Thread: Assignment: US Bill of Rights... what would you do?

So, younger daughter received this project to do on the U.S. Bill of Rights and I thought it would be interesting (and fun) to see how this group would complete the assignment!!

Instructions:



Bill of Rights Handout:

So did your daughter choose which Amendment she is using? The 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th Amendments don't really lend themselves to this type of project.

Originally Posted by ocitalis

So did your daughter choose which Amendment she is using? The 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th Amendments don't really lend themselves to this type of project.

good question. She is finishing it up tomorrow and she said she is using the 9th "other rights" as she thought it was the easiest. Examples she has given me are: you have the right to feed your cat ice cream if you want, to wear whatever clothing you want, to live where ever you want, to buy a car or a motorcycle or take a bus or to walk... it's your choice, to listen to whatever music you want or read whatever books you want.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

she said she is using the 9th "other rights" as she thought it was the easiest. Examples she has given me are: you have the right to feed your cat ice cream if you want, to wear whatever clothing you want

I'm curious as to the teacher's reaction. I mean, let's face it, the constitutional amendment is not something that could be prohibited by the state laws or the by-laws, right? So, if an animal protection group would make a state or a city to pass a law that forbids feeding an ice-cream to the animals based on the possible negative long-term consequences, you would have to comply, wouldn't you? Therefore, to feed your cat ice cream is not a legal right promised by that amendment, won't you think? The same is true regarding the clothing and alike. You could have local by-laws prohibiting a certain types of clothing (like wearing a completely transparent bras in public places) or have any other types of the 'dress codes' implemented locally. So, could wearing anything you want really be a US citizen constitutional right?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm curious as to the teacher's reaction. I mean, let's face it, the constitutional amendment is not something that could be prohibited by the state laws or the by-laws, right? So, if an animal protection group would make a state or a city to pass a law that forbids feeding an ice-cream to the animals based on the possible negative long-term consequences, you would have to comply, wouldn't you? Therefore, to feed your cat ice cream is not a legal right promised by that amendment, won't you think? The same is true regarding the clothing and alike. You could have local by-laws prohibiting a certain types of clothing (like wearing a completely transparent bras in public places) or have any other types of the 'dress codes' implemented locally. So, could wearing anything you want really be a US citizen constitutional right?

NO. DESCRIPTION DUE DATE CATEGORY WEIGHT GRADE MAX LETTER
PROJ (R) Bill of Rights 2010-11-30 Formative 1 15 15 A

Perfect 15 out of 15!

She did the entire project on the cat "pet/animal" theme. Could feed it what you want, you can't torture them, buying a "legal" pet... and there was one more but I can't remember what it was and she's asleep (sorry).

What you're saying is sort of like cell phones and driving now. You used to be able to text while driving, it's no longer allowed in my state.

But these Amendments protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms and how do you protect that AND my right to not be killed by you while you are texting and driving?

So, we have these rights until they are taken away, for basically whatever reason. Then someone will challenge them in court and if it gets to the Supreme Court they will decide if we really do have the right or not.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So, we have these rights until they are taken away, for basically whatever reason. Then someone will challenge them in court and if it gets to the Supreme Court they will decide if we really do have the right or not.

Not quite accurate. These Rights under the Constitution are defined as "INALIENABLE" Meaning that they do not come from the courts and the government but instead that we are all born with them as part of ALL human nature. Meaning that these Rights are not the governments to take away.
The activist courts, legislators, government may TRY to take them away BUT the Constitution affirms that if anyone tries to do that then we may "alter or abolish" those who do try, BY MEANS OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT written into the Bill of Rights as "Inalienable", remembering that Inalienable Rights was the whole premise for the American Revolution in the first place, giving legitimacy to the revolution itself. Further being accepted among nations as a legitimate country in good moral standing having accomplished the banishment of King George.

This is what made the US Constitution unique among others. When Americans say that they are the freest people, it is actually true (or would be if the courts and government lived according to the Constitution.)

The Supreme Court can decide the wrong way by not adhering to the Constitution!

At this moment there is a case being decided by the Supreme Court where the Court is deciding "the validity of the Constitution". If they decide the wrong way, that they don't need to be tied to the Constitution, which many are afraid of right now, there will be civil war in America.
Nobody is talking about this coming war except a well known political analyst from RUSSIA who has predicted CIVIL WAR for America. That warning should not be dismissed lightly as this same political analyst predicted the collapse of the Soviets ten before it happened.

You have the right to feed your cat ice cream? What kind of country do you people live in?

The stuff the cat on the picture is licking doesn't look like ice-cream to me... More like a snow-cone

Since nobody has given any examples yet:

1) I would look at how the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments apply to Guantanamo Bay and its' inmates and to the activities of the CIA abroad. I assume all that must somehow be excempted from this Bill of Rights. (but if you are going to allow exceptions, then what's the point of having the Bill in the first place?)

2) This (below) is becoming a common site on the internet these days - seems to me these seizures could be unconstitutional in respect to the 1st, 4th and 9th above, as it's impossible to prove that the site owner has committed any crime. From TVShack

Originally Posted by Hanna

1) I would look at how the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments apply to Guantanamo Bay and its' inmates and to the activities of the CIA abroad. I assume all that must somehow be excempted from this Bill of Rights. (but if you are going to allow exceptions, then what's the point of having the Bill in the first place?

The Amendments only affect legal citizens of the US. The inmates of the Guantanamo Bay are accused of terrorism and most of them are foreigners which, however, doesn't change a thing. What kind of treatment would you suggest for a person guilty of terrorism?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

The Amendments only affect legal citizens of the US.

That's interesting to hear. So non-US citizens who are a accused of a crime in the USA have no rights to legal representation or a trial?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

What kind of treatment would you suggest for a person guilty of terrorism?

My suggestion: Since America seems to have a near obsession with the perceived great value of these amendments, I suggest that they should be applied consistently to everybody who finds himself/herself on American soil, whether a citizen, a tourist, business traveller or an individual kidnapped by the CIA from the Middle East (as in the case of the Guantanamo inmates). If these types of rights are not applied consistently, then they are meaningless!

And remember that one mans terrorist / criminal is another mans human rights advocate, Nobel Prize winner or partisan hero. I have no love to spare for terrorists, but Guantanamo is reprehensible in every way; something you'd expect to find in a brutal dictatorship. It's taken down the credibility of the USA several notches in the view of most people in Europe.

Personally I am not in favour of countries kidnapping and abducting citizens of other countries, full stop. But since it has already happened these individuals they should immediately be given a fair trial, or be released. As things stand, you are no better than those countries you put yourself in moral judgement over - only more two-faced.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Personally I am not in favour of countries kidnapping and abducting citizens of other countries, full stop. But since it has already happened these individuals they should immediately be given a fair trial, or be released.

Here I totally agree. Most of the "inmates" are gonna get the electric chair, plenty of the rest will be jailed for dozens of years, and quite a small percent will be released. Why not? Or do you think it's a trap for victims?

@Rockzmom: The US decided to block a number of popular web sites for EVERYONE in the whole world, because they link to material that the US thinks is copyrighted. The sites were not hosting the material themselves and the material can equally easily be found through Google. It's by no means certain any crime according to American law has been committed - there has been no trial, the action was just undertaken using anti-terror laws.

Some of these sites are located outside the US, but it is the US that controls ICANN which governs internet address resolution. No other country has that power - leading to all other countries wondering whether this situation shouldn't be changed.

People from all across the world who try to visit these very popular sites now get a message that the sites are a risk to US Homeland Security and inaccessible: Here is the story: http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126 It generated over 1080 reader comments in one day!

One might wonder how it's a risk to "US Homeland Security" if a few French kids download some cartoons.... but there you go...

Originally Posted by Hanna

Since nobody has given any examples yet:

2) This (below) is becoming a common site on the internet these days - seems to me these seizures could be unconstitutional in respect to the 1st, 4th and 9th above, as it's impossible to prove that the site owner has committed any crime. From TVShack

Hanna, I haven't seen or heard about this type of thing yet. Can you provide a little more info, backstory?

Originally Posted by Demonic_Duck

You have the right to feed your cat ice cream? What kind of country do you people live in?

My first cat loved to eat Häagen-Dazs ice cream. He would jump from the floor to my shoulder whenever I opened the freezer! He also ate Buffalo chicken wings, focaccia, pretty much anything. He lived 18 years!

Originally Posted by translationsnmru

The stuff the cat on the picture is licking doesn't look like ice-cream to me... More like a snow-cone

Here is what happened. My daughter showed me the photo and I said the same thing. She placed her hands on her hips, tilted her head and gave me "the look" and then said, "But mom, it's so cute." So, MR folks.... deal with it. Embrace the cuteness.

@ Eric: Most of them haven't ACTUALLY done anything, I suspect.

They might have been known to have been involved in some radical islamist group... but it's not illegal to have a strong faith, hang out with like-minded people and discuss whatever you want to discuss.... You are only guilty of a crime if you actually go ahead and do it, or get very close to. There is no way these thousands of people fit that profile.

I think the US picked these people up because they had been a thorn in the CIAs eyes for some time, and 9/11 gave the US a perfect excuse to disregard all normal diplomatic considerations. It used sympathy from other Western countries to make a big stink of "War against terror" and use it as a get-out-of-jail card for all sorts of underhand dark-ops actions. Since then, several THOUSAND Middle Eastern people have died, for every American life that was lost in 9/11. Do you think that is a fair equation?

The US imprisoned the majority of these people for something that the MIGHT have done in the future. The British citizens that were let go are living "normal" lives in the UK now - they were found completely innocent.

All this is a bit like what happened in the film "Minority Report" if you recall.
Or "thought crimes" in Orwell's "1984".

This is exactly the same as what happened with the American anti-communist paranoia under J Edgar Hoover. And the more you come on like an imperialist brute, the more these people will be radicalised.

I also don't see what right the US has to pick up foreign citizens for crimes committed in foreign countries....? There is no connection whatsoever to the US. What would you think if China, for instance, kidnapped a few thousand Americans, kept them in a labour camp for 10 years... for something the Chinese couldn't even prove that the Americans had done?

I suspect there are no trials in the Guantanamo cases because there is no proof that would hold up.

Originally Posted by Hanna

This is exactly the same as what happened with the American anti-communist paranoia under J Edgar Hoover. And the more you come on like an imperialist brute, the more these people will be radicalised.

Let me guess, you still think the collapse of USSR was the biggest fault in human history? I don't think something was wrong with that anti-communist "paranoia". And you do? Well, the commies had been showing anti-common sense paranoia up to 1985. Wasn't that enough to think something was wrong with them?

I don't, and I don't know what you base that on. Seems to me the USSR had some good points and some bad, and it was dismantled in a way that was very disadvantageous for most of the inhabitants there. Either way, it is part of the heritage of the Russian speaking countries for better or worse; I prefer to look for the good points - Hollywood has done a pretty good job of highlighting the bad points for the world to see. Most of it happened before any of us here were even born.

Now let me guess - you are studying Russian based on the principle "know thine enemy"?

Should everything be free?

Yep, information itself should be free. Or should be officially made free for non-commercial use after some (very short-term) period of time. Authors and artists will have their share of income from those who commercially use their art (publish and sell their books, for example).

On the copyright comments: US law is not law in other countries!
These sites are not illegal in the the countries in which they are hosted. No crime is being committed in the countries where the servers are located.

In the case of the famous "Pirate Bay" it was perfectly legal in Sweden - the site owners had checked with a lawyer.
Then, the US started putting pressure on Sweden to change it's laws. Sweden first refused. The US eventually threatened trade restriction unless the law was changed or re-interpreted to make TPB illegal. Sweden could not risk such economical damaged and complied. The owners of TBP (awesome techies and supporters of free information online) were just sentenced to PRISON!!!

Personally I think that there may be a case for people paying for certain types of entertainment (games and films) online. I don't think it is critical for people to be able to play computer games and watch Hollywood blockbusters. BUT books, software, music and information should be FREE and available to all. Bittorrent makes that possible.

Google pulled out of China over concerns about Censorship.
Now it is going to impose censorship at the request of US commercial interestes.

Originally Posted by Google

“We will prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in Autocomplete. While it’s hard to know for sure when search terms are being used to find infringing content, we’ll do our best to prevent Autocomplete from displaying the terms most frequently used for that purpose,” Google writes.

Personally I stopped using Google some time ago.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Google pulled out of China over concerns about Censorship.
Now it is going to impose censorship at the request of US commercial interestes.

Personally I stopped using Google some time ago.

From that quote, it doesn't say anything about censoring the results of searches, just the autocomplete search terms. And I'm pretty sure they already do that with swear-words and words associated with pornography.