Federal Appeals Court Axes Satanic Temple Abortion Lawsuit (boo on this court!)
[nbcnewyork.com]

Satanic Temple threatens lawsuit if ‘In God We Trust’ appears on new Mississippi flag
[wlox.com]

Rights listed in our Constitution cannot be suspended or removed. That requires a Constitutional Amendment, and that is hard to do.

Japanese internments during WW2 were unconstitutional, however since it did not go to court, no ruling was ever made.

Searches prior to boarding aircraft are nor unreasonable, hence not unconstitutional.

Your other illustrations make no sense.

@Alienbeing The Constitution is what rights we think we have, but those rights are ignored or suspended when the government thinks it has good reason to do so. Which I agree with BTW - like freedom of speech doesn't allow you to yell "File!" in crowded theater to cause a panic. My point is that NO rights are absolutely guaranteed. Even your right to life can be denied if you're convicted of a serious enough crime.
Japanese internment happened even though it was unconstitutional; my point exactly - they still happened, rights were ignored. TSA search has been ruled probably unconstitutional but allowed for public safety. That only 0.01% of travelers are a threat does not provide basis for the TSA search being warranted.

@David_ver_3 Rights in the Constitution are not what we think we have, they are what we actually have. Certainly one can be denied a Right(s) but that does not negate their existence, it only means the Right(s) was or were denied. The Right can be enforced through legal action.

Our Government cannot ignore or suspend a Right, Sine Rights are Constitutionally guaranteed, the only way to get rid of that Right is via a Constitutional Amendment. Rights ARE guaranteed to the extent any one Right is eliminated via Constitutional Amendment which is a very long and involved process, this very unlikely to happen.

Your illustration of Japanese citizen Rights is a perfect example of the fact that while a Right can be denied, it is not done away with. The U.S. Federal Government later paid reparations for the action. Actually had anyone sued to block internment at the time it was done, who knows what ruling the Courts would have made.

@Alienbeing I think we basically agree; don't need to tussle over semantics. When dealing with the rights we HAVE and the rights as ENFORCED, I'm reminded of the saying:

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

@David_ver_3 I don't think we agree as the difference is not semantic. Rights exist, if you are denied a right, due process will correct that. You can be denied a right, but that in no way infers the right does not exist.

I don't see how your last sentence applies to the subject.

@Alienbeing If you have a right and that right is denied, it pretty much doesn't matter whether or not you have the right; it didn't protect you. Whether the right is denied illegally and dealt with in due process, or whether your right was temporarily suspended because the government made that decision, still the same - at the time you needed the right to protect you it didn't.

EVERY right comes from the government. The Constitution is a document created by the government. All the laws meant to protect us come from the government. Anything the government gives you, the government can take away. While it is difficult for our government to change the Bill of RIghts, it is pretty easy for the government to figure out temporary denials or work-arounds. Rights are fragile.

As to the last line, it was an analogy. Try this:
Rights are what you expect, reality is what you get.

IMO there's no need to continue this thread. We have different takes on rights; neither of us will change the other's mind, and that's fine.

@David_ver_3 In your first sentence you are confusing the existence of a Right with its enforcement. It DOES matter the Right actually exists, because of it did not, first you should not expect it, and more important you can't demand it. It is not the same at all. If the Right didn't exist you would first have to establish that it should exist before your could even seek redress.

Your second paragraph strongly hints you don't know why there is a Constitution or what it actually says. Our Constitution gives the Government the right to exist and then limits what Government can do. It ends by saying (in general terms) that those permissions not give to the government are reserved for the States or the People. This stops government overreach. Rights ar eanything except fragile.To eliminate a right Government would have to amend the Constitution. That is VERY hard to do. It requires both the House of Representatives to pass a new Amendment nullifying what is in question and both bodies must pass it by a 66% majority. Then the President must sing it, then 66% of the individual States must approve it. Can you imagine the elimination of a Right passing all those challenges?

It is not an issue of different "takes" it is an issue of you really have no idea of what you allege, as proven above.

Well sure if certain sects were responsible for increasing levels of terrorism, sure. Have we seen widedpread terrorism in US recenlty?

@Flowerwall Most of the terrorism in the US comes from right wing white so called Christians.

@Jolanta Please list as many specific instances as you can. Why do feel the need to label "white"? Is there an exact reasin for it?

@Jolanta It's interesting how wikipedia page makes no mention of recent events in US even though it says "In the United States a common definition of terrorism is the systematic or threatened use of violence in order to create a general climate of fear to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change." In India there is discussion of how mob violence should labeled as terrorism. It is spoken of as "murder of law". In the US it's just what we do? It's okay?

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Absolutely no mention of recent mob violence. It's making me think I'm being lied to. How about you?

@Flowerwall The history of the Christian religion and all its many offshoots (Catholicism, etc) are literally soaked in blood. SOAKED IN IT. And they incite bigotry and violence to this very day. So it's kinda like the old "pot-kettle", ya know!

@Freespirit64 Sure, I understand. I'm not here to misrepresent facts from history, the way our government is currently misrepresenting the mass civil unrest that feels an awful lot like terrorism in present day. Suspects tied to international terror involved in MN mass unrest and no mention of this in updated lists on terrorism in US? It's LIES, PURE LIES.

It also feels like journalists are not doing their part to examune this. Given the timing, the proximity of election, wouldn't it be important to discuss? Do we even know how widespread it is?