The assignment isn’t that clear, because the students are supposed to both take away two amendments and add two amendments to the Bill of Rights.
You’re right, of course, that the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments, but it hardly makes sense to add two amendments to the Bill of Rights. Does that mean propose two new amendments to the constitution, or literally select two existing amendments to be considered part of the “Bill of Rights?” Dumb.
In any event, it’s not a terrible exericse. Among the first 10 amendments, 3 and 7 strike me as the two that could go with the least amount of damage, and it would be an interesting discussion to propose two additional constitutional amendments.
How do we know that this is really an assignment from the 6th grade history class in Bryant, Arkansas? I have serious doubts.
Do you say that about 3 because you don't think it can lead to great abuse to provide room and board to soldiers during peacetime? That's why our Founders put it there and it has been effective in protecting homes from that intrusion for over two centuries.
Countries without a Second Amendment might become convinced that they need to sometimes quarter soldiers in private homes. Those who are armed fear the absence of a strong central military much less. They are prepared to organize themselves in Militias and to protect their communities without government help.
The constitution enumerates God given rights and by no means limits or construes that they are only listed in the document... One cannot remove rights, just give them up without a fight.