Where do you stand on the Bill of Rights?

As many know there was much debate about the idea to include or not include a bill of rights into the constitution. Both sides in my opinion made some interesting points. As history shows, those in favor won the day. But here in 2017, looking back, are you glad they are included or wish they never were?

As I saw it, the federal government has enumerated powers and the bill of rights can cloud that issue to some people. However it was recently pointined out to me that in 2017 we may be fortunate for having the bill of rights as without them the federal government may not have simply overreached to the extent they already have but further into speech, guns, property rights, etc. An intriguing thought.

Where do you stand?

I think that Rights need to be enumerated specifically, even if not granted by any form of government. A Bill of Rights itself will not protect or stop a government who is completely intent on Tyranny, but is useful when smaller factions of the government want to infringe upon specific rights when other parts of the government are at least semi-functional. Once a government is entirely corrupted, any form of a Bill of Rights is practically useless as there is no one left in government to enforce consequences for violations of the Rights of the People.

Sadly, I think that is very close to where we stand today. Most of our politicians get into politics with the intention of exploiting the powers of the offices that they hold to subvert most protections of the law in order to achieve personal gain. Some are honest, but those who who can be bought, manipulated, or controlled seem to have financial backing that allows them to crush any voted competition at every level.

It was once said the best business to be in is the business of government. With that, you can pass laws that prohibit competition in order to entrench a status quo. Local laws can be passed that requires any new competition to apply for licenses while retroactively granting licenses to those already established. This prevention of competition prevents financial mobility upwards for people looking to start new businesses. Another thing that happens is our Bill of Rights is quite broad in its definitions, while the laws that are passed are very very specific. Think of Free Speech vs Hate Speech. Hate Speech Laws tend to be rather specific by identifying specific words or phrases which could be construed either in or out of context as Hate Speech. For example, one could talk about Muslims negatively in general, but if any speaker makes specific statements about referring to all Muslims as Radical Insurgents, it is suddenly prohibited by law.

That is what the Chinese referred to as "Death By A Thousand Cuts", or the slow but cumulative incrementalization of passing laws that infringe upon Free Speech. Every year, we have hundreds of thousands of new laws that are passed that slowly but cumulatively infringe upon our rights. There are several ways to actively destroy Enumerated Rights. First is Passive. Ignore any infringements. Next is Active. Pass legislation that repeals Rights "granted". Things like "Constitution is SUSPENDED during times of Martial Law." Mistake there is Rights do NOT come from government. Leaders can either choose to respect our Rights, or to Ignore them, but do NOT have the power to repeal Rights that they did not grant. Third is Cumulative Subversion, which is the slow cumulative nature of most laws against individuals.

Lastly, there is a BIG problem with Exchange of Definition. The two terms "Rights" and "Permissions" are literal polar opposites. Rights are Inherit, Permissions are Granted. Rights can NOT be summarily revoked, only ignored. Permissions can be revoked. Rights you have by default. Permissions by default are not granted until specific conditions are met. Rights recognize you as being Self Soverign, the highest authority unto your self above all other human beings. Permissions do NOT recognize you as Soverign. Now, if you look at the application of the words "Rights" and "Permissions" in most legalese today, you'll see what I see; authors tending to use the word "Right" or "Rights" when the word "Permission" should have been used. Such as "we hereby grant you the right to observe the material contained herein, but do not grant you the right to transfer said right to any other party". And for the record, LICENSE means Permission. Again, Rights are NOT granted, they are INHERIT with the human condition as they do not come from other men.

Lastly, neither Constitutions nor Bills of Rights do not protect the people. China has a Constitution, and they became a Tyranny. Russia had a Constitution even when Stalin got in power. Germany had a Constitution that failed to protect its citizens from Hitler. The list goes on and on. So many tyrannical regimes had Constitutions. The fault is not of the shortcomings of the Constitutions themselves, but the failure of governments as a whole to adhere to the restrictions of those Constitutions as the systems of checks and balances failed to prevent the unbalance of power.

Bills of Rights are highly useful when governments adhere to the limitations they impose on the Permissions of the Government. But when governments no longer hold themselves accountable to the people they serve, those Bills of Rights become empty hollow meaningless words on sheets of paper. Enumerated Rights in any form can not choose action in and of themselves any more than a pencil can misspell words.

Too bad HVACTech doesn't come around anymore.

The most rational thing about that document. And theye routinely ignore it anyway.

Without it we not not even get the token respect for our basic Rights we currently get.
So yes I am for it, it is the single best part of our CONstitution.

I don't need to. Plenty of other people are stepping on it without me standing on it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyJeff

As I saw it, the federal government has enumerated powers and the bill of rights can cloud that issue to some people. However it was recently pointined out to me that in 2017 we may be fortunate for having the bill of rights as without them the federal government may not have simply overreached to the extent they already have but further into speech, guns, property rights, etc. An intriguing thought.

Where do you stand?

---

The argument of some of the Founders that the Bill would be misinterpreted as an exhaustive list of rights, rather than a highlighting of a few of the more important, makes sense. However, as you say, what's actually happened is that Art. I Sec. 8 has been so broadly construed that the rights enumerated in the Bill are about the only ones remaining. So, I'd say the Bill was a good idea in hindsight.

All that said, the real cause of the growth of government has nothing to do with the language of the Constitution.

Rules written on paper do not enforce themselves, especially when interpreted by the very people they're intended to bind.

Constitutionalism itself, the very idea that constitutions can restrain state power, is faulty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Without it we not not even get the token respect for our basic Rights we currently get.
So yes I am for it, it is the single best part of our CONstitution.

---

Actually, if one of the Amendments spelled out that the fedgoob is specifically limited to granted powers with maybe a section on the meaning of a declaratory clause, it would give the fedgoob something else to run over and laugh at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyJeff

As many know there was much debate about the idea to include or not include a bill of rights into the constitution. Both sides in my opinion made some interesting points. As history shows, those in favor won the day. But here in 2017, looking back, are you glad they are included or wish they never were?

As I saw it, the federal government has enumerated powers and the bill of rights can cloud that issue to some people. However it was recently pointined out to me that in 2017 we may be fortunate for having the bill of rights as without them the federal government may not have simply overreached to the extent they already have but further into speech, guns, property rights, etc. An intriguing thought.

Where do you stand?

---

If it wasn't for the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have 1st, 2nd, 10th amendment advocates. We would have activists who are treated like marijuana legalization advocates without the perceived moral high ground of 200 + years of a tradition of freedom. Anyone who thinks we would have more liberty if the Constitution was written the same but left out the Bill of Rights is not grounded in reality. Yes the Constitution could be better but the BOR is something we all should be thankful for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Tell

If it wasn't for the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have 1st, 2nd, 10th amendment advocates. We would have activists who are treated like marijuana legalization advocates without the perceived moral high ground of 200 + years of a tradition of freedom. Anyone who thinks we would have more liberty if the Constitution was written the same but left out the Bill of Rights is not grounded in reality. Yes the Constitution could be better but the BOR is something we all should be thankful for.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

Too bad HVACTech doesn't come around anymore.

---

Did he finally set himself mercifully on fire, bringing the misery to an end?

Looks good on paper.

But like any form of government, or even non-government, it relies principally on people who give a damn to keep things the way they are meant to be. And these days, no one gives a damn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DamianTV

I think that Rights need to be enumerated specifically, even if not granted by any form of government.

---

This does not make any sense.

"Enumerated rights" are rights that are explicitly identified by a government in its official documents or other sources (such as a written constitution).

"Unenumerated rights" are rights that are inferred from such documents/sources, but that are not explicitly identified by a government.

So if a given right is, as you put it, "not granted by any form of government," then it cannot be an "enumerated" right.

And if it is an "enumerated" right, then it must have been explicitly "granted" by a government (because that is what "enumerated" means).

In any case, rights are innumerable and it is therefore impossible to enumerate them all. (Hence the necessity of unenumerated rights.)

Lots of them get trampled.

1st. Might as well renamed petitioning gov as begging.
Don't forget your protest permit.

2nd. Pretty clear, yet people still contest.

4th. Trampled to death.

6th. Many jury trials denied until appellate court.

8th. Excessive bail and fines are routine.

10th. Federalism has buried it.