And the last day, with the first, and some say most important, amendment.

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

What it means:  Congress shall make no laws establishing favoritism of one religion over the other.  Nor shall congress pass a law that prevents someone from speaking their opinion, nor shall they pass a law preventing the news media from doing the same thing.  People may assemble provided they do so peacefully.  Finally, people may bring the government up on charges should they feel they have been wronged.

Today:  If you have been paying attention, you caught it.  The point I keep trying to make.  This is a federal document, concerning the federal government, and it was written this way to make sure that should a citizen require their voice to be heard, no matter the cause, the government would not be able to prevent them from doing so.  Local governments have copied it into their own constitutions so it carries through…but not everywhere.  Federal, local, state…not private.

The catches are these.  For freedom of religion, while the federal government has a hands off approach, local governments and yes, even the IRS, can determine what is a religion and what isn’t.  Don’t fit the rules, better be careful.  Also, some religions run afoul in their religious practices of other laws…human sacrifice is still depriving someone of life even if it is voluntary.  Don’t get your kids medical attention?  Child abuse.  Of course, the part about congress not passing laws doesn’t mean we can’t have leaders that base their policies on religion.  The Reagans allegedly followed astrology, while the Bush administration has entire policies based on their own personal faith.  If I hear about one more school board trying to get intelligent design taught as actual science instead of evolution…

You’ll also note the lack of the term “separation of church and state”.  That came later, thanks to Jefferson and Madison, but as far as I can locate was never specifically put into law as such.  Basically, Congress will not permit the taxing, funding, or even acknowledgement of a religion AS A WHOLE.  Individual members may do so at leisure, but not in a governmental sense.

As for freedom of speech, have at it.  Just remember, while the governments may not dictate the content of the speech, they MAY dictate the time and location of speeches.  Our country tends to be rather lenient in this regard.  Same with the right to assemble peacefully…there is a good chance it will be permitted, but if there is a chance for a mob or violence, such as asking to march down a major thoroughfare during rush hour (or my personal favorite, the KKK marching down Harlem!) forget it.

Freedom of press?  Reporters make their own news nowadays, but enough money and/or dirty tricks, and they will report what you want them to report.  Just ask anyone that has seen a political scandal where the facts change daily, or a campaign advertisement.

Keep in mind the one thing that people keep forgetting, though, and this is what they really SHOULD remember.  We are not the federal government.  We are private citizens.  As such, we do not have to listen to each other.  Indeed, it is our freedom of speech that allows us to shout someone down, expose flaws in the speech, and so on.  Additionally, unless the person is on public property or has permission from the landowner, they may be brought up on charges completely unrelated to freedom of speech.  Like trespassing.  Vocally inciting a riot, slander, profanity, obscenity…also out, but NOT because of the government, but local laws.  Be careful though…not done right, and it gets tossed out of court.

So yes, as a private citizen, I have the right to not listen to a person blather, and am able to take peaceable steps to get them to STFU.

And for the record, just because, I’ve been telling people I’m opposed to both merry christmas and happy holidays because it is insensitive to miserable bastards.

Wild week…and beware!  My entire inheritance from my father, should great tragedy befall and he passes on (hopefully long in the future…my dad rawks!) consists of his gun collection.  He’s smart, though…not one of them has the firing pin!

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

What it means:  Due to the need to protect our country from tyranny both inside and out (written right after a revolutionary war, remember?), a well regulated militia will be necessary to protect the country, and as such, no-one may be deprived of their ability to have a weapon to supprt the milita.

Today:  Who can spot the two loopholes here?  This isn’t a protection of the right to have a gun.  This is an attempt to make a local guard to protect local areas, in addition to the normal military.  Armies back in the day tended to move slowly, especially with a distinct lack of fast communication, so local militias usually were needed for protection.  But!  This doesn’t give the right to form a militia…it just gives the right to have weapons to form the militia!  Of course, since it is implied, there are several groups out there that, for want of anything else to do on a sunday, have formed local militias.  They are usually nutjobs with an overinflated sense of selfworth, and are generally ignored by the government up until they start dodging taxes and arming themselves excessively.  As opposed to, you know, them doing something positive with their sundays, like building playgrounds.  Always shoot the person suggesting that we go for life, liberty, and justice while holding a gun, because he doesn’t have YOUR best interests at hand…The second loophole.  Right to bear arms.  Not guns, arms.  Swords were considered arms, as were knives, pitchforks, etc.  Anything that could be used as a weapon.  Guns is merely implied, but that was enough.  The right to own a gun has been upheld consistently.  Whether or not this is right or wrong, well…you have to admit that the national guard makes a pretty kick arse local militia type group.

With this one, we’re almost finished!

Amendment III or IIV

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

What it means:  Simple.  Except in times of war, no person may be forced to house a soldier without there being legalities that must be followed.

Today:  This one comes from when, during times of occupation, homeowners were forced to house, feed, and otherwise shelter the occupying force, whether they were defenders or invaders.  This brought up a lot of hard feelings.  Now, the proviso ”times of peace” means many things, not just absence of war.  Martial law, police action, etc.  Today, the person doing the housing must be asked first, and legal rules and regulations must be followed, often including paying the person.  Not just housing, but also land use, property use, etc.  This can get a little excessive, as for example, a chicken is run over and not only is THAT chicken paid for, but every chicken it might have laid…plus their chickens…even if it was a rooster.

And now for 4…search warrants!

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

What it means:  No person property or residence shall be searched without a warrant, and the warrant shall not be issued without through the legal process, where there WILL be evidence presented supporting the need for the search, the place of the search, and the things that may be taken.

Today:  Wiretapping, blanket warrants, at-need searches…we’re on a slippery slope.  At a federal level, they seem to have the idea that wire tapping ISN’T an invasion of privacy, nor is skimming e-mails.  Which might be true, since it is a non-physical form of property.  A federal agent may search your vehicle at security check points as they are opt-in locations…you don’t HAVE to go through them, after all.  Also, should a person be deemed as acting suspiciously, they may ask if they can search you.  Refusing, of course, may be a violation that may result in being searched.  After all, if you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to not wish to be searched, right?  Of course, being caught in the commission of a crime may also result in a search, as they now have due cause, so legally refusing to be searched can cause a lot more problems as you get cited for window tint color being 1 point off in tint just so they can search you…oh, and inviting an officer into your house gives them permission to be snoopy and they can ALWAYS look through your car windows.

By the way, according to my sources, blanket search warrants are warrants where certain details are to be filled in later or lack certain details, giving a lot more leeway to the investigators.  Not really legal, so they are rarely used.

I DID say work permitting…

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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

What it means:  Unless active duty military, a person needs to be indicted of a capital crime by a jury before they can be punished for it.  Also, once cleared of the charges or convicted, the person may NOT be brought forth on those charges again.  A person may not be forced to testify against themselves, and as for jail, there needs to be legal rules followed.  Oh, and property may not be permanently seized for the greater good without the actual owner being paid a fair amount.

Today:Active duty personal are called to the military branch they work for, so that’s ok…they commit a crime, it’s the same as if they are brought before a federal court.  Miranda rights protect the average citizen from self incrimination, although they can get sneaky…inform you of your rights, then putting you in a situation where you brag, confess, or otherwise give yourself away.  If not done right, this is inadmissible.  Double jeopardy is also out, except the courts get around this two ways.  In the first way, they don’t use all the charges against a person they can.  This leaves the door open for a new trial on similar charges if new evidence shows up.  The other way is a lot more common…remember, the constitution is for the federal government, NOT the local or state government.  This means that the federal government may try you on charges, THEN the state may, or vice versa.  Remember the 10th amendment?  That should have been a major clue.  The reason most people don’t see a distinction between the federal, local, and state governments is that the state and local governments usually have their own constitutions BASED on the federal version.

  Jail without charges is also pretty uncommon, although the fact finding bit may, due to extensions by both sides, extend for years.  Still, on american soil with americans, charges need to be brought before someone can be held for a length of time.  Non-americans, and those not on american soil, may find themselves…elsewhere.

Finally, there is eminent domain.  This proviso was put in to prevent looting, search and seizure without proper requirements, and (in)voluntary bribes or donations.  It’s used mainly to create easements, rights of way passages, roads, dams, reservoirs…mostly public works projects.  However, it has gotten a little out of hand at local levels with property being seized and razed to put up, among other things, shopping malls.  Payments for land and property is usually the fair market value, which often bears no relation  to it’s actual worth.

We should be at number 6 now, and it’s one of the bigger ones.

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 where in 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.

What it means:  Simple, actually.  In ANY criminal case, there shall be a trial held quickly, publicly, by a jury that hopefully have no preconceived notions of the crime or the accused.  He shall know what crime he is accused of, who charged him, and to be able to confront the witnesses to his crime.  He shall also have the ability to call forth his own witnesses, even if they are involuntary.  Yes, the accused can force people to testify on his behalf.  Oh yeah…and if they like, the accused can have a lawyer.  Because this is a right that can not be revoked involuntarily, in most cases should someone not be able to afford a lawyer, they may have a public defender.  Keep in mind, as these are rights, the person may voluntarily decide to not use them at any time.  He doesn’t cede these rights…he just doesn’t enact them.

Today:  One solid word, and one squirrelly phrase.  The word ALL means that no matter the person, even if they are not American, shall have this right.  Provided they are in a criminal prosecution.  This was the logic behind locking up foreign dissidents over seas.  No prosecution, no rights…never charge them, and all is ok.  But can’t let them go, as they MIGHT be charged.  In the states, we have a time limit on how long someone may be held before charges are brought.  As it is over seas, and they are not Americans, well…  As for the way trials tend to take years for actual prosecutions, people tend to try to put them off as long as possible in order to get more ability to defend/prosecute.  Not to mention that if a person is out on bail, knows they can’t run, and knows they will be going to jail for a while, a lengthy trial looks pretty well.

Now, who here has had trouble with the law.  Notice how this looks remarkably like what we think are the Miranda rights?  And for those of us that never have, well, take our word for it.  Surprise!  The Miranda rights came from the 5th amendment!  Not this one!  The only thing the Miranda rights do, is to protect us from self incrimination and interrogation…nothing at all about right to trial, jury, etc.  But more on that next time.

Amendment IIIX or VII if you like.

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.

What it means:  Pretty straight forward…any lawsuit involving the sum of more then $20 has the option of a trial by jury, and none can take this from you.  Additionally, this can not be changed, and any re-examination of the case of the facts thereof are to be done by a set of rules. 

Today:  Ooh, much abused in todays lawsuit crazy country, for two simple reasons.  Juries tend to be easily swayed by rhetoric, and tend to award outrageous claims.  Not to mention a good lawyer can pick a friendly jury, with their friendly little biases.  I think it is a paraphrasing of Mark Twain that in order to have a trial by jury, first you have to find the most ignorant people around…

Of course, since lawsuits are so costly just in the filing, most people just settle out of court as more cost efficient, EVEN IF THEY WOULD WIN.

Amendment 8, another simple one that isn’t quite all that simple.

Amendment IIX

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

What it means:  When committing a crime, people tend to get caught, and when caught, they tend to get put on trial, in jail, or if a politician, the ability to give themselves another pay raise.  This amendment was put in to protect the poor from being put into an untenable position.  Bail should be standardized, penalties standardized, and punishments should be fair.  This goes back to when a judge could pretty much do anything the wanted…someone you don’t like is up for trial, set bail too high for them  get free to find evidence, give them a fine that takes all their possessions, and then, for good measure, set fire to a part of their body.  With bail set at certain limits for certain crimes, ability to pay, and the amount of a flight risk a person is, it tried to ensure that a person could GET bail, but should they try to escape, they couldn’t afford to get far.  Plus, y’know, bail bondsmen.

Today:  What with the appeal process, insurance, and standardized punishments, excessive bail and excessive fines aren’t nearly as much a problem as they used to be.  While on occasion bail is denied due to factors of the case, in most instances it is readily available.  Fines for the most part, aren’t excessive.  This is why a corporation could commit a heinous act, and be given an order to clean up the mess and a small fine.  Which is then written off in their taxes as a business expense.  Don’t ask about punitive damages…they are different, are generally excessive, and usually go to the government, not the person wronged.

As for cruel and unusual punishment, being a fan of history, I could tell you stories.  In present day, not so much.  We as a nation aren’t nearly as bad as other countries, in that we at least TRY not to torture people.  Well, we don’t leave marks.  On the outside.  The huge controversy is the death penalty.  Once a person is convicted of a crime, it could be decades before they are put to death, and despite myself, I have to agree with this.  After all, the person might be innocent.  Actually, we’re discovering more and more that they ARE innocent.  On the other hand, a quick painless death versus a lifetime of being locked in a small room, living in constant fear, dealing with the worst sorts of peoples, denied the basic human rights we take for granted…yes, I know our jails are a great deal more comfortable then many nations, but even so.  Then when getting out of jail, many opportunities are now denied (except for a telepreacher, for some reason.  You should SEE the rap sheet these guys have.  And asked for forgiveness for, I’m sure.) for the rest of their lives.

Nothing cruel or unusual in that, no sir!

Day 2, and we will be looking at the 9th Ammendment.

Ammendment IX

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

What it means:  There are those that say this means the same things as posted yesterday in the 10th amendment.  They would be right.  The 9th  amendment, in part, states that just because a right is not stated in the constitution, does not mean that those rights are to be denied.  The main difference is that of power…the 10th amendment is an extension of the 9th, granting not just rights, but also powers available.

What are those rights?  Good question, glad I asked it, no-one has an answer.  The wording was made deliberately vague.  After all, the writers knew they didn’t know everything, and to write up everything they could would be beyond their ability while STILL missing the vast majority of items.  Therefore, the wording is vague so that future generations might be able to fill in the gaps with items never even thought of.

Of course, there is more.  Another interpretation of the amendment is that of precedence…as in, there is none.  A stated right isn’t more important then an unstated one.  One that HAS been stated doesn’t have precedence over another stated one.  As in, the vow of silence a person takes in their religious order (freedom of religion) doesn’t mean that I should be denied my freedom of speech, and vice versa.  All things being considered equal.

Today:  I support your right to a religion, but in turn you have to support my right.  You may have your eggplant, but I get to have my meat dinners.  I think you’re a freaking fruit cake, but as long as you aren’t pushy about it, neither will I be.  Alas, people just can NOT understand that others don’t share their world views, and get pushy…and should be referred to this amendment.

I actually had good feedback on the idea of explaining the Bill of Rights.  Well, offline, anyways.  So, for the next couple of days work permitting, the Bill of Rights.  What it says, what it means, and its use in modern day society.  At one a day, my christmas gift to you.  Working backwards and pulling from the National Archives (and cut and pasted from Wikipedia after double checking)…

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.

What it means:  The Constitution is the premiere law making document in the United States.  It lists the rights and responsibilities of the federal government and the people of the land.  Anything NOT listed in the Constitution may be covered by state laws, or governed by the people.  as in, if there is no federal law, there may still be a state law, and if there is no state law…it’s legal.

Today:  No set of laws can govern everything, and different areas require different regulations.  Additionally, we don’t want a set of laws so repressive as to control the entirety of every action of society.  That’s why this is in here…anything not already proscribed is fine to do.  At least, until the person gets caught at it.  Of course, there is some debate about that.  The generally accepted idea is that since the person was committing the action before there was a law against it, or not doing something they SHOULD when there is no regulation telling him he should…it’s not a crime and they can not be punished.  Then, legislation is rushed through, new laws made…and the person is generally grandfathered through and still free and clear.  The debate is that some people feel the person should be tried retroactively…for a crime committed when it wasn’t a crime.  Think about that…should it ever become a crime to, say, dye your hair, anyone who has EVER dyed their hair could be brought up on charges.

That’s why, as distasteful as it is, people that create and commit new kinds of criminal acts are often let go, and in scholars opinion, why this amendment was originally included.  We can live without fear that our actions now will get us in trouble later.