manhunter098
Smash Lord
No. None of those things you talk about are about rights implicit in the constitution (the DEA and FBI), they are about LAWS passed by congress and the powers of congress to act within the bounds set by the constitution. You cant just assume that everything the government does is to protect peoples rights. It doesnt actually work that way.
Judges protect peoples constitutional rights and ensure that the legislative and executive branches play by the rules. The more you talk about the government only giving and protecting rights the more you show how little you actually know about American government. I wish it were that way, but protecting corporate and lobbyist interests is not protecting the peoples rights. (Not to say that that is all the government does).
You should try reading the constitution some time, it tells you what the government does. Inserting the idea that constitution is only to protect the peoples rights is a foolish assumption. Furthermore to extend that idea to apply to laws passed by congress as well is only more foolish, you could at least make the argument that the constitution is there to limit government power, and that has to do with protecting peoples rights, but laws are not solely (and are rarely) intended to protect the rights of the people.
Judges protect peoples constitutional rights and ensure that the legislative and executive branches play by the rules. The more you talk about the government only giving and protecting rights the more you show how little you actually know about American government. I wish it were that way, but protecting corporate and lobbyist interests is not protecting the peoples rights. (Not to say that that is all the government does).
You should try reading the constitution some time, it tells you what the government does. Inserting the idea that constitution is only to protect the peoples rights is a foolish assumption. Furthermore to extend that idea to apply to laws passed by congress as well is only more foolish, you could at least make the argument that the constitution is there to limit government power, and that has to do with protecting peoples rights, but laws are not solely (and are rarely) intended to protect the rights of the people.