Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment 27


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I was fascinated when I learned that the 27th Amendment was included in the original proposal for the Bill of Rights.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Unlike the original 10 amendments this one, along with one other was not ratified. Apparently we thought better of that choice after 200 years when Congress was taking on more power and we realized that having one more check on there power would always be a good thing.

Categories
culture National

The Economic Bill of Rights


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

During his final State of the Union address Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke about what he said could be considered a second bill of rights which may be referred to as The Economic Bill of Rights. In his address he said some important things that ring true such as:

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

He described the original Bill of Rights as proving itself inadequate:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

This is very likely the first and most blatant blurring of the nature of rights ever promoted by a president. It has set the tone for our widespread misunderstanding of what rights are as a majority (or at least a vast minority) have come to view the following as rights equal to the rights described and protected in the Bill of Rights.

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

As someone else has said – these are all goods, but only one of them is a “right.” The only real right is the right to trade goods and skills in an atmosphere free from unfair competition. The rest of this list are only protected as far as that one right extends – that every person has the right to not have others undercut their efforts as they labor to acquire a useful and remunerative job, enough money to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation, a decent home, adequate medical care, protection from economic fears, and a good education.

Along with the first example I cited of things that ring true in his words is this:

People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Both of those truisms however are incomplete. To the first I would add that no matter how low our standard of living we cannot afford to give up on true principles in exchange for popular sentiment. To the second I would alter it to say that people who are dependent on a central political authority for food and work are the true stuff of which dictatorships are made – being hungry and out of a job only make them ripe for recruitment.

It is interesting to note that as we have pursued policies to provide government funded education, economic security, and now health care in order to eliminate sickness and the economic distress of unemployment and underemployment the result is more widespread economic fears. Because of the ubiquitous belief in these so called rights many people wish to turn to government for security even where the government is the cause of the insecurity in our nation.

Categories
National State

Second Amendment Victory


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

My appreciation for the second amendment just went up another notch. Opponents of gun ownership rights like to argue that guns kill people (for that matter so do hands, cars, T-bone steaks, and many other things) but they never mentioned that gun rights could also kill an illegal house seat for D.C.:

Fights over gun control in Washington, D.C., may have killed for the year a bill that would give Utah a fourth U.S. House seat and give D.C. a House seat with full voting rights.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., delivered that message in his weekly briefing for reporters on Tuesday

Apparently leaders in D.C. would rather keep very strict gun control laws than gain an unconstitutional voting seat in the House. If they want to now pursue a path to full House representation that does not sidestep the Constitution I’ll sign the petition at the first opportunity. Residents of D.C. deserve voting congressional representation as much as anyone else, but that does not justify ignoring the fundamental law of the land.

I still can’t believe that 80% of Utah’s congressional delegation fell for this Washington parlor trick. If the bill comes up again in 2010 I hope they will be smart enough to reject it since Utah would only have 1 possible year of representation before we would get another seat anyway (regardless of what Orrin Hatch would tell you about possibly missing it again).

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment X


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Up until the last few months, when states have started to assert their rights through such actions as resolutions and the formation of the Patrick Henry Caucus, I am convinced that the Tenth Amendment has long been the most widely ignored of our Bill of Rights amendments.

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.

Few people are even alive today who can remember a time when the Federal Government was not grossly trampling the rights of states. Although such overreaching has been going on to some degree for virtually our entire history it seems that especially since the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments the Federal government has been treating the states as vassals rather than sovereign territories.

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment IX


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I really appreciated being challenged in my positions related to the eighth amendment. I would love to have people continue to let me know when they think I’m off base. As I read the Ninth Amendment I see it as a great example of why Hamilton was concerned about the side effects of having a bill of rights. At first glance it sounds very good that:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Indeed in some ways it would seem that this is the most important of the amendments in the Bill of Rights – how would it be if our rights were limited to those specifically enumerated. It is important that any assumption be that people retain rights not already enumerated.

Unfortunately I think that this amendment is the activists (and activist judges) best friend. Using the ninth amendment as a foundation they find it easy to argue in favor of such rights as the right to legal recognition of previously unheard-of family structures. Of course the right to form such attachments is a true right, but the right to legal recognition of those – not so much. How about the “right” to health care (or any other segment of a social safety net)? Definitely not.

I might not be so worried about such manufactured “rights” if it were not for the fact that these artificial rights are often used as a weapon to trample upon the true natural rights that are supposed to be protected by our Constitution.

Categories
National

Constitutional Amendment VIII


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Like the second amendment, the eighth Amendment leaves no room for exceptions.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There are those who would argue that not all the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens. Depending on your definition of “rights” there may be room to make such an argument, but no definition of rights could be used to argue that this right does not apply to every person on earth and that our government should honor this right in all its actions.

This brings up the question of torture as a tool employed by our government. The amendment does not allow any room for any form of torture regardless of the existence of any Geneva convention or rules of war because torture is, by definition, cruel. The only argument that could be made is that, although cruel, torture is not used as punishment because it is administered not in retribution for crimes, but in search of information. I think it is obvious how flimsy such an argument would be.

On a related note, our current administration claims to forbid the use of torture (no way to verify those claims) but proclaims their intention to use indefinite detention on those they deem as threats but who cannot be convicted of any crime. This absolutely violates the fifth amendment right that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” While the relevant laws may vary between citizens and non-citizens, indefinite detention does not allow for that due process. If a person cannot be charged and convicted of a crime they should be released. If they are not a citizen they should be released to their country of citizenship.

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment VII


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The seventh Amendment really intrigues me:

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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In criminal cases the right to a trial by jury is absolute for civilians regardless of the crime in question. In civil cases the founders obviously felt that citizens might not want to trust a judge to decide cases involving large sums of money. I don’t know exactly how much $20 was in 1787 but it’s very little today. I think this amendment would be burdensome if it required rather than allowing trial by jury for any amount of money not indexed to inflation.

The intent of the amendment seems to be to preserve the citizens rights tot heir own property by making it impossible to simply get a judge to enter a judgment against them in civil court cases and thus strip them of their property. Is there some other reason that I am overlooking?

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment VI


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

In our information age sometimes the right to a public trial guaranteed by Amendment VI interferes with the opportunity for an impartial jury also guaranteed there (especially in the district wherein the crime was committed).

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 defence.

The principles are sound though that a person deserves to be confronted with the accusations against them and those making the accusations, and that they should have the power to present a defense against the charges.

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment V


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

We’ve all heard the concept of taking or pleading “the fifth {Amendment}” in court but there is more to that amendment than simply not testifying against yourself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, 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 or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence 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.

The Grand Jury which must indict for capital crimes in in addition to, not in place of, a jury of peers that all other criminal cases receive. The only exception in this grand jury is military courts in time of actual service. This amendment also contains the provision against double jeopardy (I wonder if that ever worried the game show hosts) although that protection only extends to criminal cases – civil cases may be brought multiple times for the same offense. (I guess that would also cover the game show. 😉 ) It also appears that a person might be compelled to witness against themselves in a civil case. The statement that we cannot be deprived of life liberty or property nor have property taken for public use without compensation seem to stand as a second bulwark against unreasonable seizure as protected in the fourth amendment.

Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment IV


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Aside from any room for interpretation of the word “unreasonable” Amendment IV is pretty simple:

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.

Our government and its officers have no right or authority to seize our persons, houses, papers, or effects without cause supported by a claim of the particulars of who or what may be seized and where the seizure may occur.