0
Bill of Rights
The first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were considered crucial by many of the early founders and were necessary to gain support of some of the states.
2,194 Questions
First Amendment freedoms and limitations?
The 5 first amendment freedoms are freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition.
How literally did Jefferson think the 10th amendment to the constitution should be interpreted?
He meant exactly what was wrote. Power that doesn't belong to the Federal Government belongs to the individual states, and the people that inhabit them.
What process extends the bill of rights to protect individuals from all levels of government?
Naturalization!
actually the answer to the question is incorporation
Did the tenth amendment limit power of states?
The 10th amendment was put in place to define what powers would remain within the states rather than central government.
Why did the founding fathers include the Second Amendment?
Because they believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical. Look at modern Switzerland. That is the kind of model that our founders were thinking of.
Michael Montagne
I figure it is partly due to the fact that British forces marched into Lexington and Concord with the intent to seize the militia's arms. This imprinted into the American mind a direct relationship between firearms and freedom.
It is'NT even conjectural as many made coment on it. Not for self protection, not for hunting, not even to protect from foreign invaders. Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insideously, removing power form the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of Amereica that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen.
The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheep, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government. But the Second Amendment has been an anachronism for over 150 years. State Militias , now known as the National Guard, issue arms to its members. In addition, the most significant arms in the modern military include fighter jets, misiles, artillery, heavy weapons and such, not the kind of things most parents want floating around the neighbor. To allow anyone to own such arms by right is completely uncivilized and not the kind of world most sane people would want to raise a family in.
The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of government authority
The militia interpetaion...that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms...even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief...it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows:
'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.' The capitalisation and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress
Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people.
A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.
A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.
The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference.
Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people.
The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it.
So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government.
The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States.
When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous.
Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons)
What does the Ninth Amendment say?
The Ninth Amendments states: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What were the Founding Fathers' opinions on the Bill of Rights?
The founding fathers were either Federalists or Anti-Federalists. Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton thought that the Bill of Rights was not needed, their new constitution was perfect in their minds and they felt that ratification was not needed. Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson were in favor of the Bill of Rights, the average person would not be able to read the new constitution and Jefferson and others felt that the government would gain to much power with out the Bill of Rights.
The famous Federalist believed that a bill of rights were not necessary in that the new constitution gave the federal government no powers to hamper the civil rights of its citizens. Madison, who finally wrote the Bill, was certain that the state constitutions gave its citizens the rights quite properly. Nevertheless, ratification was vital, so the Federalists agreed to 10 amendments.
What was the main purpose of the brady bill?
the brady bill only stops law abiding people from buying hunting and sporting guns. this is by far one of the worst bills ever to pass. this bs bill stopped me from buying a hunting rifle, i have to wait three days . i have no i repeat no criminal record. as you can see the criminals still get guns. thanks again for not allowing me to purchase a hunting rifle.
Why was the Bill of Rights put into the constitution?
I believe the Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution to satisfy the anti-federalist.
What are the five freedoms in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights?
The first Amendment grants the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Was passing the bill of rights a priority for the new congress?
Yes the federalist wanted the Constitution for the new government and congress but the Anti-federalist did not agree because they taught the would not have enough rights and the same cycle would come again as a dictation or a king .The federalist accepted to put in the bill of rights to shut up the anti-federalist and sign now a day The U.S.constituion
What is the connection between ratification and the Bill of Rights?
Five states ratified conditionally, with amendments. James Madison rewrote those amendments into the Bill Of Rights.
What do the Bill of Rights address?
It deals with the rights of criminals and fair trials. They were written by James Madison when he served in the first congress before his presidency
Who wrote the fourth amendment?
I think James Madison and Elbridge Gerry were involved in making the 4th amendment, hope it helps
Who was the president that signed the tenth amendment to the US Constitution?
What became the Tenth Amendment was the first one prepared at Virginia's key 1788 ratifying convention, written by the officers, and when first draft was read to all delegates it had only eight words, "All Powers, not herein, remain with the people". Patrick Henry jumped to his feet to agree and disagree. What he said led to a private meeting that night between between the two officers and Henry and George Mason. A few changes were made on this amending clause and then the second amen ding clause was prepared for the people to retain rights of all denominations (individual rights as well as Public Liberty or rights of the people, collectively, as the public. Thus, what became the ninth was written days before what was the third amending clause among the twelve sent back to the States by the First Congress. The third clause sent back was strictly a restrictive clauses, and seven
of the final ten ratified by the States were declaratory/restrictive or restrictive clauses which did not grant rights, including what became the First -- (the third sent back that fell into the first slot because the first two individual amendments were not ratified -- which did not grant any rights nor could it guarantee them. These and other factual truths will soon be released in a series of E-Books.
Who won the Third Amendment case Engblom v Carey?
The State of New York (Carey) won in the Second Circuit case Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d.c. 1982), but only on a technicality. The court held the guards had standing to bring a Third Amendment challenge.
Engblom was a guard in a New York State prison. She lived in a home owned by the prison, and provided as part of her pay.
The guards went on strike, and the State called in National guardsmen to guard the prison. The State evicted the strikers from their prison owned homes, and used them to house the National guardsmen that were replacing them.
Engblom sued, claiming that the States action violated the 3rd amendment ban on quartering soldiers in private homes without the owners consent.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the ban included "tenants" as well as "owners", and that therefore it was illegal for the State to quarter the guardsmen in the prison guards homes without their consent. The State argued - unsuccessfully - that since they'd evicted Engblom, she was no longer a tenant and had no 3rd amendment right.
Engblom still lost the case, but on other, unrelated, grounds. (Immunity of State officials from suit from unknowing violation of the law)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What are the three exceptions to the right of free speech?
example : you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre when there isn't a fire .
What is the 2nd amendment verbatim?
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.
How many amendments was originally in the Bill of Rights?
The original draft of the Bill of Rights had 17 Amendments, 10 of which would eventually be ratified. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.
What does the second amendment mean to Americans today?
The FOUNDERS never said anything about bearing arms is a "god-given" right. What they DID say was that a well-governed MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free state... Where does it say ANYTHING about people being free to run amok with any kind of weapon they want? It doesn't.
The gun nuts have NOTHING to do with a well-regulated MILITIA! The time when a well-regulated militia is no longer required to protect our national security. The ONLY need for people being able to bear arms is to protect our government or any other government from being able to diminish our freedoms.
The FOUNDERS were thinking about single-shot weapons, not the assault weapons that so many people want to tote around in public.
I am for keeping a weapon for my personal safety, especially when I am traveling around. As a 73 year young woman, I am seen by some as a potential target. I'm nothing of the sort. I'm an Air Force veteran, I carry and know how to use a deadly weapon.
Bottom Line: Self restraint is necessary when owning weapons. A few years ago, an intruder trespassed on our property--I had the right to shoot the offender. I chose to only cock the shotgun I was holding while keeping my finger OFF the trigger. All it took was the sound of the shotgun to put the trespasser on the ground. A neighbor called 911 and the police took him away. I DID NOT FIRE! The problem is that too many people do not understand that a bullet or shot pellets cannot be recalled.
Can you explain the bill of rights in elementary word?
If this is an exercise you have to complete, then the fifth word is the most important word in the question.
YOUR own words is what is being looked for.... not someone else's words.
Read the Bill of Rights, and interpret each section in your own words.
