Bill of Rights

Much argument has occurred in regards to exactly how the Bill of Rights apply to Americans. Both sides of the debate (mainstream Democrats and Republicans) however would like to undermine the very rights they espouse to uphold. First, below is a copy of the Bill of Rights as written in the Constitution of the United States of America. I strongly urge every American to pick up a pocket copy of the US Constitution; they are quite cheap and can be ordered from The Cato Institute.

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

The Democrats base their interpretation of the Bill of Rights off their interpretation of society as a whole. To the Democrats there is nothing more vile and evil then the individual. If you do not believe me just listen to how Democrats speak: it is always the poor, the rich, the capitalists, and the blacks. To Democrats ones identity is not individualistic but it is entirely related to which “group” you can be put into. Based off this philosophy the Bill of Rights are not individual guarantees but group rights (we will not even get into the topic of whether a group can claim some right that its individual members cannot claim themselves). The main example of this philosophy in practice is the Democrats attempt to deny the 2nd Amendment from applying to individuals. Under the group rights theory the 2nd Amendment should be read the first clause “A regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” as a qualifier for the entire Amendment. Therefore, the individual members of this militia (a term, which has no clarification in the Constitution) are not afforded the right to bear arms but once they shed their individual identities and become part of the “group,” they are now afforded this right. Let alone that this very reading of the 2nd Amendment by the Democrats contradicts logic because by their own admission the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments apply to individuals. One would think that it would be impossible for a philosophy to both allow one specific amendment to be a group right while the majority of the others are individual rights. However, don’t fret, the Democrats have a way around this – utterly disregard logic. It is not about what they know to be true, it is about how they feel.

Now do not get me wrong, I have been bashing the Democrats for their flawed interpretations but the Republicans are guilty as well, albeit not to the extent the Democrats are. Republicans more accurately hold that the Bill of Rights are most assuredly conferred unto individuals and not groups. Before I continue I feel it prudent to clarify what I mean by the term “Republican”; when that term is used it is referencing today’s Neo-Cons and Religious Right as they have subverted control of the Republican Party (this author has no qualms with true Republicans, i.e. Reagan, Goldwater, et al). However, the Republicans do not view that the liberties we enjoy are unalienable. Just look at President Bush’s use of the “enemy combatant” status to circumvent U.S. citizens from exercising their 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights. It is quite frightening to live in a society where one man, the President, can declare a citizen no longer has his “unalienable Rights.” Maybe the Neo-Cons should whip out their dictionaries and find out what unalienable means. Some argue that since we are at war certain liberties must be temporarily rescinded in order to provide security. However, as history has shown us any temporary suspension of rights rarely remains just temporary. It is very easy to allow such a monstrosity to occur, fear is a powerful emotion and your politicians relied on your fears.

Our unalienable rights have now been under attack for well over 100 years now yet they still exist, to some extent in some perverted way. It is still possible to reinstate our unalienable rights to the rightful status that they deserve but it will not be easy or a quick process. I urge everyone to write their representatives in both the federal and state governments and express your wish to have our government abide by the limitations set upon it in the Constitution of the United States of America.