Bill of Rights; Abuse of powers or proper application

[Tugboat1988]

When entering into agreements, as time passes, what do people believe about the agreement? Well, wise individuals believe what was agreed upon when the agreement was formed, unless changed by documented amendment. There is nothing new to this concerning constitutions or any other contractual arrangement.

Consider the Bill of Rights. It’s easy to find documents published during the forming of our present day Constitution. Among those writings we find concerns about the document being formed without mention of a Bill of Rights. Among those publications, we can determine two basic concerns. One concern from one corner of the room was from people that desired a Bill of Rights that declared an accumulation of individual rights they wished to keep. Another group thought that rights not specifically granted away were retained by individuals and it was unnecessary to list retained rights. None-the-less, a common thread was formed in that both groups wanted a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. Failing that, they thought the Constitution offered too much power and was not acceptable.

So what did they believe? What did they agree to when they ratified the Bill of Rights? There’s a hot link you Yale folks can be smug about. If you’re from Harvard, you can open it up, or you can find one of your very own. There’s lots of them out there. Maybe they all will lead you to know what the folks thought about it back then when they ratified it.

The first thing the people in 1789 believed was they wanted to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers. In their words, construction was a common way to the idea of making something. In this usage, they meant making rules and law that wasn’t granted. If the government did, it wouldn’t be any better than what they shed in the Revolution. Government could just as easy abuse its power. They also believed that the added words “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” would make sure what the intention of the Bill of Rights was. They could have used the word “Banned.”

So, when the Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution, it denied government the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It also denied government powers to infringe upon all the other things mentioned. And, they believed it was better put that way than to make a list of rights people wanted to keep, and their compact would preserve its usage. It didn't give you rights, and it didn't give government power to manipulate your Rights.

So, that's one thing that is in need correction in this country. First, the perception; then the application as it is applied to government.

Tugboat

[Mesogen]

The first thing the people in 1789 believed was they wanted to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers. In their words, construction was a common way to the idea of making something. In this usage, they meant making rules and law that wasn’t granted. If the government did, it wouldn’t be any better than what they shed in the Revolution. Government could just as easy abuse its power. They also believed that the added words “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” would make sure what the intention of the Bill of Rights was. They could have used the word “Banned.”

So, when the Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution, it denied government the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It also denied government powers to infringe upon all the other things mentioned. And, they believed it was better put that way than to make a list of rights people wanted to keep, and their compact would preserve its usage. It didn't give you rights, and it didn't give government power to manipulate your Rights.

So, that's one thing that is in need correction in this country. First, the perception; then the application as it is applied to government.

Tugboat

Yeah, but they worded certain amendments to kinda protect rights, but not really.

Like the eminent domain clause in the 5th amendment. Instead of saying, "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation," just leave off the last three words. "Private property shall not be taken for public use." Done.

Take the 4th amendment. Instead of, "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," how about, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unwarranted searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause under formal suspicion of crime, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The wording of many of the BOR amendments leaves A LOT of wiggle room for the violation of an individual's rights.

[Tugboat1988]

Well, I see that the web didn’t honor my hot link to the Yale record of the “Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789. So here it is http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm .

And “Wiggle Room” in the Bill of Rights? There is no wiggle room in the words Shall Not”. Here’s what Black’s Law Dictionary says about the words”

SHALL: As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term “shall” is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. The word in ordinary usage means “must” and is inconsistent with a concept of discretion. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears.” Black’s Law Dictionary

What better protection do you wish for than a ban placed upon government powers? Well, there is a better protection available, it’s when people read and understand what is agreed to and insist upon compliance. There is no wiggle room except for that which is misapplied by misconstruction or implication.

Designing politicians would want you to ask that your rights be listed or given wiggle room so they can alter them or delete them.

Read the words in that Yale reference above. Then understand them before you find out you have no right except for that which some hateful or fearful politicians decide to extend to you. The words ban them from the temptation. But you have to hold them to it just like you have to hold them to the positive side concerning what to do about grand theft auto.

Tugboat

[Tugboat1988]

Mesogen, writes about wiggle room.
After review of your post, I see what you contend. I think you are presenting the few exceptions that can be used in certain warranted situations. That gets into law, and if it is appropriate to crimes commintted. I'll go along. I insist where the crime is jurisdictional and properly a crime.

Tugboat