If you could add or take away one of the first ten amendments (bill of rights) which would you do away with or add?

Let's assume for some strange reason I had to eliminate one of the first ten amendments. I would have to get rid of the Third Amendment, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private residences during peacetime. I would select this one because it seems to be the one that would be least likely to be abused. American society would have to change drastically before this situation ever came up. If such a vast change in society occurred, the Bill of Rights would be worthless anyway.

Adding an amendment that would be worthy of the first ten would be difficult. I think I would add something that would make the "right of privacy" (now so strongly argued for or against) explicit.

I agree with Victoria. The third is pretty useless. When was the last time you heard someone complaining that their Third Amendment rights had been violated. I suspect not since the Civil War, in which, yes, the Bill of Rights was rendered invalid for a time.

Get rid of, or at least replace the 2nd amendment. No-one understands it, everyone interprets it to fit their own position on gun ownership. If a simple sentence can be interpreted with two polar opposite meanings, it has no purpose, it just cancels itself out.

tony

For easy reference, could someone direct me to a site that details the first 10 amendments, or post them here please? I don't know what they are.

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.


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.


Amendment III
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.


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.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a 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.


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 wherein 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 defence.


Amendment VII
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.


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


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


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.

You have a point. Accordingly I propose revising the Second Amendment to read as follows:


There, that oughta be clear enough. And I don't think that changes the meaning at all, since IMHO the deleted portion was meant to be a preamble, a statement of a reason why the right is important. Since in retrospect it served only to create confusion, it shouldn't have been included.

If I may take the liberty of revising another one, here's how I'd reword the First Amendment:


Again, I don't see that as a change in the originally intended meaning, only a clarification. I'll not mess with the free speech portion because that isn't broken.

Juicy1785 said:



There are a few very important principles to be understood by all contemplating an answer to this question.

The first and most important is that the Bill of Rights does not create, establish, confer, give or grant any right or privilege; it merely lists, as examples of many others, preexisting rights that a free people must possess, to ensure that government is their servant, not their master.  It is merely a promise to the citizens that the government established by the Constitution understands the limits to its power and will abide and honor them. It is essentially a "NO TRESPASSING" sign for government.

Our rights do not flow from any printed word. They can not be read in and read out as political winds change. Certainly our rights can be secured by those words, but only as long as there is a Constitutionally legitimate government honoring those proscriptions. The government honors those proscriptions by not exceeding the powers delegated to it. Since there is no power vested in government to infringe on the liberties embodied in the Amendments, government is powerless to do so. (that was of course, the core of the Federalist position against a Bill of Rights)

Of course now such thinking is seen as absurd. Governmental power extends to whatever Congress wishes to control. Our rights extend only to what has been strictly defined in the Bill of Rights which the government is forced to surrender. There are no unenumerated rights.

Today the Constitution is viewed as a "growing" or "evolving" document, its words, phrases, it entire lexicon is to be judged by today's understandings, enlightenments and linguistics. Phrases which specifically prohibit governmental action now are interpreted so governmental action is the only action Constitutionally protected.

It is a strange new entity now claiming authority over We the People.

The transformation is inevitable because the young are ignorant of our history and this nation's founding principles.

I always love hearing twenty-something's complaining about the decline of "our democracy." Without deviation, they are also the ones playing "Let's Make a Deal" with my rights.

So, in closing let me just say that erasing a few words from parchment will not legitimately empower government to undertake authority in an area it was formally prohibited.

For argument's sake, let's just "give back" some provisions in the Bill of Rights. Let's do away with the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 8th.

Would, at that moment, the government be legitimately empowered, to search and arrest a citizen without warrant, torture a confession out of him, convict him in a kangaroo court without benefit of counsel, then take him immediately outside and have him hung, drawn and quartered?

I say no.

The principles on which the Constitution rests and which the government draws its authority, forbids it; a piece of parchment called the Bill of Rights notwithstanding.

Thanks to Bikerdad for posting the Amendments. An often overlooked but important part of those articles of amendment was the preamble, explaining to the state legislatures what the purpose was for the following articles.

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I would add the right to privacy if I could to the Bill of Rights.

The right to peaceful assembly has been violated many times.



Agreed.