We often hear people talk of their rights, but rarely do I hear someone speaking who could actually explain from where these “rights” are emanating.
Often we hear “I know my rights” and most often that person might have the vaguest grasp of what is contained within the Constitution. But now let us explore the SOURCE of these unalienable rights. Do you think it is the Bill of Rights (BoR)?
Does the BoR spell out to the people what rights are being granted and is this the source of these rights?
What “rights” are given specifically to the people in any of the first ten amendments of the U. S. Constitution?
Do the words actually say, or can you prove it was the intent of the writers, that these ten phrases are speaking to the people, or are they directed possibly someone else?
We would know which are rights granted here in the document, by reading the words of the Bill of Rights and observing if any of them speak to “the people” and say “you get this right that is specifically named here”. Shall we look to see how many there are actually being granted by this part of the document? and how many are assumed but not explicitly enumerated?
Is there a right found here? Read it carefully before responding
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.
Is there a right granted here? Carefully read because it doesn’t say way what you may think. The instruction, the take away, the writing was not directed at the people was it?
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.
This one doesn’t read like a Right as much as it does a rule about what the government may not do, as restriction on power, not and extension or granting of a right to the people. Seems like the rights are assumed and that this document was just a list of the 10 most troubling things the founders were concerned about while forming a new government.
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.
Pretty sure this one was written to the government about what they cannot do to the people. Not written to the people talking about a right.
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.
This one is laundry list of what the government may not do to a person:
- No secret indictments; 1.5 Allowing for temporary suspension of that restriction during times of war or public danger (see Lincoln who suspended Habeas Corpus during one such time);
- No Double Jeopardy—which may sound like a right but really limits the powers of the prosecution.
- You cannot make me testify against myself? Sounds like what the government cannot do. I could testify against myself if I wanted to, but cannot be compelled by the State to do so;
- The state cannot take my stuff, my freedom or my life, unless they can do so through a process of law;
- The State cannot take my stuff for public use unless I have been justly compensated. Again, state cannot . . .
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 offense 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.
The State cannot:
- Leave me hanging indefinitely in jail,
- Cook up a bunch of people who will convict me without Due Process;
- Get people from another place to judge me, only from within my “area”;
The State must give fair and full warning of the charge and reason for such charge—they cannot ambush me in a prosecution;
The State must produce those who accuse me, they cannot accuse and hide;
The State must use resources to assist me in producing people who may have information;
The State must allow me to have legal assistance, BUT does not say they have to provide it in the event that I cannot afford it
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 defense.
This one is a civil matter, but provide a venue for redress that the State must provide for matter over 20 dollars—they must provide the court, the jury, and adhere to both the process and the ruling of said jury.
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.
This one says the State cannot . . .
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
The last two limit what the federal government can do, saying that unless the document has specifically granted the government a power, then everything else is assumed to belong to the state government or retained by the people. Again, not granting anything, only stating that the Federal government cannot remove them without specific authority.
So who has rights in this country? And from where do they emanate?
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MININUM OF 125 WORDS)
CLASSMATE’S POST
The source of what the citizens of the United States consider rights, does not come directly from the Bill of Rights (BOR), but from the interpretation of the words found within the BOR by the Supreme Court. It is the Court’s duty to determine what actions constitutes free speech per say, or what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, etc. The first ten Amendments do not actually spell out any specific rights that the people are entitled too, but instead what restrictions on governmental power can protect individuals from having certain liberties violated. The BOR was written by the Founders and includes liberties that they felt could be easiest violated by the government or were seen as natural human rights. The 1st Amendment does not actually provide someone any rights, but as I stated before, presents restrictions on government power that may prevent someone from engaging in the activity mentioned, such as freedom to worship or speak.
Any citizen of the United States has rights according to the Constitution and the Court’s interpretation of said document. The rights provided are shaped by the Court and can change over time, depending on the cases decided upon. For instance, what constitutes free speech has evolved over the years from any form of expression to certain actions that are not allowed. For instance in the Schenck v. United States (1919), the Court determined that distributing fliers that could encourage people to dodge the draft was a criminal offense, unlike simple expressing one’s ideas verbally, which was okay. In the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) case, a KKK leader was found guilty of inciting violence because on a speech given in Ohio, a ruling that was overturned by the Court based on the fact that the speech did not specifically state any violent intentions but was abstract in nature. So as you can see, one’s “right” to any given freedom is not written in stone so to speak, but is subject to the changing interpretation of the original words.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
