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

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.