posted 06-08-99 03:02 AM ET        

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."

A "Militia"? Surely that should in modern terms be an "Army"? If not, and it really means citizens banding together to fight crime, This amendment needs to go! As for guns, That's another discussion.

"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."

Who is to decide what's "Unreasonable"? That's far too vague.

"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."

You have military juries? Anyway, the "Militia" has to go again. Otherwise It'd justify lynch mobs. Oh, and the air force might be added (They didn't have one, then).

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."

an "Impartial" Jury? There are no impartial juries. If you necessarily want to keep common law, face up to the facts. Or get real law (i.e. Civil Law, like in all real countries).

"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."

Twenty Dollars? Wouldn't it be easier to raise that level slightly? To, say, 200 dollars? A person who shoplifts a small radio shouldn't really be put in front of a jury... As for common law, I think this is one of the biggest problems facing the US today. Legal Absolutism is a much better method, and doesn't allow for bigotry, sexism, etc.

"Amendment VIII

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

Excessive? Who's to decide what's excessive? Be clear. As for Cruel and Unusual punishments.... What's a Cruel and Unusual Punishment? So a cruel and common punishment is OK?

"Amendment IX

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

posted 06-08-99 04:14 AM ET            

Who is to decide what's "Unreasonable"? That's far too vague.

The supreme court, in the end...

an "Impartial" Jury? There are no impartial juries.

What's the alternative ? Where do we get impartial judges ?

If you necessarily want to keep common law, face up to the facts. Or get real law (i.e. Civil Law, like in all real countries).

I have to add the concept of "unreal law" to my studies...also, what will we do with juries in civil law systems ?

Legal Absolutism is a much better method, and doesn't allow for bigotry, sexism, etc.

Does legal absolutism corrupt absolutely ? Or , on a general note, WTF is this ?

Excessive? Who's to decide what's excessive? Be clear.

The courts, again...

As for Cruel and Unusual punishments.... What's a Cruel and Unusual Punishment? So a cruel and common punishment is OK?

Yes... otherwise, the death penalty would be unconstitutional...

Retained by the people? How? By way of Congress/The Senate? Elections? What?

No, rights under statutary law, common law, state law are not derogated by the constitution. It sets out rights, but does not completely define rights - additional/further/more farreaching rights remain untouched. It has nothing to do with natural rights IMO...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for Example. Is that greater than the constitution?

posted 06-08-99 10:55 AM ET            

The US has already done a good job of revising (or, in some cases, ignoring) the Bill of Rights. I'd just as soon not give them any more ideas.

posted 06-08-99 11:21 AM ET            

What I mean by Misguided morals was stuff like laws against adultry, abortion etc. that don't harm other people, but have still been widely used.

People can contend that this behaviour harms the spouse or the fetus. Whether you agree, is a question of values again.

Traditional values are not automatically good values, as Common Law assumes they are.

Oh, common law can be quite dynamic as well...

It is strange that countries with common law have to rely on trials like Roe vs. Wade (Abortion) to get laws which should, in all fairness, be worked out by the People (Through their legislative bodies i.e. The Parliaments).

In Roe vs Wade, the supreme court overturned state legislation banning abortions; it held that there is a constitutional right to abortion which is not the view of european courts; here, it was just about the constitution not prohibiting allowing abortion under certain circumstances.

Oh, and in common law the Judges that make these decitions are not Elected. Therefore not all decitions are based on democratic principles, but rather on the Whims of the sitting Supreme Court Judges. On the other hand, if the parliament has the legislative power, it is much more democratic. Not[?] the prejudicates are not used in countries with Civil law. But Civil Law has a much better method for revision of the constitution, for measuring crime, etc.

Courts do in fact have a certain legislative function in civil law systems as well, especially constitutional courts. Besides, the way of revision of the constitution does not depend upon civil/common law.
For measuring crime, the US system with its sentencing guidelines, minimum sentences is much more rigid (leaving less discretion to the judge) than european systems (if that was what you meant there).

Picker:

shouldn't flag burning be a constitutional right?

posted 06-08-99 03:12 PM ET            

As Roland says, yes. This is the reason the Supreme Court gave us back the death penalty.

And again, a lot of that vaugeness is good.

"Therefore not all decitions are based on democratic principles, but rather on the Whims of the sitting Supreme Court Judges."

Whims is a rather deragoatory way of putting it. And if Supreme Court Justices had to face elections, than nothing would ever get done. Unfortunately, this country isn't just about majority rule; it's also about protecting the minority from the majority.

I agree about your comments about legislating morals, though.

"400 years have passed since this was written, you know?"

Um... 210 by my count, but hey, maybe you know something I don't. I can see the National Enquirer tommorow: "Bill of Rights written by aliens 200 years prior to revolution! They used mind-control ray to build national feeling in Americas, gave pre-written Constitution to the Founders, and have annointed us their chosen nation to help them!"

posted 06-08-99 06:46 PM ET         

1st amendment

Seems pretty straightfoward I would only suggest it be interpreted as broadly as possible. Freedoms should always be maximized. There is a humorous take on this at www.theonion/onion3501/first_amendment.html

2nd amendment

Ah, the bad boy. The one you love to hate. The cause of everything wrong in our society. I suggest getting onto the other thread that has the discussion going for this.At this point what's come up so far is what does a "well regulated militia" mean. The fifth amendment also lists the "militia" and also separates it from "land" and "naval" forces. It does so because it was assumed that it was not a government controlled force except, possibly during war or an extreme emergency. The founders did not want the central government to be the sole repository of force in the country. It's an inconvient fact now but the reasoning is still sound, if the government controls all the coersive means they can, and in the founders vision would almost necessarily, become oppressive.

3rd amendment

Pretty simple, keep soldiers out of our homes within certain guidelines. Still useful in emergencies no need to get rid of it.

4th amendment

Right of search and seizure regulated.
THis one is pretty important since it describes when and how the goverment can deprive you of your liberty. This is the one getting shredded in our "war on drugs" and we should actually be supporting this one more and more on the narrow basis that the Founders described.

5th amendment

Pretty useful here although Criminals and certain Presidents get away with too much. It does prevent the government from chasing honest citizens with fishing expeditions to find crimes. If they got proof let them indict you! If questioned about enough crimes who wouldn't be found to have broken SOME kind of law. The due process clause is also very important(insert your favorite Alan Dershowitz quote here).

6th amendment

Pretty much prevents the government from railroading you. Some criminals may abuse the system but it does protect the innocent.

7th amendment

Trial by jury, the best and worst feature of our judicial system. It is nice to know that twelve fairly randomly picked individuals should determine your fate, role the dice and pray for a Seven! I don't know how you could make things better. Judges determining guilt or innocence? No possibilities of problems there right? Juries can and do get verdicts wrong, everyone is fallible, but persuading 12 people to believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" a crime has been committed helps edge the result closer to the truth. One person can be easily mistaken, getting 12 at one time is harder. No system will ever be able to render the truth, unless some mechanism was created to reveal what the accused truly did, so this way is still the best. Got to keep this amendment intact.

8th amendment

This one is fun since what does "excessive" and "cruel and unusual" truly mean. If it was based on what was believed at the writing of this document alot of things would be permissible that currently aren't. But that is the beauty of the Consititution, it provides some ambiguity to let future generations decide for themselves. This is of course OUTSIDE those rights that are CLEARLY delineated in the text.(Don't want to reargue the 2nd amendment).

9th amendment

This is the least used, along with the 10th, but probably in context of why the Bill of Rights was written the most important. As I stated earlier the Founders wanted a limited government. The Constitution was to supposed to spell out it detail what the government was to do. What powers it had, what aspects of life it was to effect. The Bill of rights came about because there was much left unsaid about what the government shouldn't do and what was properly in the Governments sphere of activity and what was the private citizens responsibility. Basically this amendment says if we didn't spell it out in the constitution or the amendments its an acknowledge right of the people. Unfortunately, they don't get specific and they probably should have. When the amendments were being discussed there were quite a few bandied about. One was to outlaw any taxes on income!(Wouldn't that have been nice!)Eventually it satisfied both sides of the debate, the ones who wanted governmental rights and restrictions spelled out minutely and those who felt the Consititution already did, to have this kind of wording for the 9th and 10th amendments. These really need to be more closely examined and used more frequently rather than polluting and perverting other parts of the Consitution in pursuit of agendas.

10th amendment

See above.

Well that was a long rant, hopefully not eclipsed by posts added on prior to this. I only can add that I think all the amendments are necessary and of varying levels of importance. ALthough I think they should get rid of the 19th.

posted 06-08-99 06:49 PM ET            

You just know those British are plotting to invade as we speak

posted 06-08-99 06:53 PM ET         

CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTION