digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Constitution 101, the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES

revolutioni.st — A detailed 8 part lecture about the Most important document in the history of the United States of America and how the government today continues to overstep the boundaries set in place by the Constitution. Explains the differences between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES and the governments relationship to protecting those RIGHTS.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -3/+49When asked what kind of government the founders had decided upon, it was Benjamin Franklin who spoke first, "A Republic, so long as you can keep it."

    The Republic has become an Empire, but the framework still exists under many layers of bureacracy, special interests, and population control measures. People need to know what the Constitution is, what's in it, and what it stands for. I think an appropriate phrase in this case is "Use it or lose it."

    For anyone who wants to dive right in, the real info begins around time index 7:15 on the first section.
    • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -9/+23Except that you can literally get arrested for reading the Constitution these days. Sad, but true.
      • ferrofluid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Its bad when Oxycontin crazed Rethug facists dig down people for merely mentioning facts and reports of true events,
        like those Code Pink ladies arrested (on no charge or Miranda read) in DC the other day for reading the Bill of Rights in public.
        I fear we have passed the point of no return, theres coming a day when we have to retake our government and Republic back.

        • spucky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I dugg him back up :) He's now +1. You are welcome.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Stormflux what are you talking about? I just read it for a paper I had to do about 20 minutes ago. To those who are too lazy, it's just an outline or framework. Don't think anything is exact on the constitution, its about intepreptation for the times.
      • positron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I think he's referring to the many instances in which people have been harassed by law enforcement as being radicals and outlaws for carrying pocket Constitutions and/or other literature related to freedom and liberty. For a time even the FBI were distributing pamphlets to law enforcement which suggested that people who talked about their rights under the constitution might be terrorists.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not an outline or a framework. The Bill of Rights could not possibly be interpreted as being part of a framework. If the founding fathers had set the Constitution up like that, they would surely know they were setting it up for failure.
      • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe Stromflux is speaking about the fact that Fatherland security and the FBI are handing out pamphlets to local police that says people who read make repeated quotes about the constitution and common law are potential terrorists.
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12It's important to RTFM.
  • omegaredIX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18http://www.constantwaves.info/media.php?media=vide ...

    That is the original site the videos are hosted at.
    • xister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Thank you- I'm loving the education, but that was a horribly designed webpage...
      • omegaredIX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ya you are right. Its not my design, regret putting it up =/
    • Me1on, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Sorry for the comment abuse, but no matter how great these videos are, I had to bury this as spam. Read the comments omegaredIX has made on other stories spamming this submission: http://digg.com/users/omegaredIX/history/comments
      • omegaredIX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I submitted this story VERY early in the morning. As you may know hundreds of stories are lost due ot the masive amounts of data being presented this article would have been lost. I only tried posting a link to the stories on other digg articles that i felt have great similarities.
  • mparker21311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33Gotta love Mike Badnarik. =)
    I found it interesting that the reason why our Government started requiring for us to have marriage certificates was to make sure blacks and whites never marry.
    • jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11This video series originally brought me to libertarianism a couple years ago. I highly suggest everyone watch them.
      • lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10We have something in common, I was heavily intrigued by American history by listening to his lectures and started to study it by my own. Becomming exposed the ideas and influences that was held high during the revolutionary times made me realize where I logically and rationally holds my principles.
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you believe that bull, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
      Britain began requiring marriage certificates *long before* the Europeans settled America, because marriage certificates were necessary to determine spousal relationships for intestate (dead without a will) property transfers (aka inheritances).
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's Europe. He was talking about the United States.
  • kaeves, on 11/11/2007, -33/+11Buried for spam comment postings linking here, ugly website, and content hijacking. You fail.
    • xister, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7@kaeves:"You fail."

      So do you my friend, so do you...
  • omegaredIX, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Thats why i posted the site where its originally hosted from, which is where it should be viewed. Scroll down.
  • ybrugman, on 10/10/2007, -19/+6So how about you dont spam this on other stories to try and increase the popularity of your ***** submition.
    If ur ***** good you wont need to spam it.

    Buried
    !
  • Bostocks, on 10/10/2007, -7/+27worst. design. ever.
    • zapfastnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3a quick fix to negate a poorly designed text against background issue like this one
      is to hit "ctrl" A
      all text is given a white background
    • kodomosuki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2worst. sentence. structure. ever.
  • derek20cali, on 10/10/2007, -23/+4What Constitutional rights have you lost? I mean personally.
    • thestud, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6personal taxation.. framers never meant to be permanently directly taxed.. 16th Amendment

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_t ...
      • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So the constitution was perfect the way it was originally written, ... like the bible.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3No rights have been lost. Specially, constitutional rights as there are none. The rights I do have are being supressed by violence from my fellow peers. But I can never loose my rights.
    • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Rights are suppressed or redefined. Never lost. Stop setting up a straw man argument.
      • derek20cali, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2What Constitutional rights have you had suppressed or redefined? I mean personally.
    • kiddailey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Personally!? Personally!!!? So let me get this straight... if your personal rights haven't been lost then nobody's personal rights have been lost?
      • derek20cali, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Are you going to answer?
        • kiddailey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I wasn't going to justify your agenda with an answer, but since you insist:

          Constitutional Right:
          * Amendment 10

          Civil Rights and Liberties:
          * The implied right to privacy

          You've also lost these same rights and I shouldn't have to spell it out for you. If I do, then well... I'm sorry, Go do some research.
        • actionscripture, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I've lost the right to keep 100% of my paycheck.
          I've lost the right to publicly assemble and/or dissent without fear of arrest.
          I've lost the right to smoke marijuana and/or any other natural drugs I wish to personally use.
          I've lost the right to choose my retirement fund IN LIEU of paying into a government fund (social security).

          There's a couple for you...How about you, do you still have these rights and maybe it's just me that doesn't? If so, where do I sign up to get into your dreamworld?
      • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Amendment 10:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." The federal government does not tread on state's rights. Provide an example where a federal action has directly overruled a state law and it has personally affected you.

        Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Does not grant the right of privacy to US citizens. It merely states that the government cannot make laws to infringe on the previous 8 rights.

        Amendment 14: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Does not imply privacy as a right to US citizens. The only such privacy issue dealt with abortion, and the court ruled that a woman's body is private.

        This is so typical. Scholars have trouble interpreting the Constitution literally, and people like you label an amendment, and it is undeniable fact. And then you won't even debate it. "Go do some research" is the worst strawman argument ever. It's your job to present evidence to back up your statement, not the other person's.


        • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+310) Can't smoke pot.
          9) Can't smoke pot.
          14) Can't smoke pot.
        • kiddailey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I assume you are replying to me. Your message wasn't in reply to my second post and the last bit you wrote sounded confusing. Anyway...

          Amendment 10: See "RealID Act"

          Right to privacy is an implied right. I never cited an amendment because of such. We should all have a reasonable assumption of privacy in our own homes. I am specifically referring to warrantless wiretapping.

          I did present evidence in that I answered the question. I didn't provide further information because the original poster was a bit of a troll and I would prefer they read and form their own opinion rather than just agree with or dismiss mine.
        • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, you horribly misinterpret the 9th amendment if you think it "merely states that the government cannot make laws to infringe on the previous 8 rights." The 9th amendment says that the people have more rights than just those explicitly named in the Constitution, and it says the government MAY NOT argue that the people do not have a specific right just because that right is not enumerated in the Constitution. The right to privacy should be assumed, but personally I point to the 4th amendment as a guaranteed right to privacy.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, the funny part is that Constitutional rights apply to everyone, so if we lose any of them, everyone will be "personally" affected. Of course, some people don't seem to understand that just because some violation of rights doesn't happen to them, doesn't mean that it won't.
    • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You probably also believe that wiretapping is okay because, "you have nothing to hide," right? I've got news for you, pal - the problem isn't whether you or I personally have had our rights violated, but whether rights are violated at all. If they are, then there is a serious problem. It doesn't matter whether I'm personally affected or not, it's just as wrong. Would you likewise argue that murder should be okay, and then challenge people to name one person they know personally who was murdered? Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who is affected.
  • Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Why so many dig downs?
    • Infowarmachine, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9some americans hate the constitution now
      some still love it and those who would defend it, like ron paul

      • Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I don't support Ron Paul, but i still love and defend the Constitution.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hate the constitution. I like Ron Paul, but the Constitution isn't a document that should be followed only because someone like Ron Paul decides they feel like it. There should be no other option. It needs to be rewritten to make it clear. The problem with the US government is that at this point, it's basically operating without a constitution, as those currently in power are pretty much ignoring it due to the interpretation of certain clauses as giving the federal government unlimited power.

        Most importantly we need a CONCRETE definition of "interstate commerce", as the Commerce Clause has done just that.
        • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the Constitution is lacking in concreteness, then it's left to the Congress to solidify the definition. That's how it works. And where Congress fails in that regard, it's left to the courts to interpret the definition. The Constitution may not be perfect, but it does provide the means to deal with or fix its imperfections.
          • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Considering that the Congress and the courts have interpreted the Constitution as giving the federal government unlimited power, the Constitution has failed. The only part of the constitution that is really in effect anymore is when it defines the basic structure of the government.

            And, it can't be fixed either, since amending the constitution requires it to pass through Congress. They'll never pass something limiting the power of the federal government.
          • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@senatorpjt: The Constitution hasn't failed. We the people have failed. The Constitution is a document - it can neither fail nor succeed.
    • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Personally I think it's because of the horrendous site design, lol.
  • graduisic, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Buried. I've seen this spammed on too many other stories.
    If you want popularity, spamming won't help...
    • positron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Why do you hate us for our freedom? ;)
  • phlanx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Buried for unreadable site...
    but I like Ron Paul
  • liquidfirex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9That website is like a look back into the 1990's when every thirteen year old kid was making a website and hosting it on geocities.
  • thetaco82, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Ugliest site ever.
    Edit: Stupid digg broke my links. Check the reply.
  • Moskie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10My eyes are bleeding.
  • c10h14n2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8First off, in case the web designer submitted or is reading these comments - your webpage is terrible. It reminds me of a horrible Myspace page made by a 13 year old with a brittany spears background.

    If you want to deliver a message, make sure your text is READABLE.

    A static "busy" background is not condusive to reading or scrolling. There is text on there that is impossible to read. The video is a stolen re-post and represents the teaching of a high school teacher - not even college level. Yes, he makes good points, but seriously, its his points that are the only quality thing on the page.

    The rest of it is terrible. Hire someone next time.

    • TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, the teacher in the videos is the 2004 Libertarian Candidate Michael Badnarik
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik
      • c10h14n2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I stand corrected. I think in one of the various re-postings of this video on digg over the last few months I read that he was a high school teacher. But Info given on Blogs or self made pages doesn't always represent truth - sometimes people embellish thigs to make it seem more powerful.
        .
        I do concede though that he makes great points. It the page that is terrible. I can't believe it made it to the front page of digg this way
  • craznar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2right: n. past tense of privilege.
    privelege: n. future tense of right.
    • danp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This comment is wholly underrated for its cleverness.
  • omegaredIX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I apologize for the site blowing total ass. Did not think it would be that big of an issue just clicking on the link and then pressing left click 14 times to start and stop the 7 movies that you should watch. But because the site sucks i do apologize but
    http://www.constantwaves.info/media.php?media=vide ...

    That site is WAY better than the one I linked you guys to. Found it awhile after i posted this article.
  • savetheusa1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Protect and defend!!
  • anm0552, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Turn off the TV and spend a little quality time. A learned and insightful lecture. Once you grasp these basic principles, you'll understand why this country is in the shape it's in, and why if it can be saved at all, a return to liberty and personal responsibility is the only solution.
    • Lung-Dart, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1This country? Theres nothing too wrong with Canada.

      Oh wait? Did you think the internet was inside the USA?
  • ferrofluid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4function has precedent over form every time.
  • marcomc2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Throughout this entire time on the internet looking for a perfect article about the truth all in one, strong, way.
    and my god this really just says it all when you lay the facts of today next to how it really should be.
    and its so ***** bad, we dont all feel it, but its there, and soon it Will be like those movies youve seen.
  • 2bsbc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If you are red/green color blind, good luck trying to read any of the text on the revolutionist page. Web designers please, be color blind kind! Damn.
  • nigel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"That website is like a look back into the 1990's when every thirteen year old kid was making a website and hosting it on geocities."

    Thirteen year old kids are still making websites... look at Digg. Ahhhhhh... too soon?
  • LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2answer; none.

    the patriot act and bush administration erased both to install a police state.
  • LeeJunFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's only one problem - there's other ways to remove the right to bear arms. Like making ammunition unaffordable. Notice in the last 8 months it's gone up about 100% just about everywhere.

    And if they pass their stupid ideas about tagging each round casing.... it's going to get more expensive.
  • vvtf, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5oh oh........the DIGG Marxists/Socialist aren't going to like this! They haven't been taught REAL American history. They've been taught the REVISED American history. You know, the version where all white men are evil, all corporations are evil, America got rich by robbing the rest of the world, etc, etc.....
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1vvtf/00II00...a Ron Paul supporter? Who would have guessed it? Dopey liberal moonbat.
  • Punisher2K, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4***** website. More Ron Paul spam. He can go die at this point. I'm so sick of hearing about him.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3vote for your respective nanny state candidate then.
      • Punisher2K, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't vote. Popular vote does not a president make. Have you learned nothing?
  • tempysmurf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3My favorite part is all the UFO video submissions from the google video account these are from.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I know too much about American history to be a Libertarian, thank you very much. Deregulation killed this country twice, the original Republic was a failed concept in practice and in theory, and the one good thing about it all, the one pure document in the Declaration of Independence was designed to be amended frequently and is RARELY done so except for the most inane of reasons.
    Our electoral college is full of the wealthy corrupt, running for office engenders a certain amount of egotism and gladhanding exchange, and the same rules they played by 250 years ago have evolved into a disgusting mockery of government inaction.
    Libertarianism is a failure of imagination, not a solution. It's an odd mixture of veiled nihilism and self-service in a meritocracy that is anything but meritorious. But, whatever, if it comes down to Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton I'm going for Ron Paul.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2you lose for calling the Constitution the Declaration of Independence.
    • elwood43, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree with spyd3rweb. If ZenMojo is an American, he is an insult to our educational system.
  • kd1s, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I cannot wait until he gets to the Bill of Rights. It'll be interesting to hear him dance around the 2nd amendment. But this is in Texas so I'm pretty sure I know what he's going to say. It's what this northern yankee says all the time, that our forefathers knew what tyranny was, they knew fascism. The 2nd amendment is our escape clause.
  • p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's funny, a LOT of people think the constitution "tells" us what rights we have, when in all actuality, it
    explains how the government is suppose to keep out of OUR lives. When you have a bunch of lawyers running
    the country (politicians), who for the most part, only care about getting reelected, is it any wonder things are as
    screwed up as they are?
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1WRONG!
      The Constitution doesn't say how the government is supposed to keep out of our lives. It says what the government can do and can't do so that the various levels of government can function.
      The purpose of the Constitution is to balance efficiency/concentration of power (yes, to the Founders they were one and the same) of different parts and levels of the American government. The protection of individual rights was not a function of the Constitution, which is why they adopted the Bill of Rights as a *separate* document.
    • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I like to describe the Constitution as a contract written by The People and agreed to by the government, in which We The People grant certain authorities and powers to the government in exchange for which it performs certain functions and takes on certain responsibilities. The important part of the illustration is that We The People are the drivers of the whole deal, not the government, and if the government violates the contract, we can fire it and hire a new one. It's even built into the system that we review the government's adherence to the contract every two years.
  • faede, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1These are extremely educational videos. Even as someone who knows a good deal about how our government works and how the founders framed it I learned a great deal. I think every citizen of the United States should watch these videos. The material is very well presented and I can't think of many subjects that could be more important. As a citizen you must know how your government works because it is your government.
  • kd1s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm really interested in the allodial title business. I like the part about the MSO's where the woman asked if the state would register a car where the state didn't hold the MSO and he's asking her why you'd want to do such a thing.

    I've long realized that registration is just a vehicle for them to be able to tax you. That being said, I now understand the underpinning of why they can seize your vehicle if it doesn't have tags or a registration on it.

    Very interesting stuff. And he's right, if you understand/know the law you can beat it.
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I didn't sign the Constitution. Or any other law. They are non binding contracts without my signature. Did you sign them? Anyone here sign them? Did anyone here vote on them? Was anybody even at the meetings where any laws were drafted? Did anybody here have any say so in the creation of any particular law? If so, I'd like to hear it, how you contributed. I myself have never ever met anyone personally in my entire life that had any input whatsoever with the creation of any single law or tax. As far as I'm concerned, if nobody here had any input in the creation of any laws in any of the books, nor agreed to them, then we are not bound by them. At all. Period.
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you use 1) roads 2) water/plumbing 3) electricity 4) gas 5) gasoline 6) computers 7) medicine of any kind, 8) trains 9) planes 10) the Internet
      you better thank your lucky stars that nobody agrees with you, because 1,2, and 3 are directly provided by the government, 4,5,7,8, and 9 were made possible by the government, and 6 and 10 were invented by the government.
      • dkeck14, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3For most of those things competition has been outlawed. And frankly it is just ignorant to list the governments handling of medicine, gasoline, trains, and even planes as some sort of accomplishment. Any competition in these areas would be met with the barrel of a gun, and that is the only reason these services are still provided by the government.
  • Matrixsta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Digg got gamed with this one
  • riverstyx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Ron Paul 2008.

    Be there.
  • RevolutioniDOTs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow.

    Lots of complaints about the layout.
    Fine.
    It's all CSS - I'll change it.

    And yes, the videos were "stolen" the link to the original is on that page.
    It was since I first posted them.

    The layout doesn't change the content.
    The videos are good.

    css file has been changed.
    Feel free to leave more comments or suggestions about that...

    MP3's of the classes will be uploaded shortly.
    Converting the last one right now.
    • c10h14n2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Much better. Thank you.

      Some had mentioned earlier that function beats form everytime, but in the case of a powerful message, making it assesible through readability enales one to comprehend and understand better.
  • luteslinger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5get that goddam piece of paper out of my face.
    -G.W.
  • Robodoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We should send this to our elected so they will understand what they are suppose to be supporting.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.