The Bill of Rights: Ignored or Outdated

[scott.voigt]

With all thats been happening in the past year and what little I've heard about constitutionality issues, are these laws outdated or worse, simply being ignored.

The first amendment has been questioned with religous references in our schools.

The second amendment has been loosened in regards to the dropping of the assault weapons ban.

The fourth amendment has conflicted with the Patriot Act from the start.

The fifth and sixth amendment. How does this apply to detainees who are not US citizens?


The eighth amendment. How does this apply to the prisoner abuse scandals and international law. Which takes presidence? Also.. how does this apply to the detainees at gitmo

The tenth Amendment. Then how has the fed become so large?

Just some food for thought.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 offense 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.


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 defense.


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.


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


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not 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.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by scott.voigt

With all thats been happening in the past year and what little I've heard about constitutionality issues, are these laws outdated or worse, simply being ignored.

First Scott, I would suggest a look at the Preamble to The Bill of Rights. Specifically

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Note especially the emboldened part about declaratory and restrictive clauses. My understanding is simply this. Because the articles known as The Bill of Rights, are declaratory and restrictive, they take precedent over any and every law passed by the Congress and signed into law. I believe there to be no greater law than the Bill of Rights, and no authority of any type, higher.

How many are even aware the Bill of Rights has a preamble. Is it taught in schools? For that matter, is much emphasis placed on teaching the Bill of Rights, at all? After looking at the scant coverage afforded the BOR in one of my grandson's government textbook, I have to say no.

Now to discuss the thoughts you have expressed.

The first amendment has been questioned with religous references in our schools.

I believe the First Amendment to have been bastardized far beyond what the framers intended. A study of most of the early patriots and framers of the Constitution will, I believe, establish our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and teachings. I believe it will also show, our founders and early leaders believed almost to a man, they could only govern effectively with the guidance of the Creator we call The Heavenly Father.

It has been said that Thomas Jefferson, after penning his missive to The Danbury Baptist Church, and using the phrase 'wall of separation' attended church services being held in the chambers of the House of Representatives, and those services were continually held there until after the Northern War of Agression. Seems somewhat strange to be talking about a separation of church and state and attending services held on government property, eh?

The second amendment has been loosened in regards to the dropping of the assault weapons ban.

Here, Sir, I have to take umbriage with you to a point. The Second Amendment was not loosened with the sunset of the AWB. It was restored somewhat to what the founders envisioned. There will be a loosening when all illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional anti-gun laws are repealed.

The fourth amendment has conflicted with the Patriot Act from the start.

Not too sure I don't agree to a certain point with you on this. Did we give up freedom to acquire a little safety?

The fifth and sixth amendment. How does this apply to detainees who are not US citizens?

This may come acoss as somewhat cold, but when non US citizens attempt to do harm to our country, they forfeit, any consideration I may have for them.

The eighth amendment. How does this apply to the prisoner abuse scandals and international law. Which takes presidence? Also.. how does this apply to the detainees at gitmo

Later on this.

The tenth Amendment. Then how has the fed become so large?

Because in the name of expediency, we have allowed the Congresscritters and the President, with the blessing of the Judiciary, to usurp the powers assigned unto the government.

Just some food for thought.






http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm[/quote]

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by scott.voigt

With all thats been happening in the past year and what little I've heard about constitutionality issues, are these laws outdated or worse, simply being ignored.

The eighth amendment. How does this apply to the prisoner abuse scandals and international law. Which takes presidence? Also.. how does this apply to the detainees at gitmo

Quite frankly, I had to go back and reread the Eighth Amendment:

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

I'm not sure the bail and excessive fines clause applies here. It may, but my thinking again, is those people were trying to do harm to us and ours, and deserve little consideration. As for the Abu Gharib mess, it appears some of our people overstepped their bounds of authority. I would surmise they had little, if any supervision, and the natural meaness of those few got in the way of their better judgement. While the prisoners were in their care, they should have been afforded a certain human dignity. I do believe the media has blown this way out of proportion. War is an ugly business, and to suggest a few soldiers will never abuse their power over other human beings is expecting what I believe, to be the impossible.

As for what's going on at Gitmo, again, I have little sympathy for those willing and had been attempting to harm us.

[scott.voigt]

Excellent Shooterman... simply excellent... I agree with you on pretty much everything in so far as the examples I provided. The second amendment thing was just an example to provoke discussion, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only thing I disagree with is where you stated that terrorist do not deserve the rights that are applied to everyone. I cannot agree, they should all be taken to Texas and fried like every other murder, rapist, and otherwise evil man should under the laws which we have. Conspiring and associating withan organization bent on death should earn them all a seat in the chair. Either that or a fair trial shall exhonerate those who have been locked up at gitmo for years on end.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by scott.voigt

Excellent Shooterman... simply excellent... I agree with you on pretty much everything in so far as the examples I provided. The second amendment thing was just an example to provoke discussion, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only thing I disagree with is where you stated that terrorist do not deserve the rights that are applied to everyone. I cannot agree, they should all be taken to Texas and fried like every other murder, rapist, and otherwise evil man should under the laws which we have. Conspiring and associating withan organization bent on death should earn them all a seat in the chair. Either that or a fair trial shall exhonerate those who have been locked up at gitmo for years on end.

Thank you, Sir. 'Tis always nice to know one has managed to convey the proper tone and message without 'screwing the pooch'. Unfortunately, Old Sparky ain't the preferred means of putting mad dogs to sleep in Texas, any longer. Cruel and unjust, you know? Of course we don't want all the LIB DIMS wetting their panties either, now, do we?

[Snowden]

Thanks for posting these Ten Amendments, Scott. I had a book which I kept here at the computer for a constant reference. It disappeared some months ago, and I've been frustrated ever since. Now I can print them out and have them again - and in my documents so they will not get lost again.

We have a Supreme Court which has one function - to protect the Bill of Rights and make sure it is never infringed upon. It is that court we have to hold responsible for the mess that has been allowed to pass as law and which makes the Bill of Rights the distortion they are today. Sandra Day O'Connor is one of the worst judges on that court - she was quoted as called the Constitution a "living constitution," which is exactly what it is not meant to be and never was meant to be.

Then there are a few others.. I hope we can get judges on that bench who will recognize the reason they are supposed to be there and who will return the value of the Constitution to what it's supposed to be.

[Shooterman]

[quote=Snowden]

Then there are a few others.. I hope we can get judges on that bench who will recognize the reason they are supposed to be there and who will return the value of the Constitution to what it's supposed to be.

Unfortunately, M'am, I don't believe we will see it in our lifetimes, and I fear, 'twill never be that way again.