What is the bill of rights really?

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

 

[Brucethethinker]

The bill of rights...

So spoonman, do you play the spoons? I play spoons a little.

The bill of rights was written by straight white men, so it must be bad. Thank god we're enlightened enough to know we can "interpret" it to say what it should say, not what it actually says. Anyway, we have freedom of speech, as long as it isn't "hate" speech of course!

 

[JWBooth]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

George, was a pretty hands off and open minded fellow compared to our modern, elected kings er presidents.

 

[Spoonman]

The bill of rights...

So spoonman, do you play the spoons? I play spoons a little.

The bill of rights was written by straight white men, so it must be bad. Thank god we're enlightened enough to know we can "interpret" it to say what it should say, not what it actually says. Anyway, we have freedom of speech, as long as it isn't "hate" speech of course!

the problem with interpretation is someday it may be interpreted to mean gays should be eliminated. or police have the right to search and seize on word of mouth. Nazi Germany was very enlightened. they did a lot of interpreting. so did stalin, mao, pol pot. interpretation has been the greatest vehicle of control throughout history

 

[Disir]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

Incorporation Doctrine

A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights aremade applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine,makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill ofRights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governmentslargely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard tomany constitutional rights, including the First Amendment freedoms of speech,religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms from unwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches andseizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Billof Rights—including the requirement of indictment by a Grand Jury (SixthAmendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have not been applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applyingonly to the federal government. In the 1833 case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v.Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Courtexpressly limited application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. Bythe mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. For example,Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime tospeak and publish against Slavery alleged that such laws violated FirstAmendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868,it appeared that the Supreme Court might use the privileges and immunitiesclause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.However, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394(1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on the FourteenthAmendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of thatclause. The Court held that the clause created a distinction between rightsassociated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states frompassing laws abridging the rights of U.S. citizen-ship (which, it implied, werefew in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of statecitizenship. The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyondthe review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might havedone through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Supreme Court hasgradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process,known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the 1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of theearliest examples of the use of the incorporation doctrine, the Court held thatthe First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms,including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct.625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the FourteenthAmendment, as had many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminalcases, including the right to representation by counsel in capital cases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, theCourt decided that some of the privileges and immunities of the Bill of Rightswere so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288).

In 1947, the Court rejected an argument that the Fifth Amendment's rightagainst Self-Incrimination applied to the states through the FourteenthAmendment (Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 [1947]). However, in one of the most famousdissents in history, Justice hugo l. black argued that the FourteenthAmendment incorporated all aspects of the Bill of Rights and applied them tothe states. Justice Felix Frankfurter, who wrote a concurrence in Adamson,disagreed forcefully with Black, arguing that some rights guaranteed by theFourteenth Amendment may overlap with the guarantees of the Bill of Rights,but are not based directly upon such rights. The Court was hesitant to applythe incorporation doctrine until 1962, when Frankfurter retired from the Court.Following his retirement, most provisions of the Bill of Rights were eventuallyincorporated to apply to the states.

Further readings
Amar, Akhil Reed. 2002. "2000 Daniel J. Meador Lecture: Hugo Black and theHall of Fame." Alabama Law Review 1221.

 

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

George, was a pretty hands off and open minded fellow compared to our modern, elected kings er presidents.

back in the day when politicians worked for a living and didn't sponge off the taxpayer. back in the day when politicians were everyday americans, defining a governing document to protect everyday americans. back when politicians actually overthrew a tyrannical government and had the presence of mind to write legislation to protect us from government becoming tyrannical. I guess the never figured on subversion from within. subversion from the very population it was trying to protect

 

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations. As they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

 

[Disir]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations. As they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

 

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations. As they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

 

[Disir]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations. As they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

 

[Disir]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

 

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations. As they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

 

[Roadrunner]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

The Bill of Rights is a specific statement of rights implied by the body of the Constitution.

They were added because many felt that implied rights were insufficient.

Madison promised that if the Constitution passed, he would make his first act an introduction of a Bill of Rights.

I forget how many were proposed, ten passed then, one became the 27th amendment over 200 years later.

 

[Spoonman]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

cool, a personal opinion piece to support your claim. how liberal of you.

 

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

The Bill of Rights is a specific statement of rights implied by the body of the Constitution.

They were added because many felt that implied rights were insufficient.

Madison promised that if the Constitution passed, he would make his first act an introduction of a Bill of Rights.

I forget how many were proposed, ten passed then, one became the 27th amendment over 200 years later.

he proposed 39. 10 were initially ratified.

 

[Disir]

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations. As they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

Ahhh................you're another intellectually disabled person.

 

[Spoonman]

ok, you've had enough koolaid, put the glass down. That has to be one of the wackiest interpretations of the bill of rights I have ever heard.

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

Ahhh................you're another intellectually disabled person.

and you seem to be the queen of that throne.

 

[Disir]

Incorporation Doctrine
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

Ahhh................you're another intellectually disabled person.

and you seem to be the queen of that throne.

That's all you.

 

[Spoonman]

now if you bother to learn to read you'll see that this means the states are bound to uphold the rights of the citizens in the same manor as the federal government. care to post any other links that prove my point?

I see, you have a comprehension problem.

liberal spin is tough to comprehend. it makes absolutely no sense. funny how your double standards and selective interpretations only serve to bite you in the ass as you try to support your own arguments.

Ahhh................you're another intellectually disabled person.

and you seem to be the queen of that throne.

That's all you.

nice crown