What is the bill of rights really?

[Disir]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

 

[martybegan]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

 

[Truman123]

Spoonman said:

“A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.”


The only 'lesson' for liberals is further confirmation of your ignorance of the law, along with that of most other conservatives.

In addition to being wrong, this also fails as a straw man fallacy, as no liberal believes the Bill of Rights authorizes “the government...to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.” Indeed, such a notion is ridiculous nonsense.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)). When government seeks to limit, preempt, or restrict citizens' civil liberties, the burden to justify such an act rests solely with government, and when government fails to justify measures limiting citizens' rights, those laws are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the jurisprudence predicated on the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

Government isn't 'changing' or 'reinterpreting' anything. When government enacts measures citizens believe to adversely effect their civil rights, they are at liberty to challenge those measures in court to seek relief. And when the courts rule that a given measure passes Constitutional muster, it is done so in accordance with Constitutional case law, where the Bill of Rights is neither 'changed' nor 'reinterpreted.'

As for the linked op-ed, it's nothing more than ignorant demagoguery and hyperbole; the courts alone are authorized to determine if government is 'chipping away' at the rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment, or any of the other Amendments, for that matter.

 

[Contumacious]

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

Actually the Constitution is silent about firearms. Because the right to bear arms is not dependent upon that instrument . It is a natural right which the BOR emphasizes that it will not be transgressed upon by Congress.

The right to privacy has been recognized by the SCOTUS since , at least 1886 the Supreme Court considered the right to privacy as being protected by the fourth and Fifth Amendments


"They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence, -- it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other."

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, (U.S. 02/01/1886)

 

[Disir]

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

Your right to a firearm was not fully incorporated until 2010 and was a non issue until about 1985. The right to privacy as an individual right (incorporation) starts in 1925. You just don't like it.

 

[Contumacious]

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

Your right to a firearm was not fully incorporated until 2010 and was a non issue until about 1985. The right to privacy as an individual right (incorporation) starts in 1925. You just don't like it.

The Right to bear arms and to privacy were incorporated in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. Even without the BOR , the main text of the Constitution does not allow the government to fuck around with the right to bear arms nor with our right to privacy.


.

 

[Disir]

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

Your right to a firearm was not fully incorporated until 2010 and was a non issue until about 1985. The right to privacy as an individual right (incorporation) starts in 1925. You just don't like it.

The Right to bear arms and to privacy were incorporated in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. Even without the BOR , the main text of the Constitution does not allow the government to fuck around with the right to bear arms nor with our right to privacy.


.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court? Go to a park?

 

[percysunshine]

.

At this point, I am scoring this '17 Fascism vs. 18 Freedom'.

The fascists need to pick up their game.

.

 

[Spoonman]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

yesterday you said you had no rights. make up your mind. typical flip flopping lib

 

[Spoonman]

It's a perfect example of why we have such a large government. The far left all think like that.
They all think that the bill of rights is implied and they think that they can interpret the words to fit their ideology.

This is ignorant, meaningless gibberish.

It's a fact!!
Don't take my word for it do the research on it yourself.
Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

No. People like you do though. You lie through your teeth. Just like right now.

That is the lefts problem they don't believe when the truth is spoken and turn and call people names rather than doing actual research.
Look it up.

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to demonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

and you consider your opinion pieces research?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

The right to self defense with a fire arm is mentioned no where in the constitution. Nor is the right to privacy.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear, a right need not be enumerated to exist. The people retain all sorts of reserve rights.

You're literally making the case for all the founding fathers that didn't want a Bill of Rights. They argued that by enumerating some rights there would be some hapless souls that would insist that if a right wasn't enumerated, it didn't exist.

Exactly as you're doing now.

 

[Skylar]

At this point, I am scoring this '17 Fascism vs. 18 Freedom'.

The fascists need to pick up their game.

I'm not sure fascism means what you think it means. Nor freedom for that matter.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in 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 which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable 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 pretence 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."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

HUH?

That's argument against the parasites.

They are the ones seeking favors from the bureaucrats.

Those of us who have never demanded nor accepted , any favor from the government did not enjoy the "fruits"

.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court?

Bullshit.

There are PRIVATE libraries, roads, schools and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

So you don't use any of those darned ole "Socialist" amenities.

I'll bet.

 

[Disir]

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

yesterday you said you had no rights. make up your mind. typical flip flopping lib

If you're going to troll could you develop some critical thinking skillz?

 

[Contumacious]

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

I'm not trying to get rid of your rights. I'm saying the state legislatures have the ability to rule on things not covered by the amendments, limiting government action on them.

The right to a firearm is explicit in the constitution, the right to "privacy" is some muddled creation of un-elected do gooder lawyers from the 1970's.

Your right to a firearm was not fully incorporated until 2010 and was a non issue until about 1985. The right to privacy as an individual right (incorporation) starts in 1925. You just don't like it.

The Right to bear arms and to privacy were incorporated in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. Even without the BOR , the main text of the Constitution does not allow the government to fuck around with the right to bear arms nor with our right to privacy.


.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court? Go to a park?

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.
Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in 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 which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable 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 pretence 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."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

HUH?

That's argument against the parasites.

They are the ones seeking favors from the bureaucrats.

Those of us who have never demanded nor accepted , any favor from the government did not enjoy the "fruits"

.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court?

Bullshit.

There are PRIVATE libraries, roads, schools and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

So you don't use any of those darned ole "Socialist" amenities.

I'll bet.

Excuse me retard, the government can not steal, loot and plunder in order to subsidize those services, then force me to use them in order to claim that I gave them consent.

.

 

[DriftingSand]

The Bill of Rights is simply man's attempt to explain, on paper, those rights that all men are born with (with or without a document outlining them). With or without the Bill of Rights I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With or without the Bill of Rights I have the right to defend myself, family, and property in ANY way I deem necessary. With or without the Bill of Rights I have the right to speak my mind; assemble with folks of like mind; worship my Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ; and print my beliefs for all to read. I have the right to privacy and private property. Just as I have the right to assemble with folks of like mind I have the right to disassociate myself from folks whom I disagree with.

 

[Skylar]

The Bill of Rights is simply man's attempt to explain, on paper, those rights that all men are born with (with or without a document outlining them).

Add the words 'some of the' between 'those' and 'rights' and we're totally on the same page.

 

[DriftingSand]

The Bill of Rights is simply man's attempt to explain, on paper, those rights that all men are born with (with or without a document outlining them).

Add the words 'some of the' between 'those' and 'rights' and we're totally on the same page.

Okay ... let's try that:

The Bill of Rights is simply man's attempt to explain, on paper, those SOME OF THE rights that all men are born with (with or without a document outlining them).

Doesn't make much sense. If you mean to replace "those" with "some of the" then I agree.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....lets try it again. Put 'Some of' before 'those'. And I think we'll both be happy.

 

[peach174]

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.

Wrong. Thank you for attempting to get rid of my rights.

yesterday you said you had no rights. make up your mind. typical flip flopping lib

If you're going to troll could you develop some critical thinking skillz?

Do you realize that who you are calling a troll, is the one who started this thread?