The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
That pesky Constitution of ours continues to hamper those who seek to advance the Liberal agenda. It can be done, and is being done, but think how much time could be saved if judges and agencies didn’t have to expend so much effort contorting words and ideas to circumvent that document’s meanings. So, in the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, I asked a Liberal lawyer friend of mine to suggest some changes to the Bill of Rights that might streamline this whole process. [HIS COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE IN BRACKETED CAPS.]
I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [EXCEPT WHEN SUCH EXERCISE TAKES PLACE IN PUBLIC SETTINGS IN A MANNER THAT MIGHT OFFEND OTHERS. NEED TO FIND SOME WAY TO EXEMPT OUR ISLAMIC FRIENDS]; or abridging the freedom of speech [UNLESS SUCH SPEECH--ESPECIALLY BROADCAST SPEECH--IS HATEFUL], or of the press [UNLESS IT ENGAGAGES IN HATEFUL SPEECH]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [AS LONG AS SUCH ASSEMBLY OR PETITION IS DONE IN A NON-HATEFUL MANNER].
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.[CAN WE SUBSTITUTE SOMETHING ABOUT FREE HEALTHCARE OR EDUCATION?]
III 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. [I THINK WE SHOULD EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT WE’RE WILLING TO ALLOW THIS ONE TO STAND UNTOUCHED.]
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. [SEEMS UNNECCESARILY BROAD.]
V No person shall be held to answer for any capital [NEED TO LOSE “CAPITAL”; REMEMBER OUR BASE], 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 [SUBSTITUE “CONFLICT” FOR “WAR”] or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb [COULD BE OFFENSIVE TO THOSE WITH PARTICULAR HANDICAPS]; 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 [UNLESS SUCH DEPRIVATION IS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL BY RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES].
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 where in 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. [KIND OF BORING. COULD WE RE-EMPHASIZE FREE HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION?]
VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, [NEED TO UPDATE AMOUNT TO REFLECT PAST AND PROJECTED INFLATION. SUGGEST $800, UNLESS WE USE CBO ESTIMATES, IN WHICH CASE, LET’S GO WITH $8 BILLION] 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.
VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [WITH BP IN MIND, LET’S MAKE IT READ “REALLY, REALLY EXCESSIVE FINES.”]
IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [LET’S BE SURE WE RETAIN THE POWER TO CONFER THOSE RIGHTS. THERE IS THE DANGER, WITH PRESENT WORDING, PEOPLE MIGHT ASSUME THEY WERE BORN WITH SOME SORT OF RIGHTS.]
X 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 HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS HERE! IT’S GOT TO GO!]
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
Lots of nations have great-sounding constitutions. What makes (or used to make) ours different is that our constitution had no loopholes, formal or informal. "Shall not" meant shall not. Used to anyway.
Jul '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
[SILLY FOUNDERS. THAT SHOULD READ, "....TO KEEP BARE ARMS..." TYPO.]
Jun '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
Jun '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
Oh, and getting rid of that tenth amendment is a great idea--don't know what Madison could have been thinking.
Aug '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
Hateful speech and assembly to be determined by the Public Understanding and Kindness Entity (PUKE)
Jul '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
Bravo Pat. This is bipartisanship at its best. The text as written almost seemed designed to constrain the national government.
May '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
As Jonah Goldberg points out today, liberals are the first to holler "don't you dare tamper with the Constitution!" when someone dares suggest that perhaps birthright citizenship deserves another gander.
May '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
A very creative post. The scary thing is your Liberal lawyer friend actually exists in 20% of the population.
May '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
At the end of amendment 2 you should change "infringed" to "recognized".
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
This one is my favorite:
I got a good laugh out of this, thanks for posting it Pat!
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
Thanks, Emily. I liked that one, too. (And, of course, most people in DC don't know it's there!)
Jul '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
The Constitution? That old thing?
Much has been made of Pete Stark's assertion that the Federal government can do whatever it wants these days.
But my favorite recent example of the elite's disdain for that anachronistic piece of parchment came from ousted Senator Bob Bennet (R, Utah). In an interview after his primary defeat, he related how Tea Partiers would wave their pocket Constitutions in his face and demand that he pledge that he would uphold Constitutional principles.
His response? "I'm not ready to take my conservatism that far."
Aug '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
'Progressive' means just that, a philosophy that's always evolving and discarding old ideas in favor of brave new Utopian ones. In their mind the Constitution can't be any more enduring or valuable than the Bible, Torah, I Ching, Homer, or any other crinkly, old papers. The past is gone and forgotten, they say. Today is all that matters, and the new Five Year Plan is in place! Never mind the smoking ruins of their abandoned cities, addicted people, ignorant schoolkids, and bankrupt economies.
We're now slaves to science and the belief that man is malleable and perfectible if logic and reason - then force - are employed.in the just the right way.
May '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
River: 'Progressive' means just that, a philosophy that's always evolving and discarding old ideas in favor of brave new Utopian ones.
...
We're now slaves to science and the belief that man is malleable and perfectible if logic and reason - then force - are employed.in the just the right way. · Aug 13 at 9:09am
Thomas Sowell would call that the Unconstrained Vision of humanity.
Jun '10
Re: The Bill of Rights, 2010 Style
IV The right of the people to be MOSTLY secure in CERTAIN OF their persons, houses, VELLUM papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not FREQUENTLY be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause OR A DEEP INTUITION, supported by AN ANONYMOUS Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, SUCH AS "THE UNITED STATES" and the persons "MALES AND FEMALES" or things "GREATER THAN ATOMIC SIZED PARTICLES" to be seized.