The Bill of Rights for Dummies

[Mythsaje]

1. You can say what you want about your government and the people in your government. They aren't supposed to harass, arrest, or do anything to prevent you from doing so. This extends to the written word as well, and the government cannot tell the press how it may describe the government, whether it's flattering or not. The government doesn't get to decide what is "news" and what isn't.

You also have the right to worship God in your own way as long as no one gets hurt, or even not to worship as you so choose. The government doesn't get to say "this is the only real religion(s)."

Status: Ignored at will. (See "Free Speech Zones," "Media Consolidation," and "Evangelicals at the Air Force Academy." Also see "Atheists or pagans running for public office."


2. You have the right to defend yourself from assault. As long as you're the defender and not the attacker, you may protect yourself with whatever weapon is at your disposal. This right even extends to defense against unlawful attacks by the government itself, though the government would very much like you to forget about this part of it.

Status: Variable. Though certain elements often defend the "Right to Bear Arms" rigorously, there seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding who is allowed to use which methods to defend themselves. Members of certain minorities in particular are excluded from exercising this right without legal repercussions. Also, the police can exercise "no knock" warrants against any citizen and, even if they do NOT identify themselves as police, if any are somehow injured or killed during these raids, the civilian WILL be charged with murder and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


3. The government can't force you to provide room and board for soldiers against your will. They can't make you rent a room to a soldier so he can keep an eye on you. This amendment is of limited importance these days.

Status: Mostly obsolete.


4. The government can't simply go through your things without first going to a judge to ask "please, we think this person is a criminal and here's why we want to look through his things, his mail, and/or tap his phone."

Status: Almost completely negated by Congressional acquiescence to the authority of President Bush and his Attorney General to intercept the communications of anyone they allegedly believe MAY be in contact with someone overseas. In addition, property can be seized without any evidence of a crime if certain agencies have reason to believe that the property is somehow connected with the sale of drugs.


5. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself or provide incriminating evidence to the authorities about yourself. Nor can they attempt to try you twice for the same crime, or take your property without paying you for it.

Status: Only partially in effect. If you are suspected of terrorism, you may be taken out of the country and placed jailed indefinitely, put under torture, and never receive any sort of legitimate legal representation. If they decide you could somehow "block" the rebuilding of Iraq, or Lebanon, they can block or seize your property without due process. This is in addition to the seizure orders in effect in the Status details of the 4th Amendment above.

6. You are entitled to a public trial that follows certain procedures before a jury of people like yourself to figure out if you're innocent or guilty of the crime of which you're accused. It's supposed to happen quickly, so that an innocent person isn't wrongly jailed for a long time.

Status: Only partially in effect. Certain minorities were unable to stand before a "jury of their peers" and now those suspected of terrorism are subject to military tribunals and not afforded any of the Constitutional protections listed above.

7. If someone sues you, or you sue someone else, you get to present the case to a jury and let them decide.

Status: Questionable. Right now forces are mustering to protect corporations from civil suits and are trying to tie the hands of juries by changing the whole process so it's almost impossible for the average citizen to challenge corporate power.

8. The government isn't allowed to set bail so high you'd never be able to get it. They are also not supposed to inflict "cruel and unusual punishment" upon any prisoner.

Status: Forget about it. Bail is whatever the hell the judge decides it will be and THEY get to decide what's "cruel and unusual."

9. The Constitution's supposed to explain the powers of government--what it can and can't do.

Status: The 9th Amendment has been ignored for a LONG time. Most Americans are completely unaware of what it was supposed to mean.

10. Powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government is supposed to remain in the hands of the people, or in the separate states.

Status: :rofl: The people of California and Oregon passed Medical Marijuana laws. The federal government ignores these laws and prosecutes people anyway, though a strict reading of the Constitution grants it no such authority.


;)

Well, I'm hoping this sparks some interesting debate. Hopefully we'll be able to refrain from name-calling and other such juvenile behavior, but I'm not holding my breath.

edited to run a spell check

[krispos42]

1. first rec!

It's sad times, isn't it?

[Mythsaje]

2. Only Rec, so far...

:D

Definitely sad times.

[MessiahRp]

3. Second rec...

The sad part is, I wonder how many of our Representatives or Senators have even read this or the Constitution. They were sworn in with an oath to protect them, yet they have no problems tossing the entire framework of these documents in the trash at Bush's will.

Cowards are those who fear what people may think over what they actually do.

Rp

[Mythsaje]

4. I've engaged in a great many debates

about the meaning of the Constitution

My (least) favorite line used by some people is that the BOR "isn't a suicide pact."

Whatever the fuck THAT means.

[MessiahRp]

7. What a pathetic response to your debate...

The people that truly believe that deserve nothing short of Gitmo detainment. Only then will they understand why our forefathers wrote protections for all Americans into the most important legal document in our country. Nothing written since then matters as much and nothing should ever replace it.

The problem with Americans is our ignorance. Not all of us (obviously or we would not be having this conversation), but enough believe that when our forefathers declared freedom from the British, fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution that was the end of it. That their ideals of what made up America were good enough to allow us to call ourselves the greatest nation in the world without enforcing the very liberties that made up those ideals. We can scoff and look down at Europe and think we're better just because of those actions long ago.

Yet there is a double standard. We hold those ideals up but we don't want to follow them. Or at least, won't do as our forefathers did and fight to keep them. Some Americans would gladly demean those documented rights as obsolete, outdated, wishful thinking or not applicable to modern times if it meant more political power for their ideology or more "protection" from an overhyped enemy.

It is sad that these same people apparently did not study their history with any conviction in school or else they would have some sort of shame for what they are allowing these modern day tyrants to do to our country and those documents.

The very reason it took so long to ratify was the lengthy debate over each individual right in the Bill of Rights. Their complex discussions were meant to be forward thinking and protect future generations from enemies at home and abroad. The rights discussed therein are for the most part applicable to today's world even if technologies have changed.

Some choose excuses over liberty.

I choose liberty.

Rp

[EstimatedProphet]

16. I think the problem is worse than that

The problem with Americans is our ignorance. Not all of us (obviously or we would not be having this conversation), but enough believe that when our forefathers declared freedom from the British, fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution that was the end of it.

I don't think that's really it, exactly. Unfortuanetely, it's really hard to say what is "it". I've been wondering about this for a long time, and I've not been able to fully work out why it is so few people seem to be concerned. I think it's a nexus of several different things, including:

1) Blind uber-patriotism - a deep seated belief, as taught in elementary school, that authority is your friend, and America is the best country on Earth, period.

2) Bully psychology - "We're gonna kick the damn furriners asses!" All problems can be solved by violence toward someone. This combines with #1.

3) Army fetishism - "America, hell yeah! We're the baddest badasses there are!" this combines with #1 and 2.

4) Racism - there's a lot of Americans that believe that any predominantly non-Caucasian populace is technically and intellectually somewhere around the Stone Age, and would remain so if we don't provide continual economic support to them. They picture the world as being full of starving Ethiopians, and it is our task (unfairly in some people's opinions) to lift them up into consumer-driven civilization. The White Man's Burden is alive and well still.

There's probably other factors as well. I think these factors blend together in a lot of people's minds to keep them from seeing how the world really works. If something happens that make people question US policies, they seem to respond like this:

"How can we be doing something wrong? We're Americans! We don't do the wrong thing! If something bad happens, we fix it and go kick some ass! We're the baddest badasses on the planet! No damn (raghead/gook/injun/etc.) is ever gonna beat us! We're the best there is!"

With this kind of mindset, freedom becomes about beating up on other countries around the world. That's why they aren't oncerned with losing freedoms - it isn't happenning in their eyes because we're such a badass country.

[benEzra]

10. I think people who say that...

think that the government is allowed to do whatever it wants, as long as it says it has a good reason to do so.

Which, of course, totally shreds the Bill of Rights...

[dipsydoodle]

5. High five for you

thanks for the expo.

[lildreamer316]

6. Requesting permission to redistribute. How do you want to be credited?

ABSOFUCKINLOUTELY great. K&R!!!

[Mythsaje]

11. Of course...

Credit as Saje Williams

:)

[annabanana]

8. Good job.

It is astounding how many people have no idea. If I ran the country, "Civics, Rights and Responsibilities" would be taught every year. (pre-K and up)

[PatSeg]

23. I agree

When I was in school, you couldn't graduate without taking civics and political science. It was in our senior year, but I think as you said, it should be taught throughout one's education. Citizenship in a democracy should not be taken for granted. Most immigrants on their way to citizenship end up knowing more about our government than those born here. That is appalling. How can children spend twelve plus years in school and know so little? High school seniors should have to take the same tests that immigrants take in order to graduate, and anyone joining the military or seeking a government job should as well (that would eliminate most of the Bush administration).

[19jet54]

37. They are doing the best they can

While I know we are all Mensa here, most people are not. 12 years of mostly social training and the 3 Rs simply do not address your concerns. Perhaps we need to make it 14 years of general education minimum with more skills in the sciences mandated?

[PatSeg]

44. I'm not sure that

"more" in this sense is necessarily better. The money needed to keep children in school two years longer might be better spent on teacher's salaries, school infrastructure, and smaller classrooms. There are no easy answers. Education is generally given only "lip service" by politicians and we end up with brilliant programs like "no child left behind"! Every election cycle we hear the same old rhetoric about underpaid teachers and overcrowded classrooms. Then we get more of the same.

[superkia]

48. Now thats how it should be!

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Common error on article one

It's not "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment OF A PARTICULAR religion", it's "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The subject itself is off the proverbial table. Congress is not to endorse whether religion is good or bad, nor whether the lack of it is either.

This common mistake gives the connotation that "of course religion is a good thing and most of us believe in it, we're just not going to sanctify any particular one as the official one."

This may seem like a niggling little point, but I submit that it's VERY important: the concept itself is not to be endorsed or vilified and expressions of it should be relegated to private activity wherein it is protected as long as it doesn't intrude too much on the rights of others.

The reasons for this are many, but one of the greatest and least often addressed is the effect this has on public discourse and determination of policies and laws: things are to be argued on their mortal merits rather than their acceptibility to supernatural assumptions. The words of all are to be held equal except when personal expertise is brought into the issue. (If there was an official religion or the commonly-held bigotry held sway that believers were "better" than the non-religious, it would make words and ideas derived from such beliefs "better" than those determined on the secular plane. It would create an aristocracy.)

Sorry to be such a wet blanket; your overall post is lots of fun, very valuable and a nice gift to us all. Thanks for taking the time.

[Mythsaje]

12. I thought I covered that.

I was trying to treat it as fairly as I could, considering that I personally think revealed religion is a bunch of hooey.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Good point, and true

There was a LTTE just the other day 'quoting' the 1st amendment, claiming that all athiests should be deported. That belief is alive and well these days.

[Marnieworld]

21. where would they be deported?

Doesn't that imply a country of origin different than this one?

I wish I had a link but in an article recently about Pat Tillman there was a quote from a high ranking military official. He said that pat was an atheist as was his family and they kept pressing investigators about his death because they had "a hard time letting go." meaning if they only believed in heaven they would have been indifferent to how he died? I guess that's what he meant. It makes no sense to me. Clearly their non-belief had an impact as to how valuable he was and they were, whether they even deserved the truth.

In political life atheists are second-class citizens. Many politicians don't even acknowledge their existence as Americans. Wasn't it poppy that said atheists weren't citizens? Don't get me started.

That part of Ammendment 1 is such a joke. Faith Based Office? Puh-leeze.

[hfojvt]

30. "expressions of it should be relegated to a private activity"

I guess, if you don't believe the first amendment it should be.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. To use it as justification in governmental activity is against article one

Perhaps you mistake my use of "private"; I don't mean that it has to be done behind closed doors, in the dark and silently. For all I care, people can join the wackos on the street corners with their bullhorns; the only limitations there would be disturbing the peace, and for that, I'd draw the line at doing it outside of normal waking hours. (For filming and most construction work, the times are usually 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)

What I mean by "private" is "private industry", as opposed to "public" as in "in the act of a governmental official".

My apologies for not being more clear.

[hfojvt]

47. that's not any clearer

it sounds like you are saying 'religious people cannot hold public office'. There are public officials and there are elected officials. To keep elected officials from speaking about religion or religious justifications is a violation of free speech and also 'prohibits the free exercise thereof'.

[JeffR]

13. K & R

Excellent.

[ProudDad]

14. Didn't you see the "New" Bill of Rights?

Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bill_of_rights_pared_down


:)

[benEzra]

15. LOL! That is excellent. (n/t)

[Popol Vuh]

18. I agree 100%.

9. The Constitution's supposed to explain the powers of government--what it can and can't do.

Status: The 9th Amendment has been ignored for a LONG time. Most Americans are completely unaware of what it was supposed to mean.

10. Powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government is supposed to remain in the hands of the people, or in the separate states.

I would also like to add the importance of Marbury vs Madison in relation to the 9th and 10th amendments. Whereas no legislative "ACT" may supersede the constitution.

The 9th and 10th amendments are so underplayed in the publicity they get. If as many people were equally as much an ardent supporter and protector of the 9th and 10th amendments as they are the 1st amendment. There would be no Patriot "ACT", Military Commission's ACT, Controlled Substance ACT, etc.

These two amendments affirm that unless it is listed in the constitution, the federal government has NO jurisdiction. Furthermore, it shall NOT be mistaken that ANY personal right which is not listed in the constitution is a right retained by the people, in other words, you can smoke a joint in your house unless there's a constitutional amendment making it a crime.

Furthermore, any criminal act (i.e. murder, rape, robbery, vandalism, etc.), which is not listed in the constitution falls into the jurisdiction of the states to write laws. Furthermore, that the states have no authority to write laws giving less freedom to its citizens (i.e. states cannot criminalize none criminal acts).

But nevertheless, we have a litany of victimless crime laws and federal laws which violate these two amendments. And the average dumbass American goes on without a clue.

[Mythsaje]

19. Indeed.

The 9th and 10th Amendments have been ignored because most people don't understand them.

[ieoeja]

20. My favorite anti-Bill of Rights arguments.

"Once you commit a crime, you give up all your rights."

Delete Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.


"You have no rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution."

Delete Amendment 9.


"The federal gov't has no power not explicitly given to it in the Constitution. All other powers belong to the state gov't."

Delete "or to the people" from the 10th Amendment. Ironically when Rightists use federal power against the states they always do so while simultaneously opposing the rights of the people, e.g. medical marijuana. Conversely, when we use federal power against the states, we almost always do so in defense of the rights of the people. Our use of federal-vs-states power is actually constitutional under the 10th Amendment, while theirs is invariably unconstitutional.

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

:kick:

:toast:

[PatSeg]

24. Thanks for this

Well done!

[cui bono]

25. Olbermann did a great piece on this a while ago....

“Why does habeas corpus hate America”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/10/olbermann-why-does-habeas-corpus-hate-america/

[roxnev]

26. Republicans hate the constitution

Marijuana was made against the law illegally by the Republican party By declaring it a dangerous drug, and like all stupid Republican laws, it is not good for America

[NanceGreggs]

27. Excellent!

:applause:

[Mythsaje]

29. Actually, I like

this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1533923&mesg_id=1533923

even better.

:)

But I'm glad everyone likes this one too.

[djp2]

28. Amendment 5

5. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself or provide incriminating evidence to the authorities about yourself. Nor can they attempt to try you twice for the same crime, or take your property without paying you for it.

With the use of Civil Trials, e.g. OJ Simpson, we can be tried and found "guilty" even though found innocent in Criminal trials. Also, we can be tried and convicted under similar Federal laws, even though found innocent in State courts.

[knitter4democracy]

31. We're doing Number Three in Iraq.

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3487

About halfway down:
"US soldiers have also taken to quartering troops in Iraqi homes and schools. “Requisitioning homes or other buildings has been widespread in Iraq for US troops on missions who stay far away from bases, sometimes for several days or weeks,” the Associated Press reports.

“They broke into my house before Ramadan and they are still there,” Dhiya Hamid al-Karbuli recounted to a reporter. “We were not able to tolerate seeing them damage our house in front of our very eyes...I was afraid to ask them to leave.” “Marines have been making camp in seized houses,” the New York Times reported from Husayba, the site of a major assault in November 2005, in which “ighter jets streaked overhead, dropping 500-pound bombs” on the town.

Neither the Associated Press nor the Times seemed to have remembered that the quartering of troops was one of the primary complaints of American colonists against King George and the British — as described in the Declaration of Independence:



But the feelings of Iraqis don’t really matter in US calculations. As Col. Stephen Davis, of the Second Marine Division, who headed the Husayba assault, explained, “We don’t do a lot of hearts and minds out here, because it’s irrelevant.”"

[Mythsaje]

32. Irrelevant or impossible?

Interesting how quickly we've become what we fought against, isn't it?

[knitter4democracy]

42. I guess we're allowed to break our own Constitution in war.

Especially if it's somewhere else and people don't know about it.

[Irreverend IX]

39. The Third Amendment is all but forgotten.

There's no reason for soldiers to be quartered in homes in a rich industrial society that can house them more efficiently on bases. In a civil war/public unrest situation, however, it can be convenient for the military to seize control of residential areas. I suspect that the Feds will do it sooner or later, probably when the next Katrina-style disaster rolls around, and nobody will bat an eye.

[knitter4democracy]

43. The Constitution is all but forgotten.

My government teacher in high school made us memorize all of the amendments and their numbers and then tested us over and over about them. My husband's teacher just did debates the whole time. I'm constantly amazed at what he doesn't know about the Constitution.

[Kurovski]

33. K&R

:kick:

[Festivito]

34. Nice job. (Though I have a standing disagreement with #1. NBD.)

My standing argument is that we also have a right to practice our religion within government, as, government, can make no law to stop such practice unless it harm life or liberty. But, this requires a bunch of mostly academic meanderings not meant for this thread. (PM me to a different post to discuss, but not here, please.)

Aside, you use hurt. Actually, I think under a religion a first party CAN hurt someone, UNLESS the hurt second party doesn't want to be hurt in which case the hurt second party is a part of a different religion and the first party originating hurt would then be guilty of denying civil rights of freedom of religion to the hurt party. Sorry for being wordy.

Your use of hurt could also mean that someone might feel hurt that someone else is of a different religion. Such feeling hurt should not deny anyone else right to choose nor practice religion of choice.

SUGGEST:
No one can stop you from worshiping in your way, and you can't stop others from worshiping in their way. (Nor can you stop others from the practice of not worshiping at all -- if that is their practice.)

Status: Ignored at will. Ten commandments go up while other religions are denied same presentation. Office holders and candidates tout their religious backgrounds blatantly denying this right.

[Mythsaje]

35. Good suggestion, really...

The problem is trying to simplify a complex concept... It's abuse that I'm referring to, specifically, when I say hurt.

[SeattleGirl]

36. Excellent post. Have you forwarded it to the White House yet? n/t

[19jet54]

38. Are we fundamentalist here?

Did we forget about the rest of the Amendments, US Code, State Law and most importantly the methods by which we can also change it, if this new experiment in government needs tweaking? Ref: Prohibition & it's repeal.

And how about the Declaration of Independence (the reason for this new nation) and the specifics mention against King George that we wish to change, which led to the Bill of Rights?

My point is, while the Bill of Rights is great, there is a bit more to it.

Good Post K&R!

[calimary]

40. What. A. Great. Thread!!!

Bookmarking!

Just really STELLAR!!!

:toast:

[Irreverend IX]

41. A lot of the constitution-shredding is due to the war on drugs.

The ninth and tenth amendments were thrown out mostly so that the US could enforce Prohibition, and the agencies created at that time have evolved into today's DEA, ATF and the Department of Homeland Security. These groups are unelected but can create regulations that have the "color of law," allowing them to conjure new restrictions and limitations on citizens out of thin air with no meaningful oversight.

[Mythsaje]

45. I've said the same thing for years...

The war on drugs was a test drive for their dismantling system, and proved to be remarkably successful.