Conservatives never get the Bill of Rights correct.

[mykcob4]

For political reasons conservatives misquote, and misinterprit the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America. Most of them confuse the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and don't know the purpose of each document nor the content there in. They actually think that the Bill of Rights is a seperate document altogether. Even so they routinely misquote the Constitution, adding or ommiting what they see fit to comply with their own political agenda.
The Bill of Rights are the first tem Amendments of the Constitution.
1) Take the first amendment. Conservatives always say that states "freedom OF religion." The fact is quite different.
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.
Free excercise of religion doesn't mean that conservatives can force their myth in schools or public places. Religious freedom is an individual right, not a public one!
2) Take the 2nd. Conservatives think that this is a free pass to have own and opperate any firearm weapon explosive that they can get their hands on without ANY regulation or oversight whatsoever.
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.
What part of WELL REGULATED do they not understand, AND the right to bear arms is for the purposes of a militia not private ownership. This is because when the Constitution was written it didn't and STILL doesn't provide for a STANDING army.
Take the 10th. The Conservatives think that this provides for a loophole where any state can circumvent any federal law. That is clearly not the case. All federal laws superceed any and all state laws and always have. This was settled by blood by the Civil War.
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.
Article I
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Those are just 3 things that conservaturds get wrong. They are among all the things that conservaturds get consistantly wrong. I for one am sick of this and think conservaturds should undergo remedial government classes until they finally get it correct!

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Ask most of them what the first article of the constitution is and they'll tell you FREEDOM OF SPEECH! :roll:
And THAT ladies and gentlemen is all you need to know about most Americans let alone conservatives..

[Jack89]

People tend to put their own personal slant on the Bill of Rights, as you have.

[Colanth]

I for one am sick of this and think conservaturds should undergo remedial government classes until they finally get it correct!

The right to vote should be based on the ability to pass a test showing that you understand how the government works.  (That would include at least a basic understanding of the Constitution, including amendments, and what the D of I was [and who created it - it wasn't the United States of America].)

[Minimalist]

There would be few voters......

[Colanth]

As there were back when the country was founded. Only land owners could vote, and the majority of the population were tenants.  The founding fathers never intended the franchise to be a universal right, they intended it for those who were well-enough informed that they could make informed decisions.  Not "vote for this man for president because he goes to the same church I go to", or (as in 1960) "vote against this man because he has a really bad 5 o'clock shadow".

Presidential elections these days are popularity contests, and they were never intended to be.

[mykcob4]

As there were back when the country was founded. Only land owners could vote, and the majority of the population were tenants.  The founding fathers never intended the franchise to be a universal right, they intended it for those who were well-enough informed that they could make informed decisions.  Not "vote for this man for president because he goes to the same church I go to", or (as in 1960) "vote against this man because he has a really bad 5 o'clock shadow".

Presidential elections these days are popularity contests, and they were never intended to be.

I disagree considering that this nation was founded on the theories of John Locke and the ideals of Thomas Payne. Both men believe that every man had the right of self destiny. They rejected the idea of a god and that kings were chosen by a god and that any man had dominion over another. The founders understood that if they embarked on independence from England that they would embark on a new world where every man would be in charge of himself. Yes they were wealth landowners and that writing the constitution would in effect give up their collective dominion over the poor and common peoples, but they knew that if they were just and honest men they would forfeit their privilaged lives. They weren't worried though because they knew that they could and would work hard and stay wealthy, safe and secure. All they were really doing were shedding the yoke of tyranny. They struck a bargain with the common man. That being that they would have all the same rights as everyone else, no more no less. And that noone born to priviledge would have dominion over them. So I disagree that they didn't intend that everyone have rights. They had a vision and they acted on it!

[mykcob4]

People tend to put their own personal slant on the Bill of Rights, as you have.

I haven't put my own slant on the Bill of Rights. Thats utter nonsense. I merely bolded, underlined, and italicized what is actually IN the Bill of Rights!

[Minimalist]

Even under the original constitution voting was determined by the individual states.

[WitchSabrina]

For us non-constitutional lawyers


http://suite101.com/article/understandi ... hts-a58268

[PopeyesPappy]

People tend to put their own personal slant on the Bill of Rights, as you have.

I haven't put my own slant on the Bill of Rights. Thats utter nonsense. I merely bolded, underlined, and italicized what is actually IN the Bill of Rights!

Oh really? Not even when you said, "AND the right to bear arms is for the purposes of a militia not private ownership." That sounds like a personal slant to me. Especially when we have the very words of the people that developed the document saying otherwise.

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

[mykcob4]

People tend to put their own personal slant on the Bill of Rights, as you have.

I haven't put my own slant on the Bill of Rights. Thats utter nonsense. I merely bolded, underlined, and italicized what is actually IN the Bill of Rights!

Oh really? Not even when you said, "AND the right to bear arms is for the purposes of a militia not private ownership." That sounds like a personal slant to me. Especially when we have the very words of the people that developed the document saying otherwise.

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

Samuel Adams was but one of the ratifiers, not the body at large. The fact is that the continental congress didn't want a standing army but saw the need to defend itself from foriegn invassion, therefore the inclussion of the right to bear arms was added with the priviso that it be a WELL REGULATED. I didn't add "well regulated". It is purposely IN the amendment.
Consulting the Federalist papers which IS the authority in defining the Constitution explains the 2nd and it's purpose.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappi.html#abus46
No. 46 of the Federalist papers specifically spells out the intent of the 2nd and the fact that the Right to Bear Arms was and is for the purpose of having and armed militia for the sole purpose of defense against foriegn invaders in lieu of keeping a standing army.
Noone is saying that citizens cannot keep arms, but the rightwing is going too far in saying that those arms cannot be regulated. The Constitution states that they shall be WELL regulated and that is a fact, not my socalled slant.

[Colanth]

The founders understood that if they embarked on independence from England that they would embark on a new world where every man would be in charge of himself. Yes they were wealth landowners and that writing the constitution would in effect give up their collective dominion over the poor and common peoples, but they knew that if they were just and honest men they would forfeit their privilaged lives.

Which is why the franchise was limited to landowners?

They understood that every man had the RIGHT to better himself, not the guaranteed destiny to become better.  It wasn't "life, liberty and happiness", it was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  No guarantee that you'd catch it.  They didn't give the town drunk the same rights that they gave the tavern owner.

[aitm]

I must admit, if god couldn't write something making it easy to understand to all, how could we possible succeed at it?


 :rollin:

[mykcob4]

The founders understood that if they embarked on independence from England that they would embark on a new world where every man would be in charge of himself. Yes they were wealth landowners and that writing the constitution would in effect give up their collective dominion over the poor and common peoples, but they knew that if they were just and honest men they would forfeit their privilaged lives.

Which is why the franchise was limited to landowners?

They understood that every man had the RIGHT to better himself, not the guaranteed destiny to become better.  It wasn't "life, liberty and happiness", it was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  No guarantee that you'd catch it.  They didn't give the town drunk the same rights that they gave the tavern owner.

I agree except for the part of the tavern owner having more or different rights than the town drunk. The fact is that everyone under the Constitution had the same rights. Yes even the slaves. The Constitution was written in such a way that even at the onset there would be inequality that eventually all peoples would have the same rights. I am not talking about intent here, but rather function and application.
To apply the laws of the Constitution eventually all inequality would be erraticated, slavery, women voting etc....!
The fundemental function of the Constitution is a construct to protect the rights of the individual above all things.
In the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding political spending (which was legally and Constitutionally incorrect), the justices had to justify corporate contributions as individul right to free speech. They actually had to declare that corporations were individuals, because the constitution protects the rights of individuals.
The Federalist Papers explain this over and over. It always comes down to that fact.