The NEW Bill of Rights

Great Debates
1

(Note: Insert tongue in cheek. Debate away!)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (just make sure it’s a Christian religion – and Catholics, look out), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (unless it involves wearing weird clothing or something); or abridging the freedom of speech (unless such speech will do anything that might actually lead to keeping you free), or of the press (which will be handled, if need be); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (as long as they have a permit issued by the Government), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (which we will get back to you on – you should live so long!).

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 (all at once – Taking away this rights will not be noticed if we nibble at them).

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. (Okay, we’ll give you that one.)

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. (This Amendment does not apply to the security of persons, houses, effects, searches and seizures, bodily fluids including saliva, semen, blood, urine, ichor, pus, or anything else that is a part of the human body; nor shal a warrant actually be required or probably cause be required.)

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 (unless we don’t like the outcome of the first trial, in which case we can find something else to try them on and convict them of something*); nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (except by using his bodily fluids ennumerated in Amendment IV), nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (or without due process of law); nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (“Just compensation” need not to be just. A token of 24 dollars worth of beads is sufficient. Compensation for the property being seized * shall in no case approach the actual market value of the property.)

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial (“speedy” is of course a relative term – the universe has been around for billions of years and no matter how long it takes to bring a person to trial, it is speedy by comparison), by an impartial jury (that has been carefully stacked so that in no case will they actually be impartial, unless they are incapable of even the simplest logic, in which case that’s fine) 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 (unless the defendant is accused of violating State Security, in which case he does not have to be informed of the exact nature of his crime); to be confronted with the witnesses against him (unless the witness’s identity or the evidence against the defendant must be kept secret for “security reasons”); to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor (although practicing the compulsory process is not necessary in all cases), and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (The defendant may have all the justice he can afford.)

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars (snarf), the right of trial by jury shall be preserved (hey, the jury is stacked! What have we got to lose?), and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States (unless we want to), than according to the rules of the common law. (Note that common law will be abolished at the same rate as common sense.)

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required (unless there’s no friggin’ way we want the guy out of custody), nor excessive fines imposed (unless we want to), nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (Define “unusual”. Heh heh heh.)

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

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. (Which is to say that the United States will usurp all powers not delegated to it, and the States and the people will have to claw them out of our iron fist.)

2

So, what are you doing about all these supposed violations, Johnny?

3

Which one of those many points do you want us to debate?

4

Truth is often found in absurdity. People seem unconcerned that their Civil Rights are being eroded. I’m trying to raise awareness. I take it that since you said “supposed”, you don’t agree?

Take your pick. Or debate the greater issue of the loss of Civil Rights through apathy.

Here, I’ll start. If we’re guarnateed the right to peaceably assemble, why do we need a government-issued permit to exercise that right?

5

I’m assuming you’re referring to the sale of the island of Manhattan here?

If so, of course…

[ul]
[li]It wasn’t taken by the federal government[/li][li]It was sold willingly by the Indians who lived there at the time[/li][li]How do you know the market value for the island at the time wasn’t what was paid then?[/li][li]The sale, of course, took place over 150 years before this ammendment was written. Since the constituion also prohibits ex-post facto laws, then this ammendment wouldn’t apply to the sale anyway…[/li][/ul]

Zev Steinhardt

6

We don’t. Any peaceable assembly can be held anywhere on private property without a government permit. You’ll have to adhere to fire codes and local noise ordinances, though.

If you want to hold your assembly on public grounds, you’ll need a permit, but that’s a function of the use of commons rather than of peaceable assembly.

Next question? Want to talk about commons as they relate to I, V, IX or X?

7

Not necessarily. As you know, drug hysteria is running amok in this country. We have “zero tolerance” laws that say the State can take away your property if you purchased them with, or use them to generate “drug money”. There are similar laws for other crimes. For example, the car a “john” is in when he propositions a prostitute can be seized – whether or not it’s his car.

There was a story on NPR a few years ago about how “zero tolerance” laws can be abused. It said that people have been pulled over for a “traffic violation”. The cop decides they’re trafficking drugs. Their cars are sezied. After proving that they had nothing to do with drugs, the people try to get their cars back. But they can’t unless they file an expensive lawsuit to reclaim their property that shouldn’t have been seized in the first place.

In another case, a man was sitting in his home in Malibu, CA. IIRC, the value of his property was about $5 million. “An anonymous source” called in a tip to the L.A. Sheriff’s Dept. that the man was “growing marijuana on his property”. From this unsubstantiated tip, the LASD got a search warrant. They burst into the man’s home. For whatever reason, the man did not know they were law officers. (He had been drinking – nothing wrong with that in your own home.) Seeing masked intruders bursting in, he tried to defend himself with a gun. He was shot dead. No marijuana was found anywhere on his property. Speculation at the time was that the LASD wanted to add five megabucks to its coffers.

It seems to me that this sort of thing violates the Amendment IV.

8

Nibble away at what? The guns themselves? You won’t notice if you have half a gun , or half the right to have a gun? And who is ‘we’?

how about:

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 - * or even well regulated*.

9

Ok, I have a small item to add to this debate: First of all, I think that the point of the OP is well taken. There has been some erosion of our civil rights of late.

What I am wondering is this; Why the mocking tone folks? It seems to me that the overall tone here is nitpicky and folks are avoiding the big issue.

Are Civil Rights being eroded, or not? If yes, how does that make you feel? If no, explain why the perception of the OP (and mine I may add) is wrong.

10

Gun rights have been severely eroded over the years. I understand it’s impossible to legally buy (or even own?) a gun in Washington D.C. In Los Angeles, you need a permit to exercise your right to carry a firearm; but try to get one. They’re not issued unless you are a politician or a celebrity.

The important thing about the Second Amendment is that it refers to the people. “The people” means everyone; not just those people who are in the National Guard or other military. Unless you believe that “the people” means the same thing every time it’s mentioned in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights iexcept the Second Amendment.

11

**

I think you are confusing two separate clauses of the the ammendment under discussion. I was addressing the “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” clause (addressing your comments about 24 dollars worth of beads). You answered me back on a different clause, the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” which is a totally different issue. The former clause in the ammendment deals with forfiture, while the latter deals with emminent domain. Please address the comments I made with regard to the specific clause you commented upon (emminent domain).

Zev Steinhardt

12

I don’t know who first said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”. But, it remains true.

Take a look at this forum. You’ll find plenty of debates on the seperation of church and state, the right to privacy and many other issues connected to the basic freedoms granted to Americans. There’s no use trying to wake up the Dopers. We’re already awake and making idignant calls to our local representatives.

 I agree with what some of the other posters have said regarding the subject. We would be better able to debate the many points you raise if you were to split them into seperate threads. One thread per ammendment seems logical.
13

zev: You’re right. I was trying to be funny with the $24 thing. As Binarydrone points out (he seems to be the only one who “got it”), I feel that our rights have been slowly slipping away from us. I thought that by lampooning the BoL in this way, it might get people to thinking about whether we really are.

While I don’t have any egregious examples of the taking of property for public use (although someone else might), I do have one example. My mother’s inherited house was condemned by the city of Anaheim because they wanted to build a senior’s centre. The city chose the appraiser and would not accept any other appraisals. Convenient, eh? As it happens, they did not tear down the house. It’s still there and someone is living in it. I guess after they owned it, they decided that it was a valuable piece of the city’s history.

As for the $24 comment, I hope that a discussion of the erosion of our Civil Rights will not be sidetracked by a jest.

14

Well, firstly, are you so certain that popel are unaware? Isn’t it possible that many people know and simply don’t care? I mean, I know it’s important to you, but there are perfectly sane and intelligent people who are aware of the issues and simply do not feel there’s reason for panic.

Well, not as such. As you say, your OP is intentionally absurd, so it’s hard to agree with that in particular. But apart from gun ownership, I don’t see a whole lot of evidence that things are any worse now than they have ever been. Alien and Sedition Act anyone?

15

Although I do see the points made by other commenters, I need to point out that Johnny is only making, in somewhat stronger terms, the classic point that one’s rights are only as good as those enforcing them allow them to be – and that it’s more than easy to ignore minor infringements until virtually no degree of the right is left.

And just to make the set complete, let me point out that it appears to be contrary to public policy to offer real property for rent and exclude the military. My wife and I nearly found this out the hard way – having at the time a duplex in less-than-ideal shape and being willing to take a fairly low rental, we decided it would be a decent thing to do to offer it as available to people who had been displaced by the rapid influx of military families with housing allowances above the previous market range for rentals in our area, and could not afford “fair market value” rents. We were informed in no uncertain terms that excluding military families, no matter what our reason for doing so, without running afoul of some Federal statute – and we risked prosecution if we continued to do so. (What we did was to remove the public offer to rent in the terms we’d set it, and seek out through our contacts in the social assistance area those families needing to rent at a cost below the new, inflated fair market value.) So even Amendment III is being violated, more or less.

16

Last Saturday I attended the annual Tohono O’odham day at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. This was a kind of fair, which included presentations of their religious ceremonies. It was sponorted by the Federal Government and held on Federal property. I doubt that a presentation of Christian or Jewish religion would be sponored by the government today.

17

just 'bout sums them up these days

18

Why do you suggest that apathy is the cause? Couldn’t it be conscious will of the people?

Are you espousing that the basic rights should exist completely unfettered?[ul][li]That it should be fine to yell “fire” in a crowded movie house?[/li][li]For private citizens to be able to not only keep and own, but carry concealed, atomic weapons?[/li][li]Exclude DNA evidence altogether?[/li][li]Not retry Yates for the murder of her other two kids if she was acquitted on the first three?[/li][/ul]Absurd? Yes. What is your point? Should we be constitutional fundies, taking the literal meaning without reasonable interpretation?

Or isn’t that you just don’t like the current interpretations?

19

I’m not panicking. Just pointing out that if we do not protect our rights, then we may lose them. People who don’t care deserve whatever they get.

You have a point. But I see this as a cae of not seeing the forest because of all of the trees in the way. Individual threads for each Amendment will result in exhaustive debate into that Amendment. What I was trying to point out is that the issue is not just gun control or privacy; it’s that the Bill of Rights as a whole is under attack, so to speak, by a number of different issues.
AZCowboy: The arguements you post do not take into account that with freedom comes responsibility. Someone who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not, in my opinion, expressing a desire to engage in Constitutionally protected discourse. Instead, he is trying to cause trouble that may result in injury or death to another person or people. Prohibiting him from such an action is very different from trying to prohibit a doctor from discussing, say, the option of having an abortion with a patient.

The atomic weapon arguement is absurd, and you know it. A nuclear device, a bomb, a hand grenade, a nerve gas or biological device, etc. are indiscriminate. That is, they produce colateral damage to everyone in the vicinity. A rifle or pistol on the other hand must be pointed at what it hits. Any colateral damage is limited. (For example, a ricochet may hit a person; but not wipe out a whole city.)

I’m not bothered too much by DNA evidence. What bothers me is that people must submit to unreasonable searches in order to prove they’re not guilty of a crime. This violates the premise that we are presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty.

An unreasonable search is also illustrated by my LASD example. Yes, they had a warrant; but it was based on an anonymous tip that was wrong. Their execution of the warrant, bursting into a private home without sufficient warning cost a man his life.

As for the Yates verdict, trying her for the murder of her other two kids after she has been acquitted of the other crimes is not double jeopardy. It is a seperate charge for different murders.

20

Or, in the alternative, an armed drunk pointed a gun at police officers executing a court-issued search warrant and got his damn fool head blown off.

You got your spin, I got mine.