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

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.

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cold

Meaning that these Rights are not the governments to take away.

Exactly. It's a pity that the schoolteacher is confusing the constitutional rights with one of the principles of the Common Law "everything which is not forbidden is allowed". You don't need a special Amendment to assert that. It's good that rockzmom's daughter is a good student and illustrated in a fun way what her teacher explained to her class earlier, but the schoolteacher should probably be prepared a bit better.