The Bill Of Rights. A refresher

[Ulfwald]

Amendment I.
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.

Ok, where does it say that religion must be BANNED from schools, when do you suspend a child who prays before a test.

Amendment 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.

What part of

<< shall not be infringed >>

does the government not understand? While background checks are now a necessary item, No government should be able to keep me purchasing a handgun and carrying it for all lawful purposes.

Amendment 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.

So far I can not remember having to "house a soldier", but if asked, I wouold do so willingly because they are the defenders of our country.

Amendment 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.

Unless the IRS thinks you are a tax evader, then all bets are off. Then there is DEFACS, if they even suspect that you may be endangering a child, you will be "raided".

Amendment 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.

Justr ask people who live on a right of way if the government will compensate them fairly for siezed property, they may pay the FMV for the land, but what about compensating the homeowner for the depreciation of their home values

Amendment 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.

This is a no brainer, but yet we always seem to have people waiting around for trial, usually at taxpayers expense

Amendment 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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We can thanks the modern day civil lawyers for abusing this one. They file for any crazy thing, then twist people's words/actions so that they can line their pockets with 40% of the judgement if they win.[/b]

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

Notice here it does not mention that the death penalty is a "cruel and unusual punishment", instead, this was meant to say that the government could not torture people

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

Unless twisted government lawyers or some civil trial lawyer, or even an over zealous DA decides that you have committed a crime, or even wronged someone. Just look what happened to one of our members here.

Amendment 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.

This one went out the window with the civil war, and this is also the one that the civil war was fought over, the right of the states to govern for themselves.




Ok, now that we have a history lesson for today, tell me in the bill of rights where does it say that the Government has a righ to my money, so that it can hand it out to a bunch of welfare loosers. Where in there does it entitle lazy people to my money?

 

[pyonir]

i don't want to touch this. but i will point out two things. as for the no religion in schools thing. schools are government run and if you read all of the Constitution there shall be separation of church and state. as for the kid getting suspended, that is dumb...never heard that story though, you should be able to pray in silence if you want.



<< tell me in the bill of rights where does it say that the Government has a righ to my money >>


it isn't in the bill of rights. it is in the Constitution. how can you run a government without taxes?

 

[shiner]

Sadly most U.S. Citizens have never read The United States Constitution or have the vaguest idea what the Bill of Rights are. Instead of teaching important stuff like that our schools spend too much time "instilling a sense of self worth" into children or making sure they have read truly important things like Heather Has Two Mommies

 

[shiner]

<< the Constitution there shall be separation of church and state >>


That does NOT mean an exclusion of religion from goverment buildings, schools, meetings, etc.... what that means and what the Founding Fathers intended is that the goverment cannot make one religion the state relgion. In other words the Federal goverment cannot come out one day and say "from now on everyone is Baptist"

 

[Texmaster]

<< Sadly most U.S. Citizens have never read The United States Constitution or have the vaguest idea what the Bill of Rights are. Instead of teaching important stuff like that our schools spend too much time "instilling a sense of self worth" into children or making sure they have read truly important things like Heather Has Two Mommies >>



Great points. Social practices have taken the place of history being taught in classes.

 

[pyonir]

<<

<< the Constitution there shall be separation of church and state >>


That does NOT mean an exclusion of religion from goverment buildings, schools, meetings, etc.... what that means and what the Founding Fathers intended is that the goverment cannot make one religion the state relgion. In other words the Federal goverment cannot come out one day and say "from now on everyone is Baptist" >>


exactly. so the school can't sponsor prayer or religion related events. but if the kid wants to pray for himself...knock yourself out i say. my HS allowed a group to say a prayer if something happened. if you didn't want to, you didn't have to and it was student run. teachers and the administration had nothing to do with it.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< the Constitution there shall be separation of church and state >>


That does NOT mean an exclusion of religion from goverment buildings, schools, meetings, etc.... what that means and what the Founding Fathers intended is that the goverment cannot make one religion the state relgion. In other words the Federal goverment cannot come out one day and say "from now on everyone is Baptist" >>



EXACTLY. Straight talk is a lost art.

 

[MacBaine]

<< No government should be able to keep me purchasing a handgun and carrying it for all lawful purposes. >>



While I am in favor of gun rights, and I do believe that this amendment has been taken WAY out of context, I an glad that there are laws preventing some poeple from getting guns.



<< unreasonable searches and seizures >>




<< if they even suspect that you may be endangering a child, you will be "raided". >>



That seems pretty reasonable to me. If somebody is hurting their child, I would want them taken care of.

Other than that I pretty much agree.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<<

<< the Constitution there shall be separation of church and state >>


That does NOT mean an exclusion of religion from goverment buildings, schools, meetings, etc.... what that means and what the Founding Fathers intended is that the goverment cannot make one religion the state relgion. In other words the Federal goverment cannot come out one day and say "from now on everyone is Baptist" >>


exactly. so the school can't sponsor prayer or religion related events. but if the kid wants to pray for himself...knock yourself out i say. my HS allowed a group to say a prayer if something happened. if you didn't want to, you didn't have to and it was student run. teachers and the administration had nothing to do with it. >>



You are missing his point. He is saying that all religious symbols being excluded is not protected and thats exactly what is going on.

I don't know where you went to school but the vast majority of public shools I know of have banned any form of prayer if a teacher participates and that is not a law.

 

[shiner]

<< so the school can't sponsor prayer or religion related events >>


Actually they can as long as kids aren't forced to go. For example schools can have Christian Clubs, Muslim Clubs, Hindu Clubs, etc... as long as they are all treated the same and people aren't forced to attend them as part of the school's daily routine.

 

[pyonir]

i got his point.

 

[pyonir]

<<

<< so the school can't sponsor prayer or religion related events >>


Actually they can as long as kids aren't forced to go. For example schools can have Christian Clubs, Muslim Clubs, Hindu Clubs, etc... as long as they are all treated the same and people aren't forced to attend them as part of the school's daily routine. >>


those are student run.

 

[shiner]

<< That seems pretty reasonable to me. If somebody is hurting their child, I would want them taken care of. >>


True, but too often what can happen is that DHS(or whatever your state calls it) can just march into someone's house even if they just mildy suspect child abuse is going on. They don't even need to have proof and they can come in and make your life a living hell. A friend of mine used to work for child welfare here and spent a lot of time going on "raids" just because someone called in that they had seen someone spank their child or there were aseveral times she told me that a BF or GF would call in their partner as a child abuser anytime they got into a fight. Because of that DHS would come burtsing in, seize the childred, turn their lives upside down, do an investigation and then find out nothing was wrong and that they had been alerted by an angry spouse or whatever just to get revenge.

 

[shiner]

Yes they are student run but they can have faculty advisors. Just because someone is a teacher should that exclude them from being able to practice their religion in public?

 

[pyonir]

<< Yes they are student run but they can have faculty advisors. Just because someone is a teacher should that exclude them from being able to practice their religion in public? >>


never said that. apparently the government did though. (in some cases)

 

[shiner]

<< never said that. apparently the government did though. (in some cases) >>


Yes, there have been cases where judges, mostly liberal ones trying to MAKE law instead of interpreting law, have made decisions that banned teachers from taking part in student religion clubs.

 

[Amused]

<< Amendment I.
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.

Ok, where does it say that religion must be BANNED from schools, when do you suspend a child who prays before a test. >>



Any school that has banned private student prayer was in violation of the law. However, the SCHOOL cannot force the child to pray before the test. Nor can any other government body be seen as endorcing one religion over another.

BTW, there WERE no public schools at the time.



<< Ok, now that we have a history lesson for today, tell me in the bill of rights where does it say that the Government has a righ to my money, so that it can hand it out to a bunch of welfare loosers. Where in there does it entitle lazy people to my money? >>



Unfortunately, the American people wre stupid enough to pass the 16th Amendment (there ARE futher amendments that just the Bill of Rights) that says:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Also, article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

I agree that the extent to which taxes have been levied teeters on complete unconstitutionality. However, your question did not ask this and I'm too short on time to open that whole can 'o worms.

As for the welfare state, that is amazingly enough based on this line in the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And Back again to Article 1 Section 8:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

What they have failed to recognize (but know damn well) is there is a HUGE difference between "general welfare" and individual welfare.

As for your comments on the 4th and 5th Amendment, you can thank the War on Drugs more than any other single "cause" for the loss of our rights there.

Well, it's a busy day for me. I just wanted to say I generally agree with you, but I had to point a few things out.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Yes they are student run but they can have faculty advisors. Just because someone is a teacher should that exclude them from being able to practice their religion in public? >>



I think it does because they are paid by the state.


I could be wrong but thats what I remember reading.

 

[NeoV]

isn't part of the problem the fact that the Bill of Rights/Constitution was written 225+ years ago?

Ulfwald, what Militia are you a part of? The right to bear arms is in the bill of rights because it was local militias who fought against the British, how is that applicable now?

I am not saying that no one should be allowed to buy a gun in America, but if you think there isn't a real problem in America with guns, your head is in the sand.

I say re-write the entire constitution & the Bill of Rights.

 

[shiner]

<< I think it does because they are paid by the state. >>


No, it just means that they have to do it outside of normal school hours.

 

[shiner]

<< I think it does because they are paid by the state. >>


Oh sure....we would be MUCH better off if we let modern day attorneys write our governing document. No thanks!

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< I think it does because they are paid by the state. >>


No, it just means that they have to do it outside of normal school hours. >>



Right. When they are not being paid by the state. Offtime is their time.

 

[Amused]

<< isn't part of the problem the fact that the Bill of Rights/Constitution was written 225+ years ago?

Ulfwald, what Militia are you a part of? The right to bear arms is in the bill of rights because it was local militias who fought against the British, how is that applicable now?

I am not saying that no one should be allowed to buy a gun in America, but if you think there isn't a real problem in America with guns, your head is in the sand. >>



If you think the problem in America is with guns, you have a real problem with simplistic and illogical thinking. Both Israel and Switzerland have more liberal gun laws than the US, but lower crime rates than most all countries that ban guns. The problem in the US is one of people, not hardware.

The 2nd Amendment does NOT limit ownership to militia members. It allows free ownership of firearms so that there are sufficiant numbers of armed citizens from which to draw a citizen militia.

BTW, we ALL are members of the civilian militia, which is made up of every able bodied man 17-45 (I may have the ages wrong, but it's the same damn thing).

Oh, hell. I'll just paste my standard 2nd Amendment argument right here because I don't have the time for this:

The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.

To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.

The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."

In fact, here is my challenge:

Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

 

[Zebo]

All arms shuold'nt be allowed like the second amendment says. The founders had no idea about cluster bombs, nukes, and chemical/bio weapons where it's possible for one guy to take out tousands and even millions of lives. Remember they had muskets back then which despite the depictions in "The Patriot" movie with Mel Gibson they were inacurate, slow to reload, and single shot. I think things are about right in Texas were you can conceal if you not a felon,.

 

[NeoV]

amused, too bad that isn't YOUR wording....it is almost word for word from some NRA documentation.....

If you don't think guns are part of the problem in America, get your head out of the sand. I'm not saying ban them, but certainly more must be done.

Yes, it is people that pull the trigger of the guns, and so on and so forth....