Posted on 01/30/2005 7:45:18 AM PST by doctorhugo
To: U.S. Congress
This is a petition to amend The Preamble to the Bill of Rights. My reason for initiating this action is to once and for all affirm a fact that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. We are all too familiar with the spate of frivolous law suits in this country. With the strident voices demanding rights at every turn and asserting that almost anything and everything is a violation of their rights and with no less than the epitome of a good idea gone bad, the ACLU, chorusing along with such anarchists. The reality of fact that needs to be stated is this. In a democratic society each and every citizen has an inherent responsiblity and obligation to make certain that...., in exercising their individual rights they do not trample on the rights of others. Freedom of speech, as an example, does not..., nor was it ever intended by the founding fathers to convey free and unrestricted license to express oneself in any manner one desires. To do so begets anarchistic behavior and would be self-destructive of the society as a whole. One must consider the feelings of others, the general public and community standards and a myriad of other concerns. This is NOT done now and the Supreme Court, charged with interpreting the laws of the land has shown a marked pattern towards abusing that almost sacred obligation in favor of making or influencing social/societal policy. If this problem is not addressed I fear that the abuse of the Bill of Rights we have been seeing, in this once great Nation, will continue...unimpeeded to the point at which we will no longer recognize or be able to discern the original intent of the writers of our own Constitution.
To this end, I have included a copy of the Preamble to The Bill of Rights below. My amendment is that content included, in parenthesis, as a separate paragraph.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(And, it is our intent to indicate that in this constitutional republic, formed on democratic principles and the rule of the majority, to state that there is an obligation to acknowledge that there is an inherent responsibility of citizens when exercising their rights not to abuse or trample upon the rights of others.)
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To many this may seem insignificant, but it is anything but. This is a single sentence that would have far-reaching effect. The Courts rule based on strict constitutional interpretation and precedents established. This would go a long way towards imposing an obligation on them that would restrict their ability to engage in social engineering and; simultaneously, give them a tool to link responsibility to rights, something that is NOT done now. I urge you to send this off to all your friends and family and ask them to do the same. Such action is what people through the years have died for. The freedom and right to assert one's civic responsibility. Make no mistake about it. This is no partisan issue! This society has changed radically in the last 20 or so years and is ever so subtlely slipping down the road to the dungpile of anarchy, from whence there is NO RETURN! We MUST establish a linkage between RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITY....NOW!
It's a depressing state of affairs indeed when when we even must BEGIN to consider adding statements of the glaringly obvious to our beloved founding documents just to keep the disrupters from running (and ruining) our society.
In other words, your freedom of Speech or Assembly or Religion ends if a majority disagrees with your position.
You could get exactly the same result more honestly by just repealing the Bill of Rights.
A majority position doesn't need a Bill of Rights.
So9
So you want to leave it up to the courts to define "Abuse"?
This is a loop hole big enough to junk the whole program.
Exactly, that would put it in the hands of judges as to when someone's exercise of their rights is violating others rights and which rights trump the others. And you are the right to bear arms would be among the most in danger.
The Founding Fathers intended the BOR to apply to the federal government. States were bound only by their state constitution and the Bill of Rights of that state.
If a state extended a first amendment right to nude dancing, it would only apply to that state. If another state allowed the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, that applied only to that state. If a state banned flag burning, it only applied to that state.
No more one-size-fits-all legislation from Congress and rulings from the USSC. Let's have a return to federalism.
It has been stated by the Supreme Court a number of times that the intent of the framers of the constitution could be found in The Federalist Papers and that those documents should guide the Court in dealing with constitutional questions. It was stated in several of the papers that this was to be a Federal and not a General government. They argued against the addition of a bill of rights saying that one need not be protected against laws that there was no authority to enact.
When Benj. Franklin was asked what form of government they had decided upon, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." Unfortunately we couldn't keep it.
Don't try to put words in my mouth! I never stated what your interpretation indicates. However, it's true that we live in a system where the MAJORITY RULES. Of course, we respect the rights of minority views. I never implied that we don't. What I stated is; essentially, that the bottom line is the MAJORITY OPINION ALWAYS RULES. My main intent, which I esposed upon and which you decided to ignore was to assert, in very specific terms, that you can't go around screaming about your rights without acknowledging that each exercise of your rights must be done in a manner that doesn't trample on the rights of others. That consideration is a responsibility! If you still don't GET IT...., don't sign the petition. That's your right and I'd never think of trampling on it.
Of course we will, unless we really really don't want to.
That is the effect of your proposal.
We don't need no steenkin' amendment.
With honorable judges it is unnecessary.
With dishonorable judges it is useless.
So9
Mrs. Mark! I'll make this brief. By your comments it's obvious that you are neither a constitutional nor judicial scholar. In this government we have three major branches and they are , the executive, legilative and judicial. The judicial branch is charged with the responsibility of INTERPRETING laws. That is what they do! My statement in my petition is merely an idea and should I be fortunate enough to be successful and see it even considered to be made a bill, it would be reviewed and drafted by those of legal expertise to ELIMINATE any potential loopholes.
Okay..Solutions only..., you're next. Your assertion that we would be setting a precedent in altering our founding documents is perplexing. It is so, because that's just what the Bill of Rights does to the Constitution with it's amendments!!
As to the left..., they are not concerned with legally changing things, because they just ignore that with which they disagree. The vaunted Fourth Estate jumps on the bandwagon echoing them and the ACLU (abusing their tax-exempt status) takes up their decidedly partisan political cause. If challenged...these lefties claim victim status and deny the fault is theirs. You see, the lefties are a closed circle of collective madness, yet that is their RIGHT. Their RESPONSIBILITY is NOT to impose that on the rest of us. Yet another reason to link RIGHTS to RESPONSIBILITIES.
While we are at it, why don't we make pi = 3.0?
Okay PPaul, would you like to reconsider your rhetorical question of "And how would changing the Constitution make things any better?" Would you have us abolish all the amendments? The definition of an amendment is a change that implies improvement. Should we, because we can't even muster 2/3rds of registered voters to get off their collective butts and vote, give up on voting? Of course not. We plod along as best we can as a Nation despite their collective lethargy and indifference and YES...maybe even in spite of it. NEVER give up trying to make the world better, for if you do...you become part of the problem and not part of the hopeful solution, friend.
You are one wise person. I am in awe of your vast intellect all ready.
In this government we have three major branches and they are , the executive, legislative and judicial.
Thanks for the update, I would of never known that there are major branches, must be there are minor branches also. Someone with your Constitutional knowledge must surely know. What are they?
The judicial branch is charged with the responsibility of INTERPRETING laws.
If congress was to clearly write the laws there would be little interrupting needed.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Pretty clear where the court is charged with figuring out what the law might mean, so clear they are "SPECIFICALLY CHARGED" with it.
That is what they do! My statement in my petition is merely an idea and should I be fortunate enough to be successful and see it even considered to be made a bill, it would be reviewed and drafted by those of legal expertise to ELIMINATE any potential loopholes.
You were using such fancy words, I did not think it would be possible for any one to improve on them.
Instead of coming out swinging because your ego was bruised by a simple question, "What do you mean by "abuse"?" I would suggest you attempt to just answer a simple question.
Servant of the 9 you have my sincere condolence. Judging from your comments it is obvious to me that you have failed to realize that performing a full frontal lobotomy is NOT a DIY procedure.
Anticipating that this will engender a rage in you I shall make this my last response to you. Please continue and enjoy!!??
Sorry if you felt offended by my sarcasm, but your contention that...If congress was to clearly write the laws there would be little interrupting needed." (I know you meant 'interpreting') is alarming. You and I BOTH know that Congress is made up of mainly lawyers and lawyers cannot make up anything clearly. I'll side with the founding Fathers and accept the fact, as they did, that there is a need for a court system to interpret laws.
Being a concerned citizen doesn't make you a Constitutional Scholar.
Our founding fathers, who were scholars and philosophers, wrote it the way they did for a reason.
And your sarcasm is as feeble as your legal draftmanship.
So9
You and I BOTH know that Congress is made up of mainly lawyers and lawyers cannot make up anything clearly. I'll side with the founding Fathers...Most of whom were lawyers. Duh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.