There’s no constitutional prohibition against warrantless searches of any kind. The fourth amendment only prohibits “unreasonable” searches. Whether a warrantless search is “unreasonable” depends upon the other circumstances involved. In the case of probation, the convicted party in question is still in a sense serving their punishment — their debt to society has not yet been paid — and thus, continuing searches related to the crime committed can reasonably be construed as, err, not unreasonable.

It’s right there next to the right to buy, sell, and manufacture arms.

Seriously, though, these “where do you draw the line” type questions are non-trivial. Given that the 2nd amendment talks about the right of “the people” rather than the right of “the citizenry,” I’d have to say that citizenship isn’t a prerequisite for RKBA. (Coming from me, I bet that answer surprises you.)

Concerning the right to vote, I’m not familiar enough to say whehter this is constitutionally mandated, but I think citizenship in good standing ought to be a requirement for voting.

On the issue of whether felons ought to be denied certain rights, and if so, which, I’d have to say that ought to depend on the felony. Marijuana possession and armed robbery are not even close to being the same thing, although both can be felonies. Where exactly to draw the line is a tougher nut. Clearly, violent crime ought to deny you both the right to vote and RKBA, at least from a practical perspective. (I’d argue that in committing those crimes, you forfeited those rights.) Meanwhile, I don’t think there’s any crime you could commit that would cause you to forfeit those rights designed to protect the accused (e.g. 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments) since these specifically address how accused criminals are (not) to be treated.

Guess you’re gonna have to take it up with the fine people of New York City. Having never lived there, I’m not really qualified to say what is the best course of action for them to regulate weapons.

The point is not what they do in terms of taking it up with them. The point is restrictive gun laws can be too, err, restrictive to even meet your definition. Regarding new laws, I only know of the AWB and a few other smaller ones. They’ve essentially had most restrictions for quite a while.

Guess you’re gonna have to take it up with the fine people of New York City. Having never lived there, I’m not really qualified to say what is the best course of action for them to regulate weapons. Considering they have drastically lowered their crime rate in the past 15 years, I’d be interested to know which Gun laws were in place before and after the decrease in violence. However, if they bar their citizens from bearing normal firearms, I think there is definite grounds for legal action.

As for Health Care, it is a basic human right enumerated in the UN Declaration of Rights.

So, it may as well be written on toilet paper for all the legal authority it holds.

My personal position is that the people have a right to own a gun, but the state has the right to control the trafficking and sales of weapons.

Good to hear. However, regarding your but, seems to me the point where control becomes prohibit or too cumbersome for the law-abiding (tried to buy a gun in NYC?) is not something a lot of liberals are too concerned about.

As for Guns, my comment was really more of a tongue in cheek one. My personal position is that the people have a right to own a gun, but the state has the right to control the trafficking and sales of weapons. Also, I think “arms” is too broad a word in this day and age, and we have to put it in some context to what the founders were thinking. For instance, Nuclear Weapons, Skud Missles, RPGs, should not be in the hands of every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has the money to buy it. If a person wants to own a certain item deemed too dangerous to be sold in the neighborhood WalMart (ie Fully-Automatic Machine Guns, RPGs, Etc) they should have to be licensed and go through rigid training.

I do think the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but the State in it’s modern form has the need to decide where said Weapons can be carried, and also they have the responsibility to insure dangerous individuals can not (legally) purchase them.

Guns aren’t my thing, I’ve never fired one beyond a BB gun, and I have no real desire to, but I do work with people who carry and I am comfortable with that. Whether Handgun permits, background checks, waiting periods are “Constitutional,” really comes down to how you view the constitution. As a “Liberal” I view it as a living document and as such we need to occasionally adapt it to changing conditions. However, I think current gun laws are still in accordance with the basic premise that the people should be able to own firearms.

As for Illegal Immigrants owning guns…if that gun can be sold without a background check, than they should be able to purchase them. However, if it is a weapon that requires a background check, then I don’t see how an undocumented person can qualify.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall a move by a community either in California or Oregon to extend local voting rights to children. I believe they were given a fraction of a vote. (There’s a very bad historical precedent for the 3/5ths fraction.) If that rule had passed, it would not have applied to federal elections.

However, you bring up an interesting scenario. Imagine the state that does choose to extend voting rights to all residents. It could markedly change the electorate and the government in that community.

But don’t worry. This candidate for state senate will not vote for allowing Tennessee to become such a state.

I think the issue is that you’re trying to lump together human and civil rights. It’s a common choice, but not really a good one. Human rights, like the right to arms or speech, exist regardless of the government or even a government, and as a result, the United States government must protect regardless of the person’s citizenship or status as a felon or not. Human rights can only be removed after due course of law (which is why it’s possible to punish individuals at all). They can not be given or limited by the government, only infringed or recognized. Civil rights, such as civil marriage, political office, the right to vote, only exist because they are given by the government. As a result, they can be and are limited on a regular basis : you can’t run for public offices until a certain age, and civil marriage is usually limited to protect minors.

Human rights are parts of being, well, human or even near it, and thus the government has no right to take away from innocents (or those who have served their time) what it didn’t give. Civil rights are given as a result of an automatic contract with society, and violating your end of the bargain makes it quite reasonable for society to take its side back.

Oh, and as to the right to assembly, we already killed it. Clinton, no surprise, signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which made “gang membership” a felony.