Bill of Rights: Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 I’m sure that in the eighteenth century this was a coveted right. Nowadays only lawyers find it useful. Although a stretch, I imagine it can be cited in cases of unlawful entry into a home or defense of a home to protect an owner’s privacy.

Historically, the government has never attempted to quarter troops in a private home since the American Revolution. It did happen in the Civil War but I suppose it was rightly reasoned that the rebels were the enemy and therefore not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment.

Why is Article III still around gathering dust? Nostalgia might be one reason. So many rights these days are going down the toilet, that there is little appetite to mess around with the Bill of Rights. I would venture to guess that if it were repealed, the neocons would attempt to put an army tank in my garage.


 
 

Bill of Rights: Article II

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.

The National Rifle Association owns the Second Amendment lock stock and barrel. It will take many more massacres before Congress has the guts to bring interpretation of this amendment into the twenty-first century. In my 1/17/13 post, “We should not be intimidated by the Second Amendment”, I referred to Walter Shapiro's article "Repeal The Second Amendment", which appeared in Salon after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. His words are as appropriate now as they were then.

“Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries’ hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans — liberal or conservative — writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to “freedom to drive” was more far important than the “right to bear arms.” The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).”

A majority of Americans favor legislation that provides more gun control. Too bad their elected representatives are ignoring their wishes.

ed note: More on the Second Amendment - Cherry Picking Constitutional Rights.



　

　

My Smart Ass Phone

This past week I ditched my dumb phone and replaced it with a smart phone. During the set up process I accessed an app called Gallery . Stupid me , I assumed the gallery would be empty. To my amazement, it was full of images, all from my blogs. The smart ass phone imported the images without any warnings or my permission. Patiently, I deleted all of them. Google was not happy with my treatment of Gallery. The next time I accessed my blog all the images on my posts were gone. The smart phone had its revenge.

 I've been blogging since 2007; there is no way that I will attempt to put the pictures back in - Article 8 of the Bill of Rights protects me from cruel and unusual punishment (more on that in another post). The smart ass phone succeeded in making this a half ass blog. I wonder what to do with a half ass blog.

Son of a bitch, no smart ass phone is going to get the best of me. Then again, it already has. As they say, a half ass blog is better than none at all. Or is it?

Bill of Rights: Article I

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.

 

Article I is perhaps the most important of the Bill of Rights. It bundles a number of rights which makes me wonder if this was a tactic to insure its passage. In my humble opinion, these are the rights which have made the United States great. They are constantly challenged but fighting off those challenges make the country stronger.

With the growth of Islam in this country there have been cries to declare the United States a Christian country. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists as well as liberal Christians are justified in viewing this as a gross violation of the First Amendment.

 There are already practices which have chipped away at the concept of the separation of church and state such as the  revision to the Pledge of Allegiance which tells the world we are one nation under God (the implication is that this is a Christian God). If we testify in court we promise to  tell the whole truth with the help of God. Our coins proclaim that in God we trust; as the value of a coin diminishes, does it mean that God is not to be trusted? God exists for the personal affairs of people of all colors and nations, not for the affairs or agenda  of a government entity.

If the movement to declare the United Sates a Christian nation gains strength, I am glad that the we have the right to peaceably assemble and  to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The key word is peaceably. Carrying weapons to a demonstration is not a right! Petitioning the government for protection against religious zealots is a right!

No matter what ones position is on the separation of church and state we are indebted to the founding fathers for making it clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The ability to peaceably debate an issue, without fear of incarceration, is a right we should cherish. It would of been astute if the crafters of Article I had somehow made it clear that these freedoms were not to be abridged by the executive branch of government. The thinking may have been that the judicial branch would be our safeguard against abuses of power by the President. A President using the dangers posed by terrorists as justification for the infringement of the freedom of speech and the press is in danger of violating the First Amendment. As more than one President has learned, Father does not always know best.

I must admit that there limitations on the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a questionable excuse for slander, libel, intimidation and lies. That is what keeps the Supreme Court busy.

 Now if only there was some way to take the politics out of Supreme Court appointments. Until then an informed citizenry remains as the best tool to protect our democracy. Freedom of speech and of the press are the best tools we have for an informed citizenry. Any encroachment of these rights should be viewed with alarm.
 

 

The Bill of Rights: My Take

Most unpopular actions of the executive branch of the Federal government stir up speeches on the floor of Congress, editorials in our newspapers and commentaries on TV, warning the American people that that their rights are being infringed. The rights referred to, are those framed in the Bill of Rights.

It has been a long time since I looked at the history of the Bill of Rights. Decades ago I read “MIRACLE AT PHILADEPHIA” by Catherine Drinker Bowen (I still treasure the book) which vividly took me through the debates which eventually led to our Constitution. One of the most contentious debates concerned whether or not the document should include articles defining the rights of the people. Remarkably, the Constitution as adopted did not include a Bill of Rights.

 Many delegates  at the convention believed that spelling out the rights of the people was unnecessary and redundant. As the debate raged on, it became apparent that passage of the Constitution would be in doubt if a Bill of Rights was included. The solution; compromise. The constitution was adopted with the understanding that it would be immediately amended with a Bill of Rights. Surprisingly the compromise held up (a feat which would be next to impossible in today’s politics).

The Bill of Rights was born out of controversy (a good summary can be found in The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance) and to this day fosters controversy. In some respects that may have been the intent of our founding fathers. James Madison viewed a Bill of Rights as a vehicle rallying people against a future oppressive government. Although not a delegate, Thomas Jefferson argued that a declaration of rights would make the judiciary the guardian of individual rights against the other branches of government. What they did not foresee was that a declaration of rights would promote the growth of powerful lobbies bent on usurping the powers of all branches of government.

I would like to take advantage of the right given to me by the first amendment to blog about it and the other nine amendments. It is a bit ambitious, but than again, blogging is not for sissies. One thing for sure: it will be fun and will keep my blog alive for awhile.