Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com
How Many Constitutional Freedoms Have We Lost?
This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right. (This is an updated version of an essay we wrote in February. Unfortunately, a lot of information has come out since then.)
First Amendment
The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:
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.
The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.
However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.
A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.
There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).
Mass spying by the NSA violates our freedom of association.
The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny. (And the U.S. is doing the same things that tyrannical governments have done for 5,000 years to crush dissent.)
For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:
- Taking any steps to protect your privacy (and see this)
- Complaining about the taste of your tap water
- Being young (if you live near a battle zone, you are fair game; and see this)
- Reporting or doing journalism (and here and here)
- Having “strange odors” or “bright colored stains on clothes” (what if you eat mustard or ketchup?)
- Protesting anything (such as participating in the “Occupy” or “Tea Party” movements). For example, Department of Defense training manuals classify all protest as “low-level terrorism”. And see this, this, this and this
- Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)
- Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)
- Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food, and most Hawaiians store up on extra food)
- (Not having a Facebook account may soon be added)
And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:
- Liking the Founding Fathers
- Being a Christian
- Being “anti-nuclear”
- Being “anti-abortion”
- Being “anti-Catholic”
- Being “anti-global”
And see this. (Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.)
And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.
Second Amendment
The 2nd Amendment states:
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.
Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.
But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
***
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “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.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
***
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …
Third Amendment
The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:
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.
A recent lawsuit by a Nevada family – covered by (Mother Jones, Fox News and Courthouse News – alleges violation of the Third Amendment.
Moreover, the military is arguably quartering “digital” troops within our homes.
Fourth Amendment
The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:
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.
But the government is spying on everything we do … without any real benefit or justification.
Indeed, experts say that the type of spying being carried out by the NSA and other agencies is exactly the kind of thing which King George imposed on the American colonists … which led to the Revolutionary War.
And many Constitutional experts – such as Jonathan Turley – think that the police went too far in Boston with lockdowns and involuntary door-to-door searches.
Fifth Amendment
The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:
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.
But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detention and taking away our due process rights.
The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.
For example, American citizens are being detained in Guantanamo-like conditions in Chicago … including:
- Brutality
- Being held in secret
- Not even telling a suspect’s lawyer whether his client is being held?
As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes. And the right to remain silent is gone.
The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.
Image by William Banzai
Sixth Amendment
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:
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.
Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving a trial … and often without ever hearing the charges against them.
More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.
The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this.
Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs.
Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.
Moreover, government is “laundering” information gained through mass surveillance through other agencies, with an agreement that the agencies will “recreate” the evidence in a “parallel construction” … so they don’t have to admit that the evidence came from unconstitutional spying. A former top NSA official says that this is the opposite of following the Fourth Amendment, but is a “totalitarian process” which shows that we’re in a “police state”.
And there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is the main business model adopted by Wall Street. Indeed, the biggest financial crime in world history, the largest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.
On the other hand, government prosecutors are using the legal system to crush dissent and to silence whistleblowers.
And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.
Seventh Amendment
The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:
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.
But there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. So good luck going after the powers-that-be.
And the World Justice Project – a bipartisan, independent group with honorary chairs including numerous current and former Supreme Court Justices – released a report saying that Americans have less access to justice than most wealthy countries … and many developing nations. The report finds that Americans have less access to justice than Botswanans, and that only the wealthy have the resources to protect rights using the court system:
For example, Germans sue equally whether they are rich or poor … but in America, only the wealthy have the resources to protect rights using the court system:
And the austerity caused by the highest levels of inequality in world history – which are in turn is caused by socialist actions by our government, which have destroyed the Founding Fathers’ vision of prosperity – is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.
Finally, federal judges have recently decided that they can pre-judge cases before the plaintiff even has the chance to conduct discovery … and throw cases out if they don’t like plaintiff’s case.
Eighth Amendment
The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Indefinite detention and assassination are obviously cruel and unusual punishment.
The widespread system of torture carried out in the last 10 years – with the help of other countries – violates the 8th Amendment. Many want to bring it back … or at least justify its past use.
While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.
And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.
Ninth Amendment
The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to non-toxic food and water. You may disagree.
But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation. However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedom, safe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).
By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.
Tenth Amendment
The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:
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.
Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:
(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people
and
(2) Separation of powers
Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom. We’ve become more afraid of our government than of terrorists, and believe that the government is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed“.
And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders.
Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.
Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the vast majority are under heavy assault.
Other Constitutional Provisions … and The Declaration of Independence
In addition to the trampling of the Bill of Rights, the government has also trashed the separation of powers enshrined in the main body of the Constitution.
The government is also engaging in activities which the Founding Fathers fought against, such as taxation without representation (here and here), cronyism, deference to central banks, etc.
As the preamble to the Declaration of Independence shows, the American government is still carrying out many of the acts the Founding Fathers found most offensive:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. [Background here and here]
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [Background here, here, here, here and here]
***
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: [Background]
***
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences [Background]
***
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the
Head of a civilized nation. [Background]
***
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [Background here, here and here]
Deluded sheeple fantasize about their day in court or presenting their case to a jury. The reality is that judges almost always issue summary judgements based upon the facts as decided by the judge before trial. If it gets to a jury, the juror sheeple trust the government hacks, aka police, prosecutors and judges. Juries are not told they can decide the law and the fact.
What should be chiseled in stone over every US courthouse is "Abandon all hope of law,justice or the Constitution ye who enter here." http://faqusajudicialcorruption.blogspot.com/
The Constitution,created by intelligent men, required the diligence of other intelligent men. Our media, our educators and our government have created bleating ignorant sheeple.
Summary judgment is for civil cases, and it is a tool that can be used for both sides. What is far more distressing than summary judgments is that something like 99% of civil cases in federal court settle without a trial. Look up Rule 68 for that. While this will be good in a majority of cases, it ensures that some real cases of injustice will be swept under the rug. The latter does more harm than quickly settling cases does good, even though, if you really go on a case by case basis, the real injustices that get brought before the court are not the majority.
I've been through the legal system when I could not afford an attorney. A TBTF sued me and I kicked their asses. You learn the rules of the court, and you learn how to make your work indistinguishable from an attorney's, then you do something that most attorneys are not used to: You become unyielding. The kind of attorneys that I was dealing with are used to people who will give into their demands or negotiate. They are not used to somebody who only desires to kick their asses outright. I read an account from a guy who was wrongly accused of child abuse who won without an attorney and he stated that the courts have their own rule book that you need to know about. He was right. I learned about it, followed it, and won. Unfortunately, the case destroyed his family even though he won and he wound up committing suicide, FWIW.
As for criminal cases, you can have the best judges in the world, and it often does not matter. The DAs put so much pressure on people, often through adding baseless charges to use as leverage, that a lot of innocent people will take a plea deal. Are you going to risk 20 years over bullshit charges vs 2 years probation and a felony on your record if you don't understand this aspect of the legal system? Most people won't. Most criminal cases are settled before they ever come before a judge. Judges often don't get to see the bullshit, so it doesn't matter much if they are corrupt or decent. When you look up criminal conviction statistics, remember that plea deals where neither the judge nor a jury ever get to see the merits of the case are counted. I've watched this happen to people where I got to see the merits of the case, with DAs being unholy cocksuckers to people trying to get them to cave, only to drop the charges at the last minute. Cops will lie their asses off too, so be sure to record any encounter you have with them. Then do what even DAs aren't used to in many cases: Become unyielding and desire nothing but to kick their asses outright. Look for chinks in the armor of absolute or qualified immunity when dealing with the DA, win the case, then go after them personally if you ever wind up in that situation. These people have no skin in the game, and they don't give a fuck who they throw in a cage. We need to start making it very personal for them again. Take their fucking houses from them.
Never give statements if you are being investigated and never consent to searches. Those rights are being eroded faster than hell, but you want all of the legal protection you can get. Merely asserting your rights might be the difference between spending 20 years in a cage and being able to bankrupt the officer 3 years later. Take the long view, not the short view.
In criminal cases there are unallowed defenses (summarily dismissed), such as god or my moral code required my act, or the law is unconstitutional, or the misconduct of the police or their prior false testimony by the police calls in to question their testimony, or the police, prosecutors and/or the judge all benefit from a conviction and are thus not to be trusted (Cui bono?)
We have freedom of the press because a jury disregarded the prosecutor's and judge's dictates in the Zenger case. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html
false forensic proof: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/review-of-fbi-forensics-does-n...
false police testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Police_Troop_C_scandal
The court is as any other tool to be weilded. Success depends on the knowledge and skill of the user.
I was reading about someone this month who got the IRS to agree that he wasn't liable to file his taxes. He simply challenged their jurisdiction and none of the agents could prove they had it. The letter is posted here...http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-drops-attack-six-years-no-evidence-j...
...We need to start making it very personal for them again...
Agreed. When I was a kid my father took a government inspector to court after he proved his "finding" for a relatively "minor" infraction of depositing surface water from a property was not what he, the inspector, desired, but which nonetheless met with the requirements of the law. The inspectors recommendation resulted in extensive costs, delays and bureaucratic "butt-kissing" to meet, but was ultimately recompensed by my father afterward exercising a hitherto unknown / unused avenue of the law whereby the public official / inspector is actually personally liable for abuses of the authority he believed he had when acting in his unelected and "appointed" role. It was actually kinda funny to see the way the county backed away from the guy and left him hanging.
I long for the day when all executive branch appointees are legally and rightfully treated with the same disdain, condescension and prosecution they inflict on citizens but which they themselves rightfully deserve.
jmo.
its time for Texas to secede
interesting. All fingerprinted and searched......but not cheek swabbed as allowed in the warrant.......
but no arrests made.
So, was what they were doing illegal? Apparently not if no arrests, but yet searched and finger-printed. No doubt under constandt NSA/FBI surveillance...........
Dey no'gonna let da cibal wa comes agin, dere Bossmen.
It's time for ALL of the states to secede.
To answer the original question:
None.
Because we had none at the get go. Laws are just ink on paper. Enforcement is done through compulsion and guns.
Hey, I'll tell you what. You can get a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it?
Constitutional Rights seem to be a variable at this juncture...either through employing finance, location, media control, civic placement, or just plain invisibility...
Get into your free speech zone if you are going to protest, pleb.
My free speach zone is wherever I happen to be standing. -paraphrased from Michael Badnarik
Inversely,
Pop Quiz: How Many Constitutional Rights Did We ever Have?
Considering that, until the ratification of the 14th amendment, it was understood that the bill of rights applied only to federal actions, I'll let you ponder that for a while.
El I find it ironic that the Bill of Rights was written to curtail federal abuses and had no application in the states. Now the Bill of Rights applies to state and local law enforcement while the federal government is no longer constrained by those rights. We have had a total reversal in the last couple of hundred years. The elections are but a left over ritual of a bygone era. The charade of the presidency, congress and the courts are but a façade put up with by the real government made up of the labyrinth of federal agencies. Those unelected agencies rule us all. They write the laws that govern us and dispatch the minions to control us.
"There was no King in the land, everybody did as they thought fit"
.
We never had any "Constitutional rights". Rights are God given and inalienable. They do not come from the Constitution. There are a few enumerated in the Constitution but they are advisory in nature only.
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/constitution-class
Bravo,
Our rights come from our very existence with the constitution attempting to bring government recognition of them.
The FEDs are an occupying government and not part of the United States of America. Do whatever you want bitchez.
"While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism."
Yeah, funny thing about Scalia. He calls himself a 'Constitutional Originalist', yet I've read several of his opinions on cases, and he weaves quite an intricate argument over minutiae, yet fails to mention-even in passing- what the original intent of the laws he's discussing are.
BTW, the Constitution makes no distinction between one's REASONS for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, just that it must not be done. There are no excuses provided for doing it, so his reasoning is again flawed...This great jurist obviously does not understand the document he cites.
He also argues like a 15 year old...they can get very creative when they want to find an excuse to do something.
Ahh, you're talking about water boarding POWs being terrorism and cruel and unusual, even when those idiotic claims can be juxtaposed against regular treatment of criminals and POWs from Constitutional times and be found far more tame than anything they did then?
Umkay.
Scalia is a horse's ass. Thomas is Scalia lite, an insult to his race.
There are no rights remaining as they pertained to the US Constitution.
The US is a fascist oligarchy
"insult to his race"? How do you mean? Is this what you think is a polite way of calling him an "Uncle Tom"?
Oreo?
All those rights still exist. If you have a badge.
All those rights exits in perpetuity because they are $Deity given. They can be INFRINGED, but they cannot be taken away. To assert that they can be taken it to impart the belief that our rights are separate from ourselves rather than INHERENT to our being. Nobody can grant me the right to free speech because the act of speaking is inherent to my free will. Fine me, beat me, kill me and you don't take any rights away - the worst anyone can ever do to your rights is impede them, make exercising them painful and an act of fear. Bottom line, is it has to be done with YOUR CONSENT.
I get so mad when people claim their rights were taken away. No, you gave them away by not using them. Good reasons or bad, it was still the individuals CHOICE.
Dream on sucker.
The Tenth Amendment was the first to go.
What is left of the Second Amendment will probably be the last to go.
Destroy all law and justice then wonder why you have a lawless and unjust society...
Alex Jones is live broadcasting an on-site report on the Chicago black site
What pisses me off is that even the best arguments are ones of enumerated rights. I do not have enumerated rights.
That was the problem with the BOR to begin with. I cannot count how many times I have heard people say "You have no right to" because it is not listed in the BOR.
Fascinating read by of all people Hamilton about the dangers of the BOR in the Federalist papers (the final one I think).
Sadly, it all came true.
The CON was a set of delegated functions of the government and the rules for carrying those out. When the BOR was added, it muddled the purpose of the document. It was no longer a framework for the general government but also one that talked about individuals.
Fast forward, and it now limits individuals while government claims powers not delegated.
pods
Pods, BoR or not, people are going to try to lord over you. This seems to be a constant with governments and people. You can argue against a BoR, but can you really say that it would be different without one? Look at the fat fucks riding scooters at Walmart and tell me that without a BoR, they woudln't still vote their rights away. With or without a constitution and a BoR, control freaks will ignore your rights, enumerated or unenumerated.
I have seen them that hang off that scooter on both sides.
Well I certainly agree that there will always be those who wish to lord over others.
When I read The Federalist by Hamilton about the dangers of including the BoR it really shocked me. Both in whom it was penned by, and how it came to be.
I think the danger of including the BoR was precisely because of human nature. By enumerating any rights, much as the Magne Carta did, those not written did not exist but were subject to the king's wishes. Granted, the BoR tried to address that with the 9th amendment for the people, and 10th amendment for the states, but failed. Reading teh BoR I cannot contemplate how it failed, but it took me 30 some years to understand the meaning. Must have been public ed?
As to a larger point, we have become so controlled that every time anyone wishes to do anything, we always speak about NEED. Why do you need?
I guess it just shows how far we have fallen?
Here is Hamilton's quote on the BoR:
It was Federalist 84.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_84.html
pods
Admittedly Hamilton is my least favorite of the founders simply because he was more of a monarchist than any of the others, even to the point of defending Tories but the long and short of the Bill of Rights is it is an "official" document acknowledging Americans human rights (or civil rights if you prefer) that are already present before the creation of any law(s).
One cannot read the Bill of Rights in its entirety, in its total, from items one through ten...and not come away with the impression of what it was designed for, simply, ten prohibitions on the central government itself.
They are all restrictions, saying what the government is not allowed to do.
Its the hardest thiing in the world for the statist mind to accept, the monarch mind, the technocrat, the apparatchik, the progressive, the shyster lawyer, the cronies etc. to wrap their heads around and understand it completely and in the context of itself, always preferring to parse it.
But there it is, in black & white.
Unfortunately who enforces the state, make sure it follows the rules?
If the people attempt to do so, we all know there will be death as we see in the Ukraine. Right now people are shaking in their boots from fear when terrorism is mentioned, never mind experienced. There is no stomach for slaughter on both sides while the populace is being caged.
Maybe an invasion is necessary or a natural phenomena like the plague?
Thanks, pods. I admit I am completey ignorant of this issue with the Bill of Rights and Hamilton's well-reasoned argument above.
I can't blame public education - I detested everything about the boring 'civics' and U.S. history classes in high school. The U.S. was suppose to run just fine on autopilot for the rest of my life.
Besides, the math department just got in the high school's first TTY-63 with an acoustically coupled phone modem an punch tape reader. You could play checkers with the VAX - screw the Bill of Rights.
How many PODS do you think know what year the Patriot Act was passed.
How many know why the newest branch of government, "Homeland Security" was formed.
Just what we needed. Another expensive branch of goverment to pay for.