What rights does the bill of rights grant you as an individual? Can you name them?
I want to put this to bed today if possible.
I have seen many people talk about the bill of rights and how it grants us certian rights but in most cases they are 100% wrong.
Many believe that the bill of rights only prohibits the Government from infringing on those rights that are narural born rights but this is not true.
I want to have a good solid debate about this so we can all understand it and defend it!
I would like to see how many here know what rights the bill of rights grants us.
UPDATED : Ok, some here are on the right track but I assure you that the bill of rights does grant some rights. This was the point I have been trying to make. If we are to make changes and defend our rights we must understand 100% what exactly those rights are. If we fail to understand our rights and what rights are natural and which rights are granted how can we possibly defend them?
Until we this 100% right I will keep it up.
Hint : Look at the 6th amendment!
my understanding
Is that the constitution doesn't grant the individual any rights, but acknowledges certain specific limitations on the gov't from infringing on our rights, which are of course endowed to us from our creator. This is in sharp contrast to the UN declaration of rights, where rights of the people specifically derive from the board of directors of the UN.
Ive understood the argument to mean that if gov'ts can grant rights, then of course they can rescind them as well. we liberty lovers don't give gov't the poser to grant rights or take them away, because gov't are instituted to protect rights, not grant them.
"Be always sure you're right, then go ahead."
-David Crockett
"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"
NONE
They are Inalienable rights, The Bill of Rights just protects them!
Inalienable rights
Are endowed to us by our Creator and the Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take them from us, PERIOD. You are wrong, it "grants" nothing. You had them at conception and will have them at death.
I argue with a 'kid' at work that thinks the Army "gives" us the rights but if you check the enumerated powers in the Constitution the only branch of the military named is a Navy. The military is to defend the country and NOT to police the world. You need to run for CONgress, you seem to have the same understanding that they do.
Better go check your understanding of our Rights!
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." -Mark Twain
Read Federalist 84!
I think Hamilton's concerns have come to fruition!
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions." Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
That's a good example of the principle not recognized by
the thesis of the thread. Hamilton's assertion that:
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations."
recognized that the people were and are the owners of any and all such "rights" and, further, that:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
The first 10 Amendments have provided fertile ground for the struggle between the legal realists or contextualists and the positivists or textualists.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
Bill of Rights
I am an attorney, my mother is an attorney and I have studied Constitutional Law, philosophy, and history for twenty years. I just don't get how you believe that the Constitution can grant rights to the people? It would be like me selling you property that I do not own. It would convey no ownership because I did not have any. The government does not own any rights to give anyone. We contracted with them to regulate justice. We granted them certain power and they have abused that power. Our country, as we know, it may be lost because were asleep at the wheel. There may have been a few of us fanning the flames of liberty like Dr. Paul, but most were stuck like glue to the little box in their living room being brainwashed by the daily propaganda. Orwell thought that "Big Brother" would be watching us, but in truth all we had to do was watch that box and the destruction of freedom took place. Every aspect of our lives is controlled. If you want to start defending liberty, the Bill of Rights is a good place to start for fundamental justice, but I like the founders believe that enumerating "rights" places limitations on them.
My book describes the means that the government used for the usurpation of liberty, such as the Commerce Clause, that unconstitutionally greatly expanded Federal Power and the creation of agencies that violate the individuals right to redress. I believe that you are getting yourself hung up on an argument that is quite simple, the government NEVER had any rights to grant. Just get out there and do something!
Bill of Rights
The Constitution does not grant rights, it is only a limitation on government power. It is a social contract with the government so that justice can be implemented equally. The fundamental concept of law is that individual liberty means freedom from government compulsion, until such time that a crime has been committed. Sometimes it is called the "right" to be left alone! The concept of what constituted a crime was when a person's life, liberty or property was harmed by another. The mere possession of something was never a crime. (except contraband, such as an untaxed import.) The list that you give are not granted rights to the people, since the government has no power to grant rights, these government prohibitions follow from our inalienable rights. If I have an inalienable right to my property then the government damn well better not think that they can bring troops in my house. If the fundamental premise of law is that you should be left alone then the government should not search you without a warrant and probable cause. The destruction of the Fourth Amendment alone should get the Supreme Court impeached. There was a time that the only thing that the government could search for was the instrument of a crime, the fruits of a crime, or contraband. "Mere evidence" could not trigger a search. Then the officers would have to describe the particular thing that they were searching for and where it was to be found. The cop shows shone on TV have desensitized the public to this outrage. The War on drugs has been a war against our Fourth Amendment. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are following from our inalienable rights and insuring equal justice under our contract with what was suppose to be a limited government. The Constitution can not grant rights to the people, because all powers of our government came from the people. Slowly we have ignored the government usurpations and relinquished our power over our destiny. My mother and I are writing a book called "Concepts of Liberty" which is an in depth description of how the destruction of liberty took place and
how we can start turning the tide, if it is not too late!
Alright, enough already.
Amendment 6: the "right" to compel testimony.
Is there some prize for me?
LXXI BC: Ego sum Spartacus // MDCCCLVII: I am Dred Scott // MCMVL: Ich bin Anne Frank // MMX: Je suis Assange // MMXI: Ik ben von NotHaus
I love coming here to the DP
As so many others before me have stated, the Bill of Rights grants me nothing. It was written as by 'the people' to restrain government, enumerating rights which 'the people' had and still have.
First of all the constitution does not grant individual or
collective rights.
The Bill of Rights were those, retained by the people, and were only enumerated because during the war for Independence, the British trampled these, our god given rights.
I'm sure many on Daily Paul, have read John Lock, but, for those of you who are new to the R3volution, to take back our government, it bares fruitful for discussion, of how the notion of God Given rights came to be.
It was none other that the Scholar/Philosopher, John Lock; as he wrote a book on the the subject called "The Natural Rights of Man" Lock was a British subject who lived in Europe, during the 1600's. In Great Britain, Lock's book was a complete Flop and such political thought landed him in hot water. However, in the 13 colonies during the 1700's, Lock's book became famous!
As to the second Amendment, Lock argued that everyone had a natural right to defend their own life and that of their families, it lent then, to extend that we had a right to defend our neighbors and greater community. Thus, we have the Citizen Militias...
This fact boggles the mind, for if you ask most anti-gunners, do they believe they have a natural right to defend their own life or that of their family members? they will say, Yes...
Under this premise, the argument continues, so it must be clear. If you are one person and your life is threatened by one person, who may be larger and stronger than you, or who has a weapon superior to yours, can it be argued that you do not have a natural right to equal or greater force.
Suppose, you are a handy cap person, in a wheel chair; and are attacked or robbed, or perhaps you are a frail senior citizen. Would not a hand gun, pepper spray, or taser, provide you with a deterrence to an equal, or youthful, or numerous would be attackers?
During the American Revolution of 1776, the British government called for a survey on the colonist to determine what armaments, grape shot, cannon, knives and gun powder they might have in stores. The colonist were suspicious, and they were lied to by their government.
For the next thing to happen was that the Red Coats started showing up at homes and confiscating all.
They helped themselves to peoples homes and food stocks.
Their homes were searched without warrants. The free press and the courts were shut down. And Massachusetts had it's elected government shut down and suspended. Then Colonist, were arrested and sailed all the way back to Great Britain to be put on trial, with all their papers and possessions, proofs of innocence back home. This is where in the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble, the collective beliefs of the colonist were laid for all to see and debate...
The founding fathers, were well versed in John Lock, it is his fingerprints of thought, that we see sprinkled throughout all these founding documents that have endured and stood the heavy pounding of legal attacks...
The Bill of rights are well documented. I would strongly recommend for everyone to read.
Amazon.com: Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the ...Amazon.com: Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787: Catherine Drinker Bowen: Books.
www.amazon.com/Miracle-Philadelphia-Constitutional-Conventio... - 301k -
Also, The Federalist papers and the Anti Federalist papers...
As well, please also read the Constitution of the United States.
But Remember, the Constitution does not grant us rights, We The People Retained Them!
Daryl
None. It enumerates a few natural rights.
Nobody cares anymore though.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
you're trying to build a case here
but you present it like it's fact.
and your lynch pin is the 6th ammendment.
blah blah blah.
yada yada yada.
you present your case.
I'll let you know if I agree.
none
the constitution is dead.
therefore the bill of rights is dead.
but it is not the source of one's rights anyway.
but no worries, as there is another document that lives in our hearts.
it starts something like this...
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The purpose of the
The purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the powers of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government's job/obligation is to defend our rights (which we have inherently, some say given by their God and others say simply by their humanity).
When the Bill of Rights was added, many did not want it because it implied that the government was the giver and taker of rights.
Based on the writing of the Constitution, the federal government does not have the authority to take away rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights, even if the Bill of Rights did not exist. Remember, the Constitution is a list of what the federal government is authorized to do with everything else being forbidden to it.
If the Bill of Rights does anything, I would think that it prevent the States from violating those rights (as well as the federal government, but that level of government already does not have the constitutional authority). I say this because while the Constitution is a list of only what the federal government can do (all else is forbidden), any other issues are reserved to the States and to the people. Meaning that if States do not rule on issues then the people can decide for themselves. So, the protection of rights in the Bill of Rights might actually prevent States from trying to take those rights away.
The founders were against big government control & tyranny, because they lived through it. It makes perfect sense that they would want to strictly limit the government and keep the gov out of the business of giving & taking away the rights of the people. That is why rights were declared to come from the Creator.
...
Monopoly
Since the Supreme Court has a monopoly on interpretting the Constitution and interpretting the constitutionality of laws, the government broadly interprets its own enumerated powers and narrowly interprets and regulates our protected rights.
That's why the Constitution is dead
Government is a forced monopoly. Read about the problems with forced monopolies.
The Bill of Rights grants NO rights.
None at all.
It simply enumerates rights derived from the three basic inalienable human rights of life, liberty, and property. Then it goes a step further and clearly indicates in the 9th that not all rights are enumerated, that there are others that are non-enumerated, meaning simply that they are not listed, but just as equal and inalienable.
Break it down:
1st: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Redress: Liberty
2nd: RKBA: All Three
3rd: Quartering of Soldiers: Liberty and Property
4th: Search and Seizure, Warrants: Liberty and Property
5th: Incrimination, Double Jeopardy, Jury Indictment, Due Process: All Three
6th: Speedy Trial, Jury Trial, Counsel: Liberty (and Life in capital cases)
7th: Civil Jury: Property
8th: Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment: All Three
9th: Non-enumerated Rights: All Three
10th: Prohibition and Reserved Powers: All Three
Add to it:
11th: No suits by foreign states against citizens: All Three
13th: Slavery: All Three
14th: Citizenship, Due Process: All Three
15th: Race Vote: Liberty
16th: Taxes: Property (in a negative way)
18th: Prohibition: Liberty and Property (in a negative way)
19th: Women's Vote: Liberty
21st: Prohibition Repeal: Liberty and Property
24th: Poll Tax: Liberty
26th: 18 Vote: Liberty
So there is no "grant" of rights, just a derivation of those we already have had. Government does NOT grant any rights.
Unfortunately, the courts have taken license with this derivation and used it to limit the rights, forgetting the homogeneous nature of the term "Inalienable". Hence we get travesties like Raich, Kelo, Bong Hits, etc.
The way I read it...
there are some rights given with regards to our laws, that would not be considered "natural rights" such as right to life, liberty and "property" (I much prefer Locke's interpretation here than Jeffersons and wish he had kept it as such.)
So, that being said...
5th amend. right to due process
6th amend. right to trial by jury, speedy trial, public trial and right to counsel
7th amend. right to civil trial by jury
Excellent Question
The Bill of Rights grants few rights to individuals. It has limits on government actions. At first blush, I'd say the Bill "grants" no rights, but closer examination shows there are some specific rights "granted" to individuals.
In spirit, I'd still class these rights as ones that "should be" natural/creator endowed, but are spelled out in the Bill, as specific rights the people will retain, as a condition of establishing this Constitution and resulting gov't.
"Granted" Rights:
-The Third's-No troops in your Home
-The Fourth's-No unreasonable or warrantless searches
-Fifth-No double jepordy, self-incrimination. Due Process and Paid domain
-Six-Speedy trial, call witnesses and have counsel
-Seven-Jury trial
-Eight-No excess bail or cruelity
All of these are, in fact, granted rights and can/have been taken away at times. I'd say only the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth are truely endowed, natural rights. That doesn't mean the gov't hasn't tried to infringe those, also, but it may explain why they are usually defended so vigorously.
"..shall not be infringed."
"..shall not be infringed."
Not all the rights in the
Not all the rights in the bill of rights are natural however the bill of rights does prohibit the Government from infringing on those rights.
The 6th amendment actually grants rights but also restrains the Governement from ever taking those rights away!
This amendment is the only amendment that actually grants rights and this is what I was hoping everyone would catch. Take a look at it and you will understand.
www.retakecongress.com
www.rtrradio.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
Preamble
The Preamble to the BOR state that these are restrictive clauses.
"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"
Thanks for pointing this out about the 6th amendment, but I agree with austrianschool's post below.
That "right" existed in common law for a long time, prior to
the U.S. Constitution. The 6th amendment does not, as you assert, "grant" that right. It recognizes and "secures" it from encroachment. That is very different from the "granting" of a right. The right to trial by jury and the right to obtain the assistance of council are not concepts that were invented by the Constitution and they certainly did not originate with the Consitution nor were those "rights" something that were owned by the state which were capable of even being granted.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
They are rights granted by
They are rights granted. There is nothing natural about trial by jury. The juror is actually forced to serve so tell me what is natural about this right? It is a granted right to the accused and it is clear the Governement can not infringe on these rights but they are in no way natural rights.
www.retakecongress.com
www.rtrradio.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
a right to a jury trial
isn't at the top of the list of my worries.
if I'm unable to enforce my natural rights, then a jury trial isn't going to do shit for me.
whereas if I and my neighbors are enforcing our natural rights, everyone in my town will get a jury trial.
i don't need a constitution to tell me that I want a fair trial.
and a fair trial is built on top of one's natural rights.
you don't have your natural rights? well a jury trial ain't gonna help you anyway.
You are mistaken. That "right" existed long
before the U.S. Constitution was drafted, much less ratified. It is *not* a granted right. It is a right. It is certainly recognized, and supposed to be secured, by the Constitution, but it is not "granted". An individual had that right at common law, prior to any Constitution appearing upon the scene in order to presume to undertake any manner of "granting" of any rights. Your assertion of using state coercive force, in order to compel the participation of an individual on a jury, is not even a part of the 6th amendment. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any specific authority, obtained by the Constitution, in order to compel jury service. That doesn't mean that such compulsion isn't done on a daily basis, based upon some alleged patriotic claim of "civic duty" and a claim by the State, to force such service, is some kind of "necessary" or "inherent" right. To confuse, in any way, compelled jury service with the "right" to trial by jury, is pretty astonishing. Your time would be well spent studying the history of trial by jury, starting in ancient Athens.
At the time that the Constitution was drafted, that right already existed at common law. Whether you consider it to be "natural" or not, though perhaps an interesting discussion, is not even relevant. One cannot "grant" something which one does not have. Even the earlier decisions of the SCOTUS recognized this. In Marbury v Madison, just to note one instance, the court acknowledged that individuals are the original owners of *all* rights. In the Constitution, some rights were granted to the federal government, some were denied to the states. The inclusion of the so-called "Bill of Rights" has, unfortunately, operated over the years to nurture the misguided (not to mention extremely dangerous) notion that, somehow, the Constitution is a "grantor" of rights to individuals, who already owned those rights in the first place. Recognition and securing of a right, against encroachment, is *not* the "granting" of a right.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
Hear Hear!!
Well said
None. My "rights" are such as existed long antecedent
to the organization of the state. Any assertion, that the Bill of Rights actually "grants" rights to an individual, has to be based upon the assumption that those "rights", thus granted, were the property of the state in the first place, in order for any such "grant" to take place. To accept any part of such a theory is to accept the notion that the state is the originator, and therefore owner, of those rights claimed to be "granted".
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
agree, the
state is not the originator
Ron Paul T-Shirts at www.BuffaloLiberty.com
$10 FREE Shipping
rights come from God
Governments are created to protect rights. If government can grant a "right" then it can revoke a "right" and therefore it would not be a "right".
" I assure you that the bill of rights does grant some rights."
Okay, please show us those "rights".
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
The rights are inalienable
The Bill of Rights is simply a reminder.
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
Unalienable
Unalienable is different than inalienable.
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm