Our New Bill of Rights

[NYC Liberal]

Welcome to Bush Amerikkka! Fascism with a smile!

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (1), or of the press (2); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - Right to bear arms.
A well regulated Militia (3), 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 - Quartering of 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.

Amendment IV - 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.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

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 - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses.
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.

Amendment VII - Trial by jury in 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.

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

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

(1) May be waived by the president at his discretion.
(2) May be waived by the president at his discretion.
(3) This phrase may be ignored at will.

[Trillo]

1. Just like Animal Farm. nt

[Quixote1818]

2. They are working on scratching Amendment I as well. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Sad

:cry: What can we do? Four more years of this bs?

[bryant69]

15. I was going to mention

That could be amended this way.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian Religion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Coastie for Truth]

3. If Congress (and the States) called for a Constitution Convention

what changes would the Red Staters make?

Clearly the First Amendment would go - this would be an Evangelical Theocracy (abortions banned, stem cell research banned, compulsory prayer and Bible reading in schools, teaching the "Theory of Evolution" would be banned and replaced by the 'Fact of Creation Science - "Young Earth" flavor).

The VII the would go - bad for business.

And on and on and on...

Maybe us Pacific Coast Blue states would secede ;)

[DebJ]

4. You forgot to edit to this: Bill of Frights

[Quixote1818]

5. This is REALLY GOOD! It needs to be a chain letter! nt

[kliljedahl]

6. Probably need to cross out "Well regulated Militia" too

You never hear the wingnuts mention those words when quoting the 2nd. I'm a gun owner & hunter too. Just don't need an AK-47 to kill a squirrel or a pheasant.

[hansberrym]

9. You are confusing a militia with a hunting party. What does

hunting squirrel have to do with the second amendment or with a well regulated militia?

[kliljedahl]

11. Well since "well regulated militia" is in there

I guess it has a lot to do with the 2nd. My point was, that part is never quoted when attempting to justify the need for assault rifles, armor piercing ammo & everything else the NRA thinks they need.

[hansberrym]

19. You still have it exactly backwards.

The possession of military-type weapons is protected by the second amendment, but a squirrel rifle would have little use in the common defense so it is not certain that the second amendment would apply.
See underlined portion of US V. MIller. (Are squirrel rifles part of the ordinary military equipment? No. Could they contribute to the common defense? Arguably yes.)


If one really takes note of the phrase "A well regulated militia...", one can not conclude that the second amendment is about hunting or that "the people" only have a right to own sporting or hunting rifles.



From US V. MIller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

[mcscajun]

7. Correction to the Fifth Amendment

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

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.

After all, people are being ordered -- okay, in some cases strongly 'encouraged' (unless you'd like to declare yourself a suspect) to submit DNA against their will; that's being a witness against yourself, big time.

Oh, and what was left of the Sixth Amendment wasn't worth keeping. Best to just eliminate that one, too.

GREAT JOB! And I agree with the other poster who said this should be widely disseminated.

[hansberrym]

10. From McConnel v. McCain Feingold law

we learn that there is an "institutional press" which apparently has more rights than the other press. Thus the 1st amendment is edited, er -interpreted by the supreme court.


Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (1), or of the <institutional> press (2); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.






http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1674.html


Excerpt:
"In addition to arguing that §316(b)(2)'s segregated-fund requirement is underinclusive, some plaintiffs contend that it unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of media companies. FECA §304(f)(3)(B)(i) excludes from the definition of electioneering communications any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 U. S. C. A. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiffs argue this provision gives free rein to media companies to engage in speech without resort to PAC money. Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i)'s effect, however, is much narrower than plaintiffs suggest. The provision excepts news items and commentary only; it does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore FECA's provisions. The statute's narrow exception is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles. "A valid distinction ... exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public." Austin, 494 U. S., at 668. Numerous federal statutes have drawn this distinction to ensure that the law "does not hinder or prevent the institutional press from reporting on, and publishing editorials about, newsworthy events." Ibid. (citations omitted); see, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(B)(i) (exempting news stories, commentaries, and editorials from FECA's definition of "expenditure"); 15 U. S. C. §§1801-1804 (providing a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers); 47 U. S. C. §315(a) (excepting newscasts, news interviews, and news documentaries from the requirement that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates for public office).89"



VA BoR
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

[tom_paine]

12. You might have forgotten to scratch one

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

I believe that Abu Ghraib and Torture as National Policy (though it has yet to expand to it's full dimensions now that the floodgates have been opened) may well elimiate that line.

Naturally, at the early Tiberian Phase of Amerikan Empire, the practice has not spread wholesale. It may never do quite that.

But it will spread. And that line in the Constitution would seem to be going or already gone.

[lostnfound]

13. Amendment VII has been trashed too

via 'tort reform'.

[AllegroRondo]

18. Its been chipped away at for years

every time a law was passed saying 'you cant sue such-and-such industry for damages'. Tort reform just finished it off.

[lostnfound]

14. "right to peaceably assemble"..protest permits? tear gas/rubber bullets?

seriously infringed.

[spanone]

16. Bush* has used our Constitution for toilet paper since 9-11.

[a7244270]

17. Great post, but I suggest adding footnotes.

One of the problems that liberals face is that too often we are preaching to the choir. A post such as that which started this thread is effective with an audience such this, beacuse for the most part, we can look at the strikethroughs and go "yeah, I remember when that right went away, it was when he did blah blah blah on blah blah blah".

Most Americans are blissfully unaware of what is going on, and when given the reality, will refuse to believe it - I have friends that will look at that post and go "yeah, liberal crap, thats not true, whatever".

If each strikethrough in this post were thoroughly footnoted, I think it would be far more effective, and I certainly would have no objections to blogging it.