The Bill of Rights

[Mephisto]

I'm not the one who wrote this file, so don't give the credit to me, ok?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to copy this article far and wide, but please

keep my name and this sentence on it.

 

 

The Bill of Rights, a Status Report

by Eric Postpischil

 

4 September 1990

 

6 Hamlett Drive, Apt. 17

Nashua, NH 03062

 

[email protected]

 

 

How many rights do you have? You should check, because it

might not be as many today as it was a few years ago, or

even a few months ago. Some people I talk to are not

concerned that police will execute a search warrant without

knocking or that they set up roadblocks and stop and

interrogate innocent citizens. They do not regard these as

great infringements on their rights. But when you put

current events together, there is information that may be

surprising to people who have not yet been concerned: The

amount of the Bill of Rights that is under attack is

alarming.

 

Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and see which

aspects are being pushed on or threatened. The point here

is not the degree of each attack or its rightness or

wrongness, but the sheer number of rights that are under

attack.

 

 

Amendment I

 

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.

 

ESTABLISHING RELIGION: While campaigning for his first

term, George Bush said "I don't know that atheists should

be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered

patriots." Bush has not retracted, commented on, or

clarified this statement, in spite of requests to do so.

According to Bush, this is one nation under God. And

apparently if you are not within Bush's religious beliefs,

you are not a citizen. Federal, state, and local

governments also promote a particular religion (or,

occasionally, religions) by spending public money on

religious displays.

 

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: Robert Newmeyer and Glenn

Braunstein were jailed in 1988 for refusing to stand in

respect for a judge. Braunstein says the tradition of

rising in court started decades ago when judges entered

carrying Bibles. Since judges no longer carry Bibles,

Braunstein says there is no reason to stand -- and his

Bible tells him to honor no other God. For this religious

practice, Newmeyer and Braunstein were jailed and are now

suing.

 

 

FREE SPEECH: We find that technology has given the

government an excuse to interfere with free speech.

Claiming that radio frequencies are a limited resource, the

government tells broadcasters what to say (such as news and

public and local service programming) and what not to say

(obscenity, as defined by the Federal Communications

Commission [FCC]). The FCC is investigating Boston PBS

station WGBH-TV for broadcasting photographs from the

Mapplethorpe exhibit.

 

FREE SPEECH: There are also laws to limit political

statements and contributions to political activities. In

1985, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to take out

an advertisement supporting a candidate in the state house

of representatives. But a 1976 Michigan law prohibits a

corporation from using its general treasury funds to make

independent expenditures in a political campaign. In

March, the Supreme Court upheld that law. According to

dissenting Justice Kennedy, it is now a felony in Michigan

for the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union, or

the Chamber of Commerce to advise the public how a

candidate voted on issues of urgent concern to their

members.

 

FREE PRESS: As in speech, technology has provided another

excuse for government intrusion in the press. If you

distribute a magazine electronically and do not print

copies, the government doesn't consider you a press and

does not give you the same protections courts have extended

to printed news. The equipment used to publish Phrack, a

worldwide electronic magazine about phones and hacking, was

confiscated after publishing a document copied from a Bell

South computer entitled "A Bell South Standard Practice

(BSP) 660-225-104SV Control Office Administration of

Enhanced 911 Services for Special Services and Major

Account Centers, March, 1988." All of the information in

this document was publicly available from Bell South in

other documents. The government has not alleged that the

publisher of Phrack, Craig Neidorf, was involved with or

participated in the copying of the document. Also, the

person who copied this document from telephone company

computers placed a copy on a bulletin board run by Rich

Andrews. Andrews forwarded a copy to AT&T officials and

cooperated with authorities fully. In return, the Secret

Service (SS) confiscated Andrews' computer along with all

the mail and data that were on it. Andrews was not charged

with any crime.

 

FREE PRESS: In another incident that would be comical if

it were not true, on March 1 the SS ransacked the offices

of Steve Jackson Games (SJG); irreparably damaged property;

and confiscated three computers, two laser printers,

several hard disks, and many boxes of paper and floppy

disks. The target of the SS operation was to seize all

copies of a game of fiction called GURPS Cyberpunk. The

Cyberpunk game contains fictitious break-ins in a

futuristic world, with no technical information of actual

use with real computers, nor is it played on computers.

The SS never filed any charges against SJG but still

refused to return confiscated property.

 

PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: The right to assemble peaceably is no

longer free -- you have to get a permit. Even that is not

enough; some officials have to be sued before they realize

their reasons for denying a permit are not Constitutional.

 

PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: In Alexandria, Virginia, there is a

law that prohibits people from loitering for more than

seven minutes and exchanging small objects. Punishment is

two years in jail. Consider the scene in jail: "What'd

you do?" "I was waiting at a bus stop and gave a guy a

cigarette." This is not an impossible occurrence: In

Pittsburgh, Eugene Tyler, 15, has been ordered away from

bus stops by police officers. Sherman Jones, also 15, was

accosted with a police officer's hands around his neck

after putting the last bit of pizza crust into his mouth.

The police suspected him of hiding drugs.

 

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES: Rounding out the

attacks on the first amendment, there is a sword hanging

over the right to petition for redress of grievances.

House Resolution 4079, the National Drug and Crime

Emergency Act, tries to "modify" the right to habeas

corpus. It sets time limits on the right of people in

custody to petition for redress and also limits the courts

in which such an appeal may be heard.

 

 

Amendment II

 

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.

 

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: This amendment is so commonly

challenged that the movement has its own name: gun

control. Legislation banning various types of weapons is

supported with the claim that the weapons are not for

"legitimate" sporting purposes. This is a perversion of

the right to bear arms for two reasons. First, the basis

of freedom is not that permission to do legitimate things

is granted to the people, but rather that the government is

empowered to do a limited number of legitimate things --

everything else people are free to do; they do not need to

justify their choices. Second, should the need for defense

arise, it will not be hordes of deer that the security of a

free state needs to be defended from. Defense would be

needed against humans, whether external invaders or

internal oppressors. It is an unfortunate fact of life

that the guns that would be needed to defend the security

of a state are guns to attack people, not guns for sporting

purposes.

 

Firearms regulations also empower local officials, such as

police chiefs, to grant or deny permits. This results in

towns where only friends of people in the right places are

granted permits, or towns where women are generally denied

the right to carry a weapon for self-defense.

 

 

Amendment III

 

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.

 

QUARTERING SOLDIERS: This amendment is fairly clean so

far, but it is not entirely safe. Recently, 200 troops in

camouflage dress with M-16s and helicopters swept through

Kings Ridge National Forest in Humboldt County, California.

In the process of searching for marijuana plants for four

days, soldiers assaulted people on private land with M-16s

and barred them from their own property. This might not be

a direct hit on the third amendment, but the disregard for

private property is uncomfortably close.

 

 

Amendment IV

 

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.

 

RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS

AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: The RICO law

is making a mockery of the right to be secure from seizure.

Entire stores of books or videotapes have been confiscated

based upon the presence of some sexually explicit items.

Bars, restaurants, or houses are taken from the owners

because employees or tenants sold drugs. In Volusia

County, Florida, Sheriff Robert Vogel and his officers stop

automobiles for contrived violations. If large amounts of

cash are found, the police confiscate it on the PRESUMPTION

that it is drug money -- even if there is no other evidence

and no charges are filed against the car's occupants. The

victims can get their money back only if they prove the

money was obtained legally. One couple got their money

back by proving it was an insurance settlement. Two other

men who tried to get their two thousand dollars back were

denied by the Florida courts.

 

RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS

AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A new law goes

into effect in Oklahoma on January 1, 1991. All property,

real and personal, is taxable, and citizens are required to

list all their personal property for tax assessors,

including household furniture, gold and silver plate,

musical instruments, watches, jewelry, and personal,

private, or professional libraries. If a citizen refuses

to list their property or is suspected of not listing

something, the law directs the assessor to visit and enter

the premises, getting a search warrant if necessary. Being

required to tell the state everything you own is not being

secure in one's home and effects.

 

NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED

BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION: As a supporting oath or

affirmation, reports of anonymous informants are accepted.

This practice has been condoned by the Supreme Court.

 

PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND

PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Today's warrants do not

particularly describe the things to be seized -- they list

things that might be present. For example, if police are

making a drug raid, they will list weapons as things to be

searched for and seized. This is done not because the

police know of any weapons and can particularly describe

them, but because they allege people with drugs often have

weapons.

 

Both of the above apply to the warrant the Hudson, New

Hampshire, police used when they broke down Bruce Lavoie's

door at 5 a.m. with guns drawn and shot and killed him.

The warrant claimed information from an anonymous

informant, and it said, among other things, that guns were

to be seized. The mention of guns in the warrant was used

as reason to enter with guns drawn. Bruce Lavoie had no

guns. Bruce Lavoie was not secure from unreasonable search

and seizure -- nor is anybody else.

 

Other infringements on the fourth amendment include

roadblocks and the Boston Police detention of people based

on colors they are wearing (supposedly indicating gang

membership). And in Pittsburgh again, Eugene Tyler was

once searched because he was wearing sweat pants and a

plaid shirt -- police told him they heard many drug dealers

at that time were wearing sweat pants and plaid shirts.

 

 

Amendment V

 

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 to 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.

 

INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY: Kevin Bjornson has been

proprietor of Hydro-Tech for nearly a decade and is a

leading authority on hydroponic technology and cultivation.

On October 26, 1989, both locations of Hydro-Tech were

raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration. National

Drug Control Policy Director William Bennett has declared

that some indoor lighting and hydroponic equipment is

purchased by marijuana growers, so retailers and

wholesalers of such equipment are drug profiteers and

co-conspirators. Bjornson was not charged with any crime,

nor subpoenaed, issued a warrant, or arrested. No illegal

substances were found on his premises. Federal officials

were unable to convince grand juries to indict Bjornson.

By February, they had called scores of witnesses and

recalled many two or three times, but none of the grand

juries they convened decided there was reason to criminally

prosecute Bjornson. In spite of that, as of March, his

bank accounts were still frozen and none of the inventories

or records had been returned. Grand juries refused to

indict Bjornson, but the government is still penalizing

him.

 

TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB: Members of the

McMartin family in California have been tried two or three

times for child abuse. Anthony Barnaby was tried for

murder (without evidence linking him to the crime) three

times before New Hampshire let him go.

 

COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Oliver North

was forced to testify against himself. Congress granted

him immunity from having anything he said to them being

used as evidence against him, and then they required him to

talk. After he did so, what he said was used to find other

evidence which was used against him. The courts also play

games where you can be required to testify against yourself

if you testify at all.

 

COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: In the New York

Central Park assault case, three people were found guilty

of assault. But there was no physical evidence linking

them to the crime; semen did not match any of the

defendants. The only evidence the state had was

confessions. To obtain these confessions, the police

questioned a 15-year old without a parent present -- which

is illegal under New York state law. Police also refused

to let the subject's Big Brother, an attorney for the

Federal government, see him during questioning. Police

screamed "You better tell us what we want to hear and

cooperate or you are going to jail," at 14-year-old Antron

McCray, according to Bobby McCray, his father. Antron

McCray "confessed" after his father told him to, so that

police would release him. These people were coerced into

bearing witness against themselves, and those confessions

were used to convict them.

 

COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Your answers to

Census questions are required by law, with a $100 penalty

for each question not answered. But people have been

evicted for giving honest Census answers. According to the

General Accounting Office, one of the most frequent ways

city governments use census information is to detect

illegal two-family dwellings. This has happened in

Montgomery County, Maryland; Pullman, Washington; and Long

Island, New York. The August 8, 1989, Wall Street Journal

reports this and other ways Census answers have been used

against the answerers.

 

COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Drug tests are

being required from more and more people, even when there

is no probable cause, no accident, and no suspicion of drug

use. Requiring people to take drug tests compels them to

provide evidence against themselves.

 

DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

OF LAW: This clause is violated on each of the items life,

liberty, and property. Incidents including such violations

are described elsewhere in this article. Here are two

more: On March 26, 1987, in Jeffersontown, Kentucky,

Jeffrey Miles was killed by police officer John Rucker, who

was looking for a suspected drug dealer. Rucker had been

sent to the wrong house; Miles was not wanted by police.

He received no due process. In Detroit, $4,834 was seized

from a grocery store after dogs detected traces of cocaine

on three one-dollar bills in a cash register.

 

PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST

COMPENSATION: RICO is shredding this aspect of the Bill of

Rights. The money confiscated by Sheriff Vogel goes

directly into Vogel's budget; it is not regulated by the

legislature. Federal and local governments seize and

auction boats, buildings, and other property. Under RICO,

the government is seizing property without due process.

The victims are required to prove not only that they are

not guilty of a crime, but that they are entitled to their

property. Otherwise, the government auctions off the

property and keeps the proceeds.

 

 

Amendment VI

 

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 defence.

 

THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Surprisingly, the

right to a public trial is under attack. When Marion Barry

was being tried, the prosecution attempted to bar Louis

Farrakhan and George Stallings from the gallery. This

request was based on an allegation that they would send

silent and "impermissible messages" to the jurors. The

judge initially granted this request. One might argue that

the whole point of a public trial is to send a message to

all the participants: The message is that the public is

watching; the trial had better be fair.

 

BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY: The government does not even honor

the right to trial by an impartial jury. US District Judge

Edward Rafeedie is investigating improper influence on

jurors by US marshals in the Enrique Camarena case. US

marshals apparently illegally communicated with jurors

during deliberations.

 

OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN

COMMITTED: This is incredible, but Manuel Noriega is being

tried so far away from the place where he is alleged to

have committed crimes that the United States had to invade

another country and overturn a government to get him. Nor

is this a unique occurrence; in a matter separate from the

Camarena case, Judge Rafeedie was asked to dismiss charges

against Mexican gynecologist Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain

on the grounds that the doctor was illegally abducted from

his Guadalajara office in April and turned over to US

authorities.

 

TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION:

Steve Jackson Games, nearly put out of business by the raid

described previously, has been stonewalled by the SS. "For

the past month or so these guys have been insisting the

book wasn't the target of the raid, but they don't say what

the target was, or why they were critical of the book, or

why they won't give it back," Steve Jackson says. "They

have repeatedly denied we're targets but don't explain why

we've been made victims." Attorneys for SJG tried to find

out the basis for the search warrant that led to the raid

on SJG. But the application for that warrant was sealed by

order of the court and remained sealed at last report, in

July. Not only has the SS taken property and nearly

destroyed a publisher, it will not even explain the nature

and cause of the accusations that led to the raid.

 

TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM: The courts

are beginning to play fast and loose with the right to

confront witnesses. Watch out for anonymous witnesses and

videotaped testimony.

 

TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES: Ronald

Reagan resisted submitting to subpoena and answering

questions about Irangate, claiming matters of national

security and executive privilege. A judge had to dismiss

some charges against Irangate participants because the

government refused to provide information subpoenaed by the

defendants. And one wonders if the government would go

to the same lengths to obtain witnesses for Manuel Noriega

as it did to capture him.

 

TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The right to assistance

of counsel took a hit recently. Connecticut Judge Joseph

Sylvester is refusing to assign public defenders to people

ACCUSED of drug-related crimes, including drunk driving.

 

TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RICO is also affecting

the right to have the assistance of counsel. The

government confiscates the money of an accused person,

which leaves them unable to hire attorneys. The IRS has

served summonses nationwide to defense attorneys, demanding

the names of clients who paid cash for fees exceeding

$10,000.

 

 

Amendment VII

 

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 common law.

 

RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW: This is a

simple right; so far the government has not felt threatened

by it and has not made attacks on it that I am aware of.

This is our only remaining safe haven in the Bill of Rights.

 

 

Amendment VIII

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

punishments inflicted.

 

EXCESSIVE BAIL AND FINES: Tallahatchie County in

Mississippi charges ten dollars a day to each person who

spends time in the jail, regardless of the length of stay

or the outcome of their trial. This means innocent people

are forced to pay. Marvin Willis was stuck in jail for 90

days trying to raise $2,500 bail on an assault charge. But

after he made that bail, he was kept imprisoned because he

could not pay the $900 rent Tallahatchie demanded. Nine

former inmates are suing the county for this practice.

 

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: House Resolution 4079

sticks its nose in here too: "... a Federal court shall

not hold prison or jail crowding unconstitutional under the

eighth amendment except to the extent that an individual

plaintiff inmate proves that the crowding causes the

infliction of cruel and unusual punishment of that

inmate."

 

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: A life sentence for selling

a quarter of a gram of cocaine for $20 -- that is what

Ricky Isom was sentenced to in February in Cobb County,

Georgia. It was Isom's second conviction in two years, and

state law imposes a mandatory sentence. Even the judge

pronouncing the sentence thinks it is cruel; Judge Tom

Cauthorn expressed grave reservations before sentencing

Isom and Douglas Rucks (convicted of selling 3.5 grams of

cocaine in a separate but similar case). Judge Cauthorn

called the sentences "Draconian."

 

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain

rights, shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people.

 

OTHER RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE: This amendment is so

weak today that I will ask not what infringements there are

on it but rather what exercise of it exists at all? What

law can you appeal to a court to find you not guilty of

violating because the law denies a right retained by you?

 

 

Amendment X

 

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.

 

POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE: This

amendment is also weak, although it is not so nonexistent

as the ninth amendment. But few states set their own speed

limits or drinking age limits. Today, we mostly think of

this country as the -- singular -- United States, rather

than a collection of states. This concentration of power

detaches laws from the desires of people -- and even of

states. House Resolution 4079 crops up again here -- it

uses financial incentives to get states to set specific

penalties for certain crimes. Making their own laws

certainly must be considered a right of the states, and

this right is being infringed upon.

 

 

Out of ten amendments, nine are under attack, most of them

under multiple attacks of different natures, and some of

them under a barrage. If this much of the Bill of Rights

is threatened, how can you be sure your rights are safe? A

right has to be there when you need it. Like insurance,

you cannot afford to wait until you need it and then set

about procuring it or ensuring it is available. Assurance

must be made in advance.

 

The bottom line here is that your rights are not safe. You

do not know when one of your rights will be violated. A

number of rights protect accused persons, and you may think

it is not important to protect the rights of criminals.

But if a right is not there for people accused of crimes,

it will not be there when you need it. With the Bill of

Rights in the sad condition described above, nobody can be

confident they will be able to exercise the rights to which

they are justly entitled. To preserve our rights for

ourselves in the future, we must defend them for everybody

today.

[Hurricane]

Bah, who needs the Bill of Rights or the Constitution? Here's to a secure, protected, completely government-dictated, free state. When do we declare war on France, England and the Soviet Union?

[Conflicted]

people take the bill or rights and our constitution for granted..

[PsYcH0]

...You don't have rights until you turn 18, anyway. Or so that's what my Business Law teacher says.

[Wolfie]

people take the bill or rights and our constitution for granted..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"bill or rights"?

 

 

...You don't have rights until you turn 18, anyway. Or so that's what my Business Law teacher says.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you have the right to vote.. Oh.. 18...

Right to legally make your own decisions.. Oh.. 18...

 

OH! WAIT!

It works in your favor too!

You have the right to get a job and NOT HAVE YOUR INCOME TAXED!

Yep, go get a job, whatever gets taken out, you get it all back! Until you are 18 that is.

[Conflicted]

bill of rights I'm sorry I made a mistake Edited October 18, 2005 by Conflicted

[BONES]

I spit on the Bill Of Wrongs oops Rights.

[Conflicted]

I haveta laugh because of ho the constritution couldn't be established without the bill of rights.. technically though according to the bill of rights if the peoples rights are being ignored we have the right to over throw the goverenment.. Anarchy all the way

[BONES]

aw just more paper to wrap your fish with or line your bird cage with

[Conflicted]

expensive and extremely protected paper