• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If you had to give up half of the amendments in the bill of rights....

Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
walked into a classroom the other day and the teacher was asking her students this. this intrigued me. what 5 amendments in the bill of rights would you give up if you had to? and please explain why you chose to give that particular one up.

link to explanations of each amendments for the lazy


Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII.]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
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.
Click to expand...
 
I would start with 2, 9, and 10. I can't recall the other ones off the top of my head. But the ones I listed have been mostly ignore so why not choose them
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would start with 2, 9, and 10. I can't recall the other ones off the top of my head. But the ones I listed have been mostly ignore so why not choose them
Click to expand...
How about enforcing them instead? Ignoring 9 and 10 in particular is part of the problem with America today. The federal government has grabbed far more power than the framers of the Constitution ever intended.
 
10:... would just keep it out by process of elimination.
9: will get you laughed out of any courtroom or class if you try to pass it off as an argument for the existance of an un-enumerated right.
3: important, but not particularly relevant today.
7: trial by jury is important, but I think 5, 6 and 8 do enough to safeguard the trial process if it comes to that.
I really dislike saying this last one, because I do support its enforcement, but by virtue of process of elimination again, I'll have to drop 2.

Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 seem to me to be the most important.
 
What kind of a moron would want to give up any of them. So which two limbs would you give up if you "had" to? If you are so willing to give up rights, start with the 1st and shut up.
 
Originally posted by: schmedy
What kind of a moron would want to give up any of them. So which two limbs would you give up if you "had" to? If you are so willing to give up rights, start with the 1st and shut up.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I was going to ask what kind of a person asks this question in the first place(meaning the teacher). Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: bdude
3,5,6,7,8

As long as we got #1, #2, and #10 I figure we can go about implementing the lost ones.
Click to expand...


I think with #2 we can easily make sure the other 9 are enforced.

The 2nd amendment was never about hunting.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: bdude
3,5,6,7,8

As long as we got #1, #2, and #10 I figure we can go about implementing the lost ones.
Click to expand...


I think with #2 we can easily make sure the other 9 are enforced.

The 2nd amendment was never about hunting.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When you put the 2nd amendment like that, it's so simple to understand.

But I could do without #3. Soldiers are in my experience, pretty fun to hang out with.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: schmedy
What kind of a moron would want to give up any of them. So which two limbs would you give up if you "had" to? If you are so willing to give up rights, start with the 1st and shut up.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I was going to ask what kind of a person asks this question in the first place(meaning the teacher). Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment.

CsG
Click to expand...

Except The purpose of this Exercise was a creative Way to Get students THINKING about the overall importance of each Amendment. Every answer a student Gave, The Teacher Could inform them which rights they would lose or how things would be different.

This would TEACH them how important they all are and the rights that they cover.


God, I disagree with alot of your politics Cad, But I though you had a little more Common sence then that.
 
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: schmedy
What kind of a moron would want to give up any of them. So which two limbs would you give up if you "had" to? If you are so willing to give up rights, start with the 1st and shut up.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I was going to ask what kind of a person asks this question in the first place(meaning the teacher). Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment.

CsG
Click to expand...

Except The purpose of this Exercise was a creative Way to Get students THINKING about the overall importance of each Amendment. Every answer a student Gave, The Teacher Could inform them which rights they would lose or how things would be different.

This would TEACH them how important they all are and the rights that they cover.


God, I disagree with alot of your politics Cad, But I though you had a little more Common sence then that.
Click to expand...

Then you might want to re-read what I posted😉

"Discussion is fine..."

Go ahead and ASSume what you wish though...:roll:

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: schmedy
What kind of a moron would want to give up any of them. So which two limbs would you give up if you "had" to? If you are so willing to give up rights, start with the 1st and shut up.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I was going to ask what kind of a person asks this question in the first place(meaning the teacher). Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment.

CsG
Click to expand...

Except The purpose of this Exercise was a creative Way to Get students THINKING about the overall importance of each Amendment. Every answer a student Gave, The Teacher Could inform them which rights they would lose or how things would be different.

This would TEACH them how important they all are and the rights that they cover.


God, I disagree with alot of your politics Cad, But I though you had a little more Common sence then that.
Click to expand...

Then you might want to re-read what I posted😉

"Discussion is fine..."

Go ahead and ASSume what you wish though...:roll:

CsG
Click to expand...

Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment


pretty harsh there CAD
 
Originally posted by: smashp
Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment


pretty harsh there CAD
Click to expand...

Yes, there should be harsh consequences when LEARNING it instead of harsh consequences when they forget/take them for granted later in life(ie it's too late). Getting an F isn't the end of the world and maybe it'd show these kids just how serious the rights guaranteed to us by the founding documents are.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: smashp
Discussion is fine but I hope he/she gave any kid who answered with something besides "none" an 'F' for that exercise/assignment


pretty harsh there CAD
Click to expand...

Yes, there should be harsh consequences when LEARNING it instead of harsh consequences when they forget/take them for granted later in life(ie it's too late). Getting an F isn't the end of the world and maybe it'd show these kids just how serious the rights guaranteed to us by the founding documents are.

CsG
Click to expand...

guess that teacher gave you an F for chosing these as non important:

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


All based on your Support of Bush Of course 😉
 
II. I don't need guns
V. I don't break laws
VI. no breaky laws
VII. Oh brother, I forgot that one was in there.
VIII. Why would I be punished.
 
Er, I'd protest. We have the 10/12 parts of the Bill of Rights, because the thigns they offer were things that were not offered, and abused, previously.

I. Necessary for a non police state. Period.
II. Necessary to enforce I. That fact that we don't need guns is not the point. The point is that we should have the right to own them for when we might need them. Firearms are mentioned with militia for very good reason. It was those poorly trained, unfit militia guys that helped make this nation.
III. Without this, the govt. could force you to take in a soldier, feed and care for him, at their will. If it came to such a situation...no. I think anyone who selected this were sleeping in History class. This sort of thing did happen.
IV. This is constantly debated even today. Because of that alone it is necessary. I have nothing to hide, but the fact is that it is mine, not the government's. If the govt can have taxes, they can let me be with personal property.
V. Victim's rights, important even 200+ years ago. It is better to let a few killers go free than send innocent to jail.
VI. Often abused in many ways, but necessary for any justice at all to exist. Remember, this originates not from people committing or not committing crimes, but from people being charged, and possibly punished for, crimes, simply because they were a good target for people's vengeance.
VII. Maybe change to $10,000. A good way to get things going (as fast as legal things can go), and keep us from things like debtor(sp) prisons.
VIII. Vague, but needed--and used. Many places give prisoners a worse time than any deserve, such as the being-reformed Pelican Bay, where psychological disorders from the treatment were part of the norm.
IX. All would be useless without this, which basically says the technicalities of these laws should not be used to deny people their rights. How well it is holding up is a good question.
X. As important as I and II. That the states, counties, cities, and people, have a right, should the law explicitly deny that right.
 
Well 3, 9, & 10 are easy outs. After that probably 7, and then it's tough. The only possible one that I'd surrender after that is 8.

A recent poll on the history channel that received something like 100,000 replies listed 2, 1, 4, 5 as the most important (in that order), with the other 6 falling significantly behind.
 
None. In fact, I don't own a firearm right now, but if our incompetent incumbent is re-elected, I will be arming myself in preparation to defend the Constitution against any further assaults he has planned for it.
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
None. In fact, I don't own a firearm right now, but if our incompetent incumbent is re-elected, I will be arming myself in preparation to defend the Constitution against any further assaults he has planned for it.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest a good long rifle...something reliable at 700+ yards. Any civil insurrection will require guerilla tactics of ambush from afar. If you've got the money a good second would be a tactical shotgun for cqb, followed by a handgun for personal defense. 😎
 
The correct answer is none, and that's exactly what I'd say to the teacher in my paper.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top