is there delegated authority in the U.S. Constitution to make/force a FREE Human to Consent, Yes or No?
97189
There is authority in the Bill of Rights to protect you from forced consent to certain things (search and seizure, quartering troops, etc).  But anything else is up for argument.
695225
The tenth amendement is quite clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."\n\nThe federal government slowly has expanded its role through the judiciary branch by overinterpreting laws and by taking powers out of context and to a higher level than was intended.\n\nOne of the cries of the Revolution was that the colonies didn't want to be controlled by a single government thousands of miles away.  So I don't understand why the states allow that same thing now from the Federal government.
454103
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
283595
Yes, the constitution does allow the rights of freedom speech, assembly, and religious practice in the 1st amendment.  But because these rights sometimes conflict with eachother (like in your scenario), its pretty safe to say that you have right and liberties as long as they dont interfere with anyone else, or cause other people malicious harm.
443462
"Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. \n\nSection 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
865275
I don't know of such a plan, but if it existed, James Madison et. al. took care of that when they drafted the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (part of our Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791). \n\nIt says that any powers not expressly given to the Federal government belong to either the individual states or to the people.\n\nSure would be nice if Congress re-read its own Constitution from time to time, wouldn't it?
56012
Of course not. You should be the first one to obey the constitution because you swore to abide by it
854961
It is not possible to be hypnotised without your consent.  Also, a person under hypnosis cannot be made to do anything they would not normally be willing to do.
383375
If you are referring to the U.S. Constitution, yes...
954054
(Ah, sounds like a homework question)\nIt depends upon how literal you want to go with "not listed in the Constitution."\nThe biggest one is the right to privacy, which includes right to contraception (Griswold v. Conn.) the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade) and the right to consensual private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). \nNext, I'd say rights that "spring" from dileaneated rights.  For example, the right to have "Miranda" warnings springs from the 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause.  The right to flag burning and other "expressive conduct" springs from the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  The right to be free from state sponsored segregation springs from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  The right to (basically) unlimited spending of money for political speech springs from the First Amendment Free Speech clause.  \nIn all of those in the above paragraph, there is nothing in the constitution about getting Miranda warnings, about schools not being segregated, or about getting to spend as much money as you want, but the Courts have interpreted concrete clauses in the constitution as providing those rights.\n\nPowers not in the Constitution that are returned to the States / People:\nPower to regulate real property and conveyances thereof (almost exclusively state controlled)\nPower to enact generally applicable criminal laws (almost all criminal law is state law)\nPower to decide how Presidential Electors are chosen.\nPower of localities to regulate business licenses and zoning laws (not in contradition with federal civil rights)\n\nJust a few.
379024
Yes.  I don't want to hit something I'm not aiming at.  According to the constitution it's the only gun control that's allowed in the US.
677764
The doctrine that you're speaking of actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The US Supreme Court expanded on that, realizing that the doctrine in the Constitution had no "teeth" without clarification.  In other words, they expanded it from Congress not being able to make a law *establishing* one (ie. a national religion) to include Congress not being able to make laws favoring a particular religion over another (or over a non-religion).  Who the people vote for is an entirely different matter.  First, the doctrine applies to laws and legislation.  Secondly, it would be utterly unconstitutional to disallow anyone not specifically defined in the Constitution from running for office.  The people of the U.S. have the absolute right to cast their vote for whomever they choose, as long as that person has the requisite citizenship and has attained the mandated age.
231590
Depends. Generally speaking, yes; except in cases where the 16-year-old cannot consent on the basis of mental condition, student-teacher relationship, etc.\n\nhttp://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh_print/lpExt.dll/PORC/133b1/135f6?f=templates&fn=document-frame-chapter.htm&2.0#JD_h2-290702
916203
The key word there is "legally".  No minor can give legal consent.  Period.\nI would love for you to post a link that proves your allegation that the ACLU supports the MBLA.\nThanks.  I'll be waiting.
332477
yes, it's in the bill of rights, 8th amendment:\n\nExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
1063466
"consent"\n\ngenerally, "democracy"
334684
Yes. And if you doubt that answer, ask people the following questions:\n\n1. What 5 rights are guaranteed by the 1st amendment (Speech, religion, petition the government, assemble, and press).\n\n2. What does the 10th amendment say?\n\nI doubt most people could get one right, much less two.