Friday, December 11, 2015

Is The U.S. Bill Of Rights REDACTED Or GUTTED?


DECEMBER 10, 2015

By Catherine J. Frompovich

The other day I received an email with the subject line “Redacted/gutted Bill of Rights.” Boy, did that get my attention, especially since I consider myself to be somewhat of a constitutional admirer and scholar.

As I read that email, the original Bill of Rights were listed and each Right that the person, who did the ‘redacting’ thought had been gutted from citizens, was superimposed with red font text. The provision(s) by which each Right was interpreted to be obliterated or gutted was typed in red.

The more I read, the more I realized that we, as a Nation, certainly are in more trouble than we realize if apparently-informed citizens are thinking that way. The person, unknown to me as it was a forward, obviously was learned in the law! As a result, I had to rethink my assessment of what was posted in the email, since things really are getting squirrely. Should we be questioning what role “political correctness” may be fueling problems? [10]

Furthermore, what is the U.S. Supreme Court doing to preserve constitutional rights? Don’t we seem to have a SCOTUS that is pop-culture oriented, rather than historically resolute?

The redacted Bill of Rights wouldn’t leave me alone because the person who prepared it apparently was hitting more home runs rather than striking out. So, I thought I’d ask my readers what you think about the Bill of Rights being gutted.

Below I’ve listed all ten original Rights ratified December 15, 1791. The “father, author and key champion of the Bill of Rights,” James Madison, understood the problems with government, especially oppressive ones, from which the colonies had freed themselves. Why would anyone want to live under an oppressive government? Madison has always been a hero of mine; I liked his higher-consciousness “style.”

Furthermore, I’ve underlined those parts of each Right that the unknown person redacted in black ink, and I have typed in italics script what that person feels was the mechanism by which the Right(s) had been gutted and, ostensibly, no longer apply to USA citizens or its revered Constitution, which some claim is an obsolete and outdated document. Nothing could be further from the facts. It’s needed now more than ever, in my opinion. Since when have oppressive governments been banned from the face of the earth? We don’t need one—nor want one—in the United States of America, I contend. How about you?

Question: 224 years (Dec. 9, 2015) almost to the date of ratification, I feel compelled to ask this question: Do we want to lose our Constitutional rights so valiantly fought for by our forefathers and foremothers in favor of often-misguided and often-biased “political correctness”?

Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution

Amendment 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. Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act 2011 [1]

Amendment 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.

Amendment 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.

Amendment 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. Bank Secrecy Act 1970 [2] and U.S. Patriot Act 2001 [3]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, exceptin cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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. Military Commissions Act 2006 [4] + 2009 [5];NDAA 2012 [6]; Comprehensive Crime Control Act 1981 [7]

Amendment 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 wherein 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. Military Commission Act 2006 [4] + 2009 [5]; NDAA 2012 [6];U.S. Patriot Act 2001 [3]

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Torture Memos 2002 [7]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. United States v. Carolene Products 1938 [8]

Amendment 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.  Wickard v. Filburn 1942 [9]

Look what it’s come to!

The photo below speaks volumes, I’d say. Will every homeowner have to mount a similar approach to keeping safe? How can we, when the Second Amendment to the Constitution is being attacked? How come some people get protection and others can’t? Do we have to rethink a magnitude of socio-political issues in the USA to arrive at a sane and workable strategy for ALL?

A U.S. Secret Service countersniper stands on the roof of the White House at sunrise, Sunday, Dec. 6, 2015, in Washington. President Barack Obama will address the nation from the Oval Office on Sunday night about the steps the government is taking to fulfill his highest priority: Keeping the American people safe. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) Source

I am NOT a gun person but, realistically, guns don’t shoot all by themselves; foolish and mentally-misguided individuals do. Society needs to address why so many U.S. citizens are taking issues into their own hands. I don’t think we’ve addressed that properly—yet.

Governments train young men to kill during ‘political-muscle-flexing’ wars, but probably haven’t figured out there are long-lasting mental issues that some can’t deal with after having spent a ‘legal’ time killing people in other countries.

When will we learn violence is NOT the answer?













No comments: