posted on February 23, 2004 05:32:11 PM
WASHINGTON, DC—Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.
A Republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats, the revised Bill of Rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating four amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.
Calling the historic reduction "a victory for America," Bush promised that the new document would do away with "bureaucratic impediments to the flourishing of democracy at home and abroad."
"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this enduring symbol of American ideals," Bush said. "By making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to freedom, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."
The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments. Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of rights not mentioned.
"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth Amendment meant anyway," said outgoing House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights. "So goodbye to that one."
Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy, testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials.
Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the slimmed-down Bill of Rights as "a positive step."
"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of Rights," Ashcroft said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion. They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a good thing."
Ashcroft responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights.
"We're not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security," Ashcroft said. "By allowing for greater government control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer expanded personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation of the federal government."
Ashcroft added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the states and people will be carried out by the federal government (Amendment VI), and freedom of Judeo-Christianity and non-combative speech (Amendment I).
According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."
"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."
Ashcroft noted that recent FBI efforts to conduct investigations into "unusual activities" were severely hampered by the old Fourth Amendment.
"The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago, long before anyone could even fathom the existence of wiretapping technology or surveillance cameras," Ashcroft said. "Yet through a bizarre fluke, it was still somehow worded in such a way as to restrict use of these devices. Clearly, it had to go before it could do more serious damage in the future."
The president agreed.
"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up to keep it in good working order," Bush said. "Now that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like a kitten when Congress reconvenes in January—just in time to work on a new round of counterterrorism legislation."
"Ten was just too much of a handful," Bush added. "Six civil liberties are more than enough."
posted on February 24, 2004 04:48:56 AM "Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up to keep it in good working order," Bush said. "Now that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like a kitten when Congress reconvenes in January—just in time to work on a new round of counterterrorism legislation."
Did he really say that??
When is this country boy going to learn he's not just speaking to some corn shucking Texans anymore? To liken the Constitution to a some type of farm tracker is embarrassing coming from the President of the United States.
posted on February 24, 2004 07:00:14 PM
During the last election, Bush spoke of states' rights...now he wants to change the constitution for political gain...how transparent is this one?
___________________________________
posted on February 24, 2004 07:01:21 PM
forgot to mention, who wants to bet me a paycheck that this one doesn't make it out of congress this year?
___________________________________
posted on February 24, 2004 07:22:13 PM
skylite - Who, exactly is David Sirota...the man who's name in on that link from the House Appropriation Committee?? Do you know?
posted on February 24, 2004 07:51:01 PM
hmmmm Guess he's not around right now.....going to have a couple more questions for him once he verify's if this is the same David Sirota or not.
posted on February 24, 2004 08:30:19 PMnow he wants to change the constitution for political gain...how transparent is this one?
How I see it is:
The Mass. court ruling has forced his hand.
His supporters were emailing him like crazy expressing their concern he hadn't taken a stand.
But most importantly, this puts this very controversial subject out on the table....so ALL will have to answer where they stand on the issue. Just like before the election, they HAD to vote on whether or not to support the President taking this country to war.
Might just make a difference, come election time, according to who the dem party nominates to represent their party against Bush. If they're not pro-gay-marriage....they might just lose some support from the gay community.
posted on February 24, 2004 09:20:04 PM
Nobody "forced his hand." This is something the government has no business sticking their nose into.
And--
you better pray to your god that this thing doesn't pass. Because it would open an evil can of worms. What would be the next thing that would be legislated? It's a slippery slope. You're happy about this because you, personally, happen to agree with it. The next thing they stick their nose into might not be.
It is frightening how fast people are these days to give up their personal liberties. Andonce the government takes things, it historically doesn't give them back.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 24, 2004 09:29:45 PM
I respect your view, bunni. And you're right we see it differently.
I have no clue as to it's chances of passing. But there's going to be some VERY interesting election debates about it. And EVERYONE is going to have to pubically state where they stand on the issue. I like that part of politics.
posted on February 24, 2004 10:16:20 PM
Wanted to add: [surprise, surprise ]
It's going to be one heck of an uphill climb for this [or any amendment] to pass.
Most here probably know it would take support from 2/3rds of both the House and Senate...and should those that requirement be met, then 3/4 of the states would also have to support it.
That's quite a hurdle and why so few have passed.
So SHOULD it pass....I think it would be speaking for the will of the people and not this President. Same goes if it doesn't pass.
edited to add: I found this site called U.S.Constitution.net and it had a list of some of the most recent proposed Constitutional amendments. From the 102nd Congress [1991-1992] to the current 108th Congress. It was interesting to me, thought it might be to someone else too.
posted on February 25, 2004 03:15:08 AM
Bunni, yes he is forced to do this because you have vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and going against a law that was passed over 3 years ago...
Why wasn't it brought up at that time? Is it because... 38 states have passed similar laws, last time I checked that was 3/4's of the states, so yes this most likely would get ratified if it makes it that far... I for one hope it does.
There is no "slippery slope" here, it will be doing what the Constitution was meant for.. a changing document. If it weren't for new amendments, there would still be slaves and women wouldn't be voting...
amendments can be repealed if sometime in the future the nation decides it is not necessary... Prohibition comes to mind.
Constitution is meant to be a changing document... with 70% plus of the nation wanting this done, there is no evil behind this, it's being done exactly for the reasons it should be done...
Vigilantes in SF have done this, hope they are happy...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on February 25, 2004 04:19:49 AM
70% of the nation may be opposed to same sex marriage, but I doubt that that same percentage feels the issue is important enough to change the constitution.
___________________________________
posted on February 25, 2004 04:32:08 AMSo SHOULD it pass....I think it would be speaking for the will of the people and not this President. Same goes if it doesn't pass.
The only way it would truly speak for the people is if the PEOPLE voted on it themselves. I hardly trust most politicians to vote the way I would expect them to. Once in office, they seem to change and our desires become less relevant and their's more.
The government needs to keep their noses out of this issue. It is more a religious one than a political one. The point is if allowed to change our Constitution on this issue, what's next? IMO, it should take a vote of the people to change THEIR Constitution. I'm not a republican by any stretch of the imagination, however had Bush done the job he was appointed to do by doing what is best for the American people, he'd have my support (NOT on this issue, though). That has not been the case. He's doing what's best for him and what he believes in (or in my opinion - what's best for Chaney). That should have become evident to most with the Mexican worker issue, which would be best for the Mexican population not the American population.
This Constitution change is just the latest in the "I want it my way - to he** with what you want" politics of this administration.
posted on February 25, 2004 04:54:17 AM
Cheryl, the people of Califronia passed Prop 22... that is the people voting...
They passed that prop which clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman...
What else can be done except to make it a Federal issue?
If vigilantes can take the law into their own hands, why have any laws?
I would love to be a defense lawyer in SF right now...
posted on February 25, 2004 06:45:28 AM
In the 70's there was a proposed constitutional amendment giving men and women equal civil rights. It was ratified by and passed by Congress but never got the 3/4 of the states to change the constitution.
If that did not make it as a constitutional amendment then I do not feel this will either.
To start changing the constitution just because people dont agree on issues is a dangerous course to go down.
The government passed the amendment outlawing liquor only to have it be repealed later.
Would you want such a historic document to have all these changes added only to have them repealed later?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 25, 2004 07:03:10 AM
people , people , people, what are you talking about, can't you see all this talk about gay bashing by stalinist / fascists republicans, is nothing but a distraction.
Wake up, smell some coffee or something, and don't get side tracked. The issue is not about gays and marriage, but about jobs, the economy, the crazy trillions of dollars in debt that this Hilter regime has put the US in.
Also the killing fields which the republican monsters have created over in the middle east, for oil, for corperate profits, for their corporate buddies who are now balantanly showing how really corrupt they are, and ask this question, why are the rich kids of these who want this war so bad not out there in the trenches....why are those who want violence so much not out there in the trenches....
Also do not forget this issue, the medical system, the lack of for the wounded, and the mistreatment, also the disrespect for the seniors and their prescription issue and how corperate world is overcharging them, and putting a lot of seniors into the poor house
WAKE UP, AND DON'T GET SIDE TRACKED, BY THESE RIGHT WING CHICKENHAWKS
Remember the open boarders south of here and what it is doing to the avarage american citizen, and how much of a finacial burden it has created for the taxpayers, read research
And don't get me started on backing all this up, or by golly i will drown this chat board with evidence
Remember this, is it more important if you sleep with and or marry to whomever, or is it more important to know your actual freedom is being eroded by the Patriot acts, READ THEM, and your childrens and grand childrens futures are doomed, you bet doomed, just take a big deep breath and really think about it, not to mention the Oil Peak crisis i posted here, read and put the puzzle together, and you will see the truth about how you are all being swindled, as for the constitution, that also has changed, read, reasearch, for tomorrow we will be seeing each other in some gulag created by these right wing monsters.
Don't get side tracked, ask yourselves who are the real terrorists here
posted on February 25, 2004 07:45:26 AM
As the way things are now if ratified it would be a long long time before being repealed... and yes I want to see this amendment go through.
Prohibition tried to do something for a minority of people, not a majority... as it is now.
38 states do make the 3/4's they already have laws in place making marriage ONLY between a man and a woman... this would just make it more Formal so vigilantes like in SF have no power...
I do believe this would be ratified just based on how it has polarized people already.. ERA was poorly written and should not of passed.
posted on February 25, 2004 10:27:21 AM
Not sure of the time limit to get an amemdment ratified, but I do believe that once it leave the congress for the states, it will not take 7 years...
This is an important issue... it may not seem so to you but this is important to many of us.
posted on February 25, 2004 10:45:13 AM
Just because 38 states have passed laws defining marriage as one man and one woman. It does mean that 38 states want to create a constitutional amendment.
That is a whole other issue.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 25, 2004 10:45:32 AM
Homosexual right to marry? not in our democracy
Ever since the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's Nov. 19 decision to legalize same-sex unions, the nightly news has been saturated with images of gay couples rushing to the altar. This sickens me.
I am not alone. A recent Zogby poll indicated that 70 percent of Massachusetts's citizens do not favor the decision allowing homosexual couples to marry. And it's not just Massachusetts. Recent polls by "The New York Times" and CBS News and one by "USA Today" and CNN, all found that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose the legalization of homosexual unions.
"The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
"An old, long-whiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: 'I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat.' Roosevelt then said: 'Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?'" --Will Rogers
posted on February 25, 2004 12:44:25 PM
Bear:
Homosexual right to marry? not in our democracy.
I am sure the same thing was said about blacks and the end of slavery back in the late 1700's.
Ever since the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's Nov. 19 decision to legalize same-sex unions, the nightly news has been saturated with images of gay couples rushing to the altar. This sickens me
If you don't like what is on the News, then don't watch it. I am sickened by having to watch straight couples group and foundle in public, but you don't hear me complaining about it and telling them it is wrong.
The youth of America do not have a problem with gays, why is it only the old foogies out there that do? Could it be because America's youth has more tolerance?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 25, 2004 01:34:38 PM
More tolerance or improper upbringing?
I choose the latter...
I somehow doubt those percentages are all old fogeys... however as polls can be skewed one way or other... I still belive that the majority of the US do not want what is happening in MA to continue and the vigilantes in SF have not helped your cause...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on February 25, 2004 02:11:21 PM
While I do not disagree that the majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriages. Those that favor a constitutional amendment is a little more than 50% from latest polls. This is a lot less than the 75% that is needed to ratify an amendment.
As far as improper upbringing, I do agree with you. However in my opinion improper upbringing relates to parents not spending time with their children to discuss important issues like sex and drugs, children watching to much TV and being exposed to violence at an early age, being subjected to domestic violence and abuse, parents themselves getting married and then divorced.
Perhaps if more moms/dads stayed home, watched and raised their kids instead of relying on day care or baby sitters, children would be better off today.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
]
