With this being our 200th post at Freedom Reconnection, it seems like a good time to offer a reminder to the idiots who think our rights and freedoms should have an expiration date.
Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15th, 1791, the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution–also known as the Bill of Rights–exerted limits on the power of the government, allowed states the right to determine their own powers that were not defined by the Constitution, and guaranteed a number of rights for the American people.
But a lot of people these days insist that those Amendments are old; therefore, they believe that some aspects about them should be considered outdated. They think the Amendments should be refined, tinkered with, reversed, disregarded, dismissed, repealed. But they only think that way because they don’t like those parts of the Bill of Rights. They wish to keep these rights but get rid of those rights.
Uh-uh, sorry. Nothing doing.
Probably the most common Amendment that this section of Americans wants gone is the Second Amendment. It is, of course, the one involving the right to bear arms. Progressives don’t like that one. They think it only applies to well-regulated militias. They think we should only be allowed to own muskets, at most. These arguments that the Second Amendment was written in the 1700s so it doesn’t apply to today are laughable.
We’re also doing away with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The government now forces nuns to hand out birth control. Christians have to hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples or go to jail for otherwise doing their jobs. Cake bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers are being punished for exercising their religious rights. Christians are effectively getting pushed out of their careers because hope and change came along to change their hopes to hopelessness.
Liberals tell us that it’s 2015, you guys. That part of the First Amendment is so antiquated. Hardly anyone believes in God anymore. In fact, we should be free from religion, many believe.
All right, if the Second Amendment doesn’t apply today, if the religious freedom insured by the First Amendment doesn’t apply today, neither does your First Amendment’s right to free speech and free press and right to petition for a redress of grievances. Forget your Black Lives Matter protests. Forget your New York Times, your MSNBC, your Huffington Post, your Salon, your Vox. All of it gone. And Fox News, too. And this blog can become a propaganda arm for whichever party is in power.
Sure, why not. Because we say so. They are outdated. They are obsolete.
Do we need to remind people that the Free Exercise Clause guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from it? Apparently, we do. You have the right to exercise no religion. That doesn’t give you the right to interfere with people who do exercise religion. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]…” How is this ambiguous or outdated or obsolete?
Since we’re doing away with the Free Exercise Clause, why don’t we void the clause that precedes it, the Establishment Clause, the one that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? 92 percent of our Congressional representatives are Christian, and the vast majority of citizens still considers itself Christian. Why not get rid of the Establishment Clause so we can make it official and call the United States a Christian nation once and for all? King George would be so proud.
As for this ambiguity in the wording of the Second Amendment, the intent of the man who wrote the proposal for the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was not so ambiguous in his words. In the fourth point of his proposal, of which in part later became the Second Amendment, he addressed the subject as such:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No ambiguity there whatsoever. It was only after the Congressional amendment approval process where the members whittled down his seventeen points to twelve did the wording becoming slightly more confusing. Those important words stayed, but the part about the well-regulated militia ended up before “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The intent of this amendment, taken in this context, is twofold: the people have the right to bear arms, and those who have arms are not compelled to be a member of the military. The people who are well-armed who are following the many, many regulations already in place should not be disarmed. Instead, they should be regarded as “the best security of a free country.”
Since progressives think the Second Amendment and part of the First are outdated and might as well be voided, how about doing the same with the rest of the Bill of Rights?
- The Third Amendment: “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.”
Hope everyone is ready for unexpected company.
- The Fourth Amendment: “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…”
You just thought stop-and-frisk was a violation of your civil rights. Ha! Just you wait until they peek at what you’re looking at online, who you’re contacting on the phone, what you’re checking out of the library without your…oh, that’s right, we’re there already.
- The Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…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.”
O.J. Simpson could be retried for murder–he would have to testify against himself (and he can’t lie since perjury would be a crime). And eminent domain all over the place!
- The Sixth Amendment: “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…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.”
Oh, that speedy trial thing. Now if you’re arrested, the government doesn’t even have to tell you why, and regardless of whether or not they actually intend to prosecute, you can sit your rear end in a jail cell until someone remembers they left you there. No more public defendants for the poor. Can’t afford a lawyer? Too bad! Oh, and the person testifying against you doesn’t have to face you. Nor can you call a counter witness to rebut the accusations of the anonymous complainant. And that impartial jury part which the courts say is equal to a jury of your peers? Nope, not happening. A man facing the charge of rape will now be tried by 12 rape victims.
- The Seventh Amendment: “[T]he right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States…”
No jury trial. One person can decide your fate. And you can be tried for the same crime twice.
- The Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
One trillion dollars bail for everyone! Waterboarding will be the new standard in interrogating suspects.
- The Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Like your privacy? Too bad!
- And the Tenth Amendment: “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.”
Since the Supreme Court already took states’ rights away with the gay marriage decision, why not abolish the Tenth Amendment altogether? Say goodbye to your legal pot, Colorado and Washington. Every state allows the death penalty. Local elections could be handled by federal officials.
But why stop at the first ten amendments? We don’t need an amendment for women’s voting rights or an amendment to abolish slavery. Those are obsolete.
I don’t like alcohol. Alcohol kills. Let’s go back to having prohibition.
The list goes on.
The very reason why we have the Second Amendment is to protect the rest of our enumerated rights from people like the ones who are now wanting to limit or repeal the Second Amendment. Without the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment, there would be no guarantees for the rights in the First, Third, Fifth, or any of the other Amendments.
Entertaining the thought of getting rid of the Second Amendment because it’s old is ludicrous. The Founding Fathers knew that our nation would be a beacon of freedom for people around the world. They knew that there would be those who would hate how free we are and would do what they can to tear our freedom away from us. We have to protect ourselves from those threats, and that’s why we have the Second Amendment.
