|
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
What If Liberals Wrote the Bill of Rights?
What If Liberals Wrote the Bill of Rights?
It's become increasingly difficult to hold rational discussions with those who regard the Constitution of the United States as a "living document," subject to change without having to go through the bother of voting. It sometimes seems as though most Liberals have never read the Constitution, or at any rate not understood it. They persist in reading things into it that the Founders never intended, nor would have considered likely in their day.
The process for amending the Constitution is simple and clear, as laid out in Article V -- a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by a ratification by three-fourths of the various state legislatures. Yet activist judges continually seek ways to alter or read the Constitution so as to find support for their agenda, and most of those judges are Liberal. While Conservative activism is just as bad, it is far less common, as most Conservatives believe the Constitution should be used to judge the validity of the law, not the law used to undermine the integrity of the Constitution.
Nevetheless, Liberals seem to see things, especially in the Bill of Rights, that the rest of us just cannot find there. If Federal-level "rights" like abortion and gay "marriage" were specifically enumerated as Liberals insist they were, they must have been secretly written on the back of the original document in lemon juice, just before it was ratified in 1791. Liberals must, therefore, have their own version that they refer to during arguments.
After careful consideration, research and discussion, I have managed to discover what I believe to be the actual Liberal version of the Bill of Rights, hidden away since the 18th century and only revealed to Liberals. Its existence explains why so many Liberals are so wrong so much of the time.
Bill of Rights (Liberal Version)
Amendment I
There shall be no show of respect for any Judeo-Christian religion, or people who believe in a Judeo-Christian religion, or Christian-based holidays, and no one who professes belief in any Judeo-Christian religion shall be considered fit for any government position or office. No law shall abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably or otherwise, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless that speech, that press or those people are in support the actions of Christians or Republicans, or in condemnation of the actions of Democrats, or might be construed as giving offense to anyone.
Amendment II
The military and police being the only forces necessary to the security of the State, the right of the common people to keep and bear arms shall be removed, weighed down with restrictions and regulations until private citizens can no longer own anything that might be used as a weapon.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be regarded as necessary to maintaining that peace. When at home, soldiers of any rank are to be considered disposable, interchangeable, dull-witted robots, who can be instantly trained at need, and considered dangerous, uncontrollable, dull-witted barbarians bent on murder, rapine and torture when overseas. As a group, American soldiers are to be lauded and pitied, but individually, reviled.
Amendment IV
The right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against any searches and seizures shall not be violated without a court-ordered warrant, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by the kind of evidence of wrongdoing that could only be gathered with a warrant, and the warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Personal security shall be considered inviolable for American citizens, foreigners living in America, and foreigners living elsewhere.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, because crimes are the fault of society, and not the individual. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, shall be deemed guilty upon indictment by a grand jury, or even upon accusation of wrongdoing. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, unless that person show evidence of Conservative thinking. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, unless that person shall be unborn or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise be deemed useless to the State, or a burden. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, public use being defined as anything that might benefit the State in some way, including higher tax revenue from said property.
Amendment VI
In all prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial in the media, and later, if necessary, by jury. Guilt shall be determined by the extent of public outcry that can be created over the nature of the crime, but reduced by the level of celebrity status enjoyed by the accused. The word of anonymous witnesses and experts may be used as evidence in the media trial. If a person found guilty of a crime is able to claim disadvantaged status -- meaning non-white, non-Christian, non-male, poor or homosexual -- that person shall have the right to full and open public sympathy by celebrities and members of the media, unless that person happens to be Conservative or Republican, both of which are forbidden to members of disadvantaged groups.
Amendment VII
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved for captured opponents during time of war, who shall be accorded all the rights and benefits of American citizens in addition to the disadvantaged person status, which shall automatically be granted to all "enemies" of America.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, not even curtailment of any freedoms or rights whatsoever. Those held for committing a crime shall be afforded luxuries in entertainment and food to make up for the injustice of being incarcerated, as well as the right to at least one book deal.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, especially the unquestionable rights of abortion, tax-paid health care and gay marriage.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the Judiciary, who shall have the power to overturn decisions made by vote of the people, amend the Constitution and even change the meaning of the words written herein at will and without recourse by the people.
Posted at Tuesday, January 10, 2006 by CavalierX
 | | | Steve Davis
January 11, 2006 08:24 AM PST
Entertaining as aways and well through out. But you have clearly lost it this time. Get back on track. | |
| | | mescalero
January 11, 2006 11:54 PM PST
The liberals of today have no relation to the Jeffersons and the Paines of times past. These "modern-day" liberals don't even come close to Abraham Lincoln.
In reality, today's liberals are the logical consequence of Stalinism. Granted Stalin existed in the Soviet Union, but he butchered 10 million Ukrainian peasants with nary a peep of protest from western liberals as represented by Walter Duranty of the (Sulzberger-dominated) New York Times.
Liberals need to ask themselves about the consequences of terminating fundings to the governments of South Viet Nam and Cambodia. We all know what happened: (1) hundreds of thousands of boat people, (2) over two million Cambodians butchered by the war criminal Chomsky's Khmer Rhouge heros trained by non other than Jean-Paul Sarte!
Will the Democrats wake up?? Not anytime soon as long as the (second-degree murderer) Ted Kennedy and (the well-known traitor) John Kerry continue their boring existence in the U. S. Senate! | |
| | | Neal Lang
January 12, 2006 04:43 PM PST
What If Liberals Wrote the Bill of Rights?
Liberals did write our "Bill of Rights". Every one of our Founding Fathers was a "Classical Liberal".
"CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: A term used to describe a political philosophy commonly held in nineteenth-century England and France but now undergoing a renaissance in the United States. Classical liberals advocate free markets, a vibrant array of nongovernmental institutions (such as civic groups, schools, churches, etc.), and minimal tax-financed government services. Classical liberals firmly believe that both persons and property should be protected from physical harm. They also emphasize the strict enforcement of contracts. Classical liberals, following Lord Acton, consider liberty to be the highest political value but not to the point of becoming a worldview. Examples of classical liberal thinkers include Frederic Bastiat*, Lord Acton*, Alexis de Tocqueville*, John Locke*, John Stuart Mill*, and Friedrich Hayek*. "
In 1776 the Conservatives where known as Tories, and they supported King George.
"CONSERVATISM: Although the term conservative can mean many different and often contradictory things depending on the context, it is generally a description of an outlook or disposition that is traditional. The word "traditional" may simply refer to a political or social attitude, or to a more or less well-defined set of political policies designed to preserve traditions (moral, political, cultural) inherited from the past. It is important to note that conservatives' defense of the traditional does not simply stem from the fact that it is old, but that it is somehow true. Conservatives support this claim by appealing either to the moral values of Christianity or to natural law (see Natural Law). Conservatives resist change. They stress the limits of human reason, and regard human nature to be tainted by sin. Today's usage is often associated with such terms and concepts as family values, the political right, and the Republican party. Key thinkers include Edmund Burke*, Russell Kirk*, Richard Weaver*, and Leo Strauss*. "
"NATURAL LAW: A philosophy that understands morality (see Morality) to be universal, objective, and derivative from human nature. Reasoned reflection upon human nature yields rules or laws of conduct for moral behavior. Natural law undergirds man-made positive law because it is rooted in the nature of humankind. The natural law tradition is a theistic system. It precludes any contradiction between revelation and reason because God, who authored the Ten Commandments, also designed human nature. Formative influences were Aristotle*, Cicero*, St. Thomas Aquinas*, Franciscus Suarez*, Hugo Grotius*, Henry Veatch, and John Finnis."
"MORALITY: Morality is any intellectual system which tries to explain right and wrong. Strictly speaking, morality deals only with the realm of human actions and intentions. The key to understanding any moral system is to identify what determines or acts as the standard of right and wrong. For Christians, it is the Scripture and natural law (see Natural Law). For relativists, it is either societal trends or individual preferences." | |
| | | JM
January 12, 2006 05:30 PM PST
>Every one of our Founding Fathers
>was a "Classical Liberal".
There is no common ground between the Founding Fathers and modern Liberals except, of course, the ground they occupy. A Classical Liberal wouldn't, for instance, substitute long cut-and-paste drivel for an argument. The Founders believed in America's future, America's people, the power of democracy and economic freedom, and God. Those who abuse the term "liberal" today are just power-hungry Socialists who want to be loved... and, of course, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions. | |
| | | Mastro
January 14, 2006 10:55 AM PST
The Second amendment of course has no meaning- the militia clause allowing liberals and centrist judges to nullify the "people's right". I'm a reasonably smart guy- where is the right to privavcy section? Can I then use it to tell the IRS off?
Frankly I think we should rewrite the constitution- keep the balance of powers- have a real DEBATE about privacy, property rights, etc. Letting activist judges decide disgusts me. | |
| | | JM
January 14, 2006 11:13 AM PST
>the militia clause allowing liberals
>and centrist judges to nullify
>the "people's right".
Only when they lie and distort the original understanding of what a militia is. A militia is formed of private citizens to protect their homes and families, who do not serve for pay, and are not under the command of the elected government. In short, it's us.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788 (PA delegate to the Continental Congress) | |
| | | MRYAN
January 16, 2006 01:59 AM PST
Good post. Sarcastic but well said. | |
| | | lmbrjk
January 22, 2006 08:36 PM PST
One sees many satires such as this on the 'net; but unfortunately many are over-the-top and just plain silly as the authors seem to be attacking a liberal strawman. This one was well thought out, and is really rather amusing. It isn't very far from the truth at all. | |
| | | monty hall
March 16, 2006 07:22 PM PST
Since I'm tired of activist judges, too, let's make a deal: I'll petition the Supreme Court to rescind its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision if you ask them to rescind their November 2000 election decision to halt the Florida vote recount and award the throne -- oops, presidency -- to George W. Bush. | |
| | | JM
March 16, 2006 07:34 PM PST
The problem, Monty, is that Florida was violating the law by extending the recount beyond the time specified. The Supreme Court didn't "award" anything to anybody. Check the facts next time. | |
|
|
