# Do you think the Bill of Rights is subject to amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978 "2006-11-18T21:10:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/1 "2006-11-18T21:10:39Z")
Clearly, the president has been able to put a couple of parts of it on hold. But what of actual modification? Say, could the second amendment be clarified to clear up the debated sections? Simply spell out what is a militia, and whether “arms” includes scoped, attack weapons, atomic dirty bombs, etc. ? And whether this right is or is not extended to illegal aliens and prisioners and the mentally ill. OR . . . Or do you think that when part of it goes then the rest is doomed. That despite it’s centuries-long acceptance, and being further based on the Magna Charta, that it would all dissolve in one feeding frenzy of zealots, from Left, Right, and Green? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/2 "2006-11-18T21:14:54Z")
Constitutionally speaking, of course it’s subject to amendment. Are you asking whether that would cause more harm than good? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/3 "2006-11-18T22:48:33Z")
I’d like to see an amendment that specified that the protections of the First Amendment applied specifically to flesh-and-blood human beings, and that Congress was free to extend or deny such rights to corporate or other nonhuman entities as it so chose. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/4 "2006-11-18T22:49:46Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] Or do you think that when part of it goes then the rest is doomed. [/QUOTE] I see absolutely no reason to think that. And the BoR is **not** in the most tenuous sense derived from the Magna Carta. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/5 "2006-11-18T22:58:48Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I’d like to see an amendment that specified that the protections of the First Amendment applied specifically to flesh-and-blood human beings, and that Congress was free to extend or deny such rights to corporate or other nonhuman entities as it so chose. [/QUOTE] I’d oppose such an amendment. What part of the First Amendment do you believe should be denied to artificial people? For example, do you believe that the Supreme Court’s commercial speech jurisprudence doesn’t place appropriate limits on the type of speech typically engaged in by corporations? Do you believe that Planned Parenthood, for example, should be denied the right to petition for redress, or to hold a rally? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/6 "2006-11-18T23:06:41Z")
It is absolutely subject to amendment. Culturally, however, it seems to me that the entire constitution is becoming less and less so over time. Occasionally, I see discourse that suggests the Constitution is more of a sacred text than a working document, which annoys me to no end. (Personally, I think that near-instant widespread communication and the principles of passive resistance have made the second amendment moot, but that’s not a position with a lot of support.) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/7 "2006-11-18T23:13:18Z")
All of the Bill of Rights is, of course, capable of being amended in the same manner as it was originally enacted, viz, by constitutional amendment. And, as **A2P** notes, the problem is not with an out-and-out enacted change as it is with gradual erosion by refusal to support or enforce parts of it. (I’d like to suggest to **RTFirefly** and **Campion** that they identify new terms for the legal fiction of corporate personhood than have been used so far. A Miss Marjorie F. Baldwin has registered her strong distaste for the terminology so far used, and you do **not** want Friday mad at you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/8 "2006-11-19T02:58:18Z")
[QUOTE=Dr. Drake] (Personally, I think that near-instant widespread communication and the principles of passive resistance have made the second amendment moot, but that’s not a position with a lot of support.) [/QUOTE] 😕 Moot in what sense? Do you mean if the Second Amendment were repealed, and political obstacles to gun control overcome, more gun control than we have now still would be practically impossible to enforce? Or what? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Octagon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@The\_Octagon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Octagon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/9 "2006-11-19T03:18:52Z")
Yes it’s possible. We’ve amended amendments before. Prohibition for one. The process is not easy, though. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/10 "2006-11-19T04:08:19Z")
[QUOTE=The Octagon] Yes it’s possible. We’ve amended amendments before. Prohibition for one. The process is not easy, though. [/QUOTE] I think the OP assumes (as practically everyone does when using the phrase "Bill of Rights) that the **first ten** amendments have some special sacred/canonical character later amendments lack. And if we don’t stand to defend them – by Og! Before you know it, they’ll be quartering troops in your house, and denying you jury trial in civil suits where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/11 "2006-11-19T05:01:04Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I’d like to see an amendment that specified that the protections of the First Amendment applied specifically to flesh-and-blood human beings, and that Congress was free to extend or deny such rights to corporate or other nonhuman entities as it so chose. [/QUOTE] Doesn’t that just invite them to shut down corporations like Time Warner, inc., Disney inc., CBS inc., News Corporation inc., and even Chicago Reader, inc., if any of these publishes information displeasing to the government? They’ll be stifling these corporations but not the rights of the individual workers, who can hand out leaflets on corners if they want, assuming they have the proper permits. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/12 "2006-11-19T14:38:51Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Doesn’t that just invite them to shut down corporations like Time Warner, inc., Disney inc., CBS inc., News Corporation inc., and even Chicago Reader, inc., if any of these publishes information displeasing to the government? They’ll be stifling these corporations but not the rights of the individual workers, who can hand out leaflets on corners if they want, assuming they have the proper permits. [/QUOTE] Hold on - individuals passing out leaflets are not flesh-and-blood persons?? I missed that part. Besides, they’d be mostly passing out the leaflets over the Internets. There’s a lot of that going on these days, I hear. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Octagon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@The\_Octagon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Octagon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/13 "2006-11-19T14:52:19Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I think the OP assumes (as practically everyone does when using the phrase "Bill of Rights) that the **first ten** amendments have some special sacred/canonical character later amendments lack. And if we don’t stand to defend them – by Og! Before you know it, they’ll be quartering troops in your house, and denying you jury trial in civil suits where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars! [/QUOTE] I understand the question. The fact is that it is possible. It is not impossible, it’s just highly improbable. It’s much easier to just ignore them. If you ask me the 8th amendment is pretty much dead unless you’re citing it in favor of spoiling prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/14 "2006-11-19T15:03:43Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I’d like to see an amendment that specified that the protections of the First Amendment applied specifically to flesh-and-blood human beings, and that Congress was free to extend or deny such rights to corporate or other nonhuman entities as it so chose. [/QUOTE] How do we divorce RTF from RTF Inc.? Why can’t you use your corporate resources to speak your personal opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/15 "2006-11-19T15:53:41Z")
Corporations can only act through natural persons. Thus, when a natural person is hired by an artificial person to hand out leaflets, it is the artificial person speaking, not the natural person. Telling the artificial person “you can’t hand out leaflets but the people you hire to hand out leaflets can hand them out” doesn’t have a whole lot of practical impact. **Polycarp** , I understood each individual word in your post, but strung together like that, I didn’t. Sorry. I’ll go drink some coffee and maybe I’ll figure out who Miss Marjorie is and why I care about her opinion. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/16 "2006-11-19T16:13:53Z")
[QUOTE=Campion] I’ll go drink some coffee and maybe I’ll figure out who Miss Marjorie is and why I care about her opinion. 🙂 [/QUOTE] The reference is to a Robert Heinlein science fiction book titled _Friday_. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/17 "2006-11-19T16:23:00Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] Simply spell out what is a militia, and whether “arms” includes scoped, attack weapons, atomic dirty bombs, etc. ? And whether this right is or is not extended to illegal aliens and prisioners and the mentally ill. [/QUOTE] _“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”_ **George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution** In other words, the militia is you and me. Trained (thus the “Well regulated” part) in the type of arms issued to the common soldier (rifles & pistols) with the right to keep & bear same. _“No free man shall be debarred the use of arms”_. **Thomas Jefferson** Illegals, the unstable, and felons are not “free” people under the law, and therefore do not have the right to bear arms. Felons in particular have surrendered their rights by their actions. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/18 "2006-11-19T16:29:19Z")
[QUOTE=pkbites] \*Felons in particular have surrendered their rights by their actions. [/QUOTE] Not all of them, of course. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/19 "2006-11-19T16:56:20Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I’d like to see an amendment that specified that the protections of the First Amendment applied specifically to flesh-and-blood human beings, and that Congress was free to extend or deny such rights to corporate or other nonhuman entities as it so chose. [/QUOTE] Is this meant to get at campaign contributions and other forms of political speech purchased by corporations? That still leaves deep-pocket individuals (e.g., members of the **boards** of those corporations) who could still use their superior resources to continue rigging the system in their favor. Try another approach; perhaps an amendment that makes it clear that money is not speech and the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to influence the outcome of an election by spending money on it. OTOH, an amendment should not even be strictly necessary. Money is **not** speech and [Supreme Court opinions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) holding the contrary might, and should, be reversed. Good argument on that point [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6994089&postcount=3) Better we should run elections the way the French do: Paid political advertising is illegal. All TV stations are required by law to give all candidates in a given election equal allotments of **free** air time which they can use as they wish. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978/20 "2006-11-19T17:00:55Z")
Although the Second Amendment was the example given, the OP dealt with the Bill of Rights as a whole. (And I’d question if he intended limiting his inquiry to Federal acts violating rights, or meant to include the extension of those rights as against state acts through the 14th Amendment.) In my opinion, the proper procedure should be to enact amendments that spell out exactly what you intend to except from those protections, not to construct a reasonable but arguably unconstitutional set of exemptions that are, to quote friend **Bricker** quoting Mr. Justice Douglas, “penumbras and emanations” of what the law says. For example, taking the Second Amendment, if it is our wish corporately as a nation to permit the restriction of the right to bear arms in manners that keep gang members and Mafiosi – or even felons – from owning them, **say so**. Any intelligent layman can pick up the Second Amendment and read that **it is unconstitutional to prohibit a citizen from carrying such weaponry as he reasonably believes himself to need.** Period. That may not be what we **want** to do, but that’s what the Amendment says. If it’s not working, fix it. But don’t ignore what it says. If there are reasonable grounds for censorship, then rewrite the First Amendment to say so. For example, troop movements in wartime, or, even better, strategic plans. A newspaper that unearthed and published the plans for Operation Overlord on May 30, 1944, would arguably be committing treason – but it would also be exercising its constitutional right to publish what it learns. I need not rehearse the arguments on why child pornography is bad here, I think. But where’s the clear exemption of them from the guaranteed freedom? Another interesting fact I learned about 20 years ago, as the Army base near my home town was expanded: it’s illegal (I don’t know the statute involved, but I was told this explicitly by people whose business it was to know such things) for a landlord to hold property open to the public and exclude soldiers from whom you will rent to – even if the intent is to rent to low-income persons forced out of affordable housing by the increase in rents available as Army troops seek places to rent. That is arguably a violation of the Third Amendment! One can go on at length. Establishment Clause and free exercise cases are always fun for several pages of impassioned argument. But the point is, _the Amendment doesn’t say what we want it to mean_ – and the proper course is not to interpret it out of shape, but to **change** it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-bill-of-rights-is-subject-to-amendment/380978.md?page=2)