a filter plant companion in that you surround your garden with such in effort to help with what folks call 'pest control', or maybe you use it as a rotation crop to help rebuild the soil after other crops have depleted such, or maybe your just growing said plant because it makes you happy to do so somehow and you dont even 'use' it for any other purpose...how you use any plant outside of commerce is your own business/right and not govs imo unless exercising that right is unreasonably intruding on someone elses rights...

DNAprotection said:

yes but why leave it there?
why speak to only the wing or the breast when we can reference the whole bird?
food, clothing, shelter, meds etc...maybe its a filter plant companion in that you surround your garden with such in effort to help with what folks call 'pest control', or maybe you use it as a rotation crop to help rebuild the soil after other crops have depleted such, or maybe your just growing said plant because it makes you happy to do so somehow and you dont even 'use' it for any other purpose...how you use any plant outside of commerce is your own business/right and not govs imo unless exercising that right is unreasonably intruding on someone elses rights...

Click to expand...

Exactly, I can argue better on this slice as I am educated and passionate genuinely. My credibility goes up my abstract rights are solidified. The 9 are specialists in different facets of a collective argument right?

burgertime2010 said:

Exactly, I can argue better on this slice as I am educated and passionate genuinely. My credibility goes up my abstract rights are solidified. The 9 are specialists in different facets of a collective argument right?

Click to expand...

i like that...never thought of it that way, such could prove to be quite an asset in both the court room and in the media etc...
9 different folks that all have their own reasons for why they grow plants yet are in concert on the fundamental question etc

There is no redundancy, the relationship between the human and the jury can be finessed and made into more of a drama, a story of oppression and suffering. It is better this way I feel

I come from a legal family. My father, uncle and Grandfather are all lawyers so if I channel it to hard you can pump the breaks.

burgertime2010 said:

There is no redundancy, the relationship between the human and the jury can be finessed and made into more of a drama, a story of oppression and suffering. It is better this way I feel

Click to expand...

agreed, but keep in mind that in cases for permanent 'injunctive relief' the only juror is the judge, but that doesnt at all diminish the dynamics of such proceedings in terms of the applicability of your feelings above...in fact i feel it all the more justifies such...

burgertime2010 said:

I come from a legal family. My father, uncle and Grandfather are all lawyers so if I channel it to hard you can pump the breaks.

Click to expand...

i come from a family of immigrants and defendants (sicilian), lawyers have been putting my folks in prison etc for 80-90 years now...they had a field day during alcohol prohibition and of course have continued the tradition with growing plants etc...
my folks (sicilians) are world renowned gardeners and wine makers...