...I thought I'd weigh in.
1ST AMENDMENT
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.
Well, we appear to pretty much be a theocracy at this point, so I don't need to talk about the first part. Freedom of speech? Not gone yet, but not exactly in a hale and hearty state. Freedom of the press? The press seems to be functioning as an American version of Pravda, or is threatened with jail if it isn't willing to go along with the government. Peaceable assembly? Sure, as long as you don't mind being filmed and watched from that point forward. Redress of grievances? Kind of tough when one party controls all three branches of the government...
2ND AMENDMENT
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.
Okay, now that a "well regulated Militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of [our] free state," this amendment seems not to apply any more. Even if it does, there's a big difference between a "well regulated Militia" and every getting to have as many guns as they want to have for any purpose they for which they choose to use them.
3RD AMENDMENT
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.
See, the news isn't all bad! We've actually stuck to this one!
4TH AMENDMENET
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.
Stick a fork in this one, it's done. Apparently the government no longer needs warrants, probable cause, or any of the other nuisances described by the Founding Fathers. Don't believe me? Think about this: did the government go to a judge to get permission to listen to every phonecall in the USA- including yours?
5TH AMENDMENT
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; 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.
It says, "No person," NOT, no "US citizen," so how do we justify keeping people in prison in Cuba without the "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury?" I'm not even suggesting that the prisoners in Gitmo are innocent, but we still have to follow the rules. The rules, by the way, that WE wrote!!
6TH AMENDMENT
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.
I might be missing information on one or two of these points, but I'm pretty sure that the "detainees" in Camp Delta (formerly Camp X-Ray) have been denied each and every one of these rights. I'm tempted to say something about a slippery slope here, but I'll hold off for now.
7TH AMENDMENT
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.
Hmm...setting aside our tendency to sue anyone for anything, we're doing okay with this one. See, MORE good news!
8TH AMENDMENT
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Alright, let's see, in most cases we're doing okay on the bail aspect- if anything we set it too low too often. Excessive fines? Certainly not if it's a corporation or a Republican donor. "Cruel and unusual punishments?" I refer you to my comments on the 5th and 6th Amendments.
9TH AMENDMENT
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Wow! This one might as well have a second clause which says, "Unless of course it suits your partisan agenda to deny or disparage any rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The idea behind this amendment is a good one, but it's become the red-headed step child of the Bill of Rights.
10TH AMENDMENT
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.
I'm not sure this amendment could be anymore straight-forward, and yet it seems so difficult for so many to understand. Let me give you an easy example of how it works. If the state of Massachusets wants to allow for same-sex marriage, there is NOTHING the federal government can do about it. First, no power "delegated to the United States by the Consittution" forbids it. Second, nothing in the Consitution "prohibits" the states from exercising power on this matter. Third, the right to determine it's views on same-sex marriage is "reserved to the states." Finally, to bring my opinions into a nice, neat circle: if you oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, that is your right. But, the same 1st Amendment that grants you that freedom ("...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), prevents you from using the government to put it into practice- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment