For clarity, the United States Constitution is a document that chartered the Federal Government. As you note below, there are State Constitutions that charter State Governments.
The Bill of Rights is not a set of laws to govern citizens, it is strictly a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the government from passing certain classes of laws.
I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. The “rule” if you must put it that way, is that the Federal Government cannot “pass certain classes of laws” because such laws would violate the stated rights.
If the Bill of Rights were laws for the citizens to follow, then there would have been fines and prison terms prescribed for offenses against those rules. Notice that the entire Constitution is devoid of any laws. It consists entirely of organizational and operational rules for only the government itself. If you find otherwise, please direct me to the place in the Constitution I have misinterpreted.
The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution and I maintain the US Constitution is itself law and therefore not “devoid of any laws”.
Samuel Johnson in his dictionary of 1785 defined “constitution” as:
6. Established form of government; system of laws and customs.
7. Particular law; established usage; establishment; institution.
https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft/page/n463
The US Constitution is listed in the US Code as part of the Organic Law of the United States:
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim
As to there being no fines and prison terms prescribed, a constitution is generally not the proper place for such detail. Such details are largely more appropriate for the government established by the constitution to put into more specific laws in accordance with the constitution.
As to “It consists entirely of organizational and operational rules for only the government itself. If you find otherwise, please direct me to the place in the Constitution I have misinterpreted”:
Those “organizational and operational rules” are the law in accord with which the Federal Government (I believe that’s what you meant when you wrote “government”) is to establish more detailed law for itself, the States, and the people. And I believe Article I, Section 10 is not only for the Federal Government.
Section 10
1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
I would also like you to direct me to a specific law that that penalizes any citizen who fails to admit armed people upon his own premises…
If the “armed people” noted above include the “any person authorized” noted below:
US Code, Chapter 109,
§2231. Assault or resistance
(a) Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, prevents, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of his duties with regard thereto or on account of the performance of such duties, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and—
(b) Whoever, in committing any act in violation of this section, uses any deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter109&edition=prelim
…or prohibits another from exercising political speeches on his property. Show me a specific law that prohibits me from running those pesky Seventh Day Adventists from my doorstep.
I don’t recall that I’ve stated a property owner can’t prohibit another from exercising political speeches on his property or run “pesky Seventh Day Adventists” from his doorstep. Whether or not the property owner can do so would depend on any contractual agreements.
My position is that one does not lose all one’s rights just because one is on another’s property.
By the way, could one run a pesky Seventh Day Adventist from one’s doorstep if that person was the owner of the property one was renting, or even had the owner’s permission to be there?
Upon closer inspection, you will discover only the Federal government is limited by the Bill of Rights.
I thought most of it had been extended to the States. In any case, I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. The “rule” if you must put it that way, is that the Federal Government cannot “pass certain classes of laws” because such laws would violate the stated rights.
Furthermore, since certain rights are stated, and since governments are instituted among men to secure rights, I expect the government to secure these rights or in other words, to limit those who would violate them.
You will also notice that most states were organized under a similar Bill of Rights. Those states would then be prohibited in the same manner as the Federal government.
And obligated to secure those rights
You should also notice that citizens are not subject to those restrictions;
Bull. We are restricted from violating the rights of others.
…for we are a free People.
We are not free from the restrictions that keep us from violating others rights. And if that’s not true, who among us is free from such restriction?
The owner has his rights, and the lady has hers. Neither rights are stronger than the other. The lady can satisfy her rights by either purchasing the property and staying, or moving to a place which will accommodate her guns.
As I said before, the Bill of Rights controls the operation of the Federal government and no other entity. That is how it was intended and that is how it has been interpreted each and every time these issues have been brought to the Supreme Court.
It is the correct interpretation of this situation.
Landlords MUST bind tenants under a suitable lease. Tenants must seek clarification up front. Because this particular case was not mitigated under a suitable lease, the case must be referred to the court for resolution. The owner SHOULD lose the case, but in that state he probably will not.
It established a "system of laws", it DID NOT establish any laws! Read on: The Constitution clearly states that "only Congress can make laws, and Congress may not delegate". How could the Constitution Committee itself violate that rule?