Talk:United States Bill of Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Bill of Rights is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

United States Bill of Rights has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	United States Portal This article is supported by the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Transwiki? 1.1 Nah 1.2 Wtf? 2 Second Amendment 3 Open Mind 4 Thought of the Day 5 Whopper 1 6 Whopper 2 7 The Preamble 8 Addition of other written amendments 9 Madison and Henry 10 Difference between Bill of Rights and other amendments? 11 Quick Question 12 origins 13 Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages 14 Bills of rights

[edit] Transwiki?

Should the transcript here be transwikied to Wikisource, or is it short enough to stay in the article? Deco 02:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nah

its fine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelHaKorean (talk • contribs) 00:56, November 14, 2005. Fu

[edit] Wtf?

"Should the penis here be transwikied" Something you want to tell us Deco? --Superslash 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Amendment

The current description could be improved, in my opinion. It borders on being biased towards the "collective right" argument. I'm not sure what to put, it's a hard topic to write a completely unbiased description on. I'm going to edit it to "relates to the right to keep and bear arms" for the time being, but that's far from perfect. --71.225.229.151 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unquestionably biased. Even Tribe and Amar, the ultimate sources for most of the "collective right" theory in recent years have changed their viewpoints after further research.

On 10/28/1999, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe discussed the update to his text American Constitutional Law in the New York Times: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1999Militias.pdf He notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble."

In "Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals" by Tony Mauro, USA Today 8/27/99, Tribe discussed an article authored by Amar (quoted in 1992 in the extant Wikipedia entry) and him saying, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

In commenting on the reaction to his corrected position, he observed, "I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?' [...] But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."

The present article ignores this new reality, preferring an out-dated viewpoint. Bob Alfson 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Mind

Although the Bill of Rights may have (Which I doubt) some flaws, each right is made to counter one another due to the ignorance of some people who easily violate these laws. Although sometimes, you must, I believe, twist, bend, or break some rights in order to try and balance out what can be considered right. I'm not saying anything bad about the Bill of Rights, but what I am saying is this. Weather the laws are perfect or not, each right will always be in conflict with the others and some rights will always have conflicts alone when they are broken.

As for the right to bear arms, that right shouldn't, in any, way be complained about unless it violates the human law of society. Because despite the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, there are a few other laws or existing forms of law and rights.

• The rights of Society
• The rights of a Nation
• The laws of lands

so on... --Zhang Liao 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to nominate this as a feature article. I feel that most US citizens have forgotten about this precious document. Although I have read the nomination page, I am unclear about the proper protocol. Can anyone help?

--Harry Kolp 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to justify that it should be illeagal to break, bend, or twist the Bill of Rights. They were worked on by people that tried very hard and they wouldnt wasnt people fucking them up. For example if you worked an a paper all day then your sister deleted it you would mad, right?

[edit] Thought of the Day

Although I am a simpleton when it comes to knowing the Bill of Rights, I am not dumb struck with what should be known about each use for the right.

The only thing that I consider sometimes wrong is when people break, bend, or twist the Bill of Rights around just to do as they please. (Sorry if I get too personal) Moreover, when it comes to all the democratics, the republican, or the politician. I say, as my own thought, that they truely do not know what it means to live life as an American let alone an open minded person. (Or as what Chris Rock would say, "If anyone makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fool!")

--Zhang Liao 03:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whopper 1

I am editing, I know some stuff about this topic. Whopper 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whopper 2

I now joined a church that covers these quotes, and so I could post the important info

I am very excited about joining this church because It has hot guys plus it has a lot of religious belief I am estactic to learn about

[edit] The Preamble

The Congressional Resolution that submitted the Bill of Rights to the State Legislations on September 25th 1789 contained a preamble that is legally significant, and should be included in the article. From the National Archives comes the following text:

 The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
 Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York,
on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and
eighty nine.
 THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution.
 RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses
concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution
of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by
three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
 ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of
the original Constitution.

Perhaps someone can find a way to include this in the article. Too Old 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of other written amendments

As we all know, there were originally 12 proposed amendments but only 10 were ratified. One of the unratified amendments later became the 27th amendment but the other has yet to be ratified. Should I add in the text of those amendments since they are written on the Bill of Rights? Also, should I include a picture of the Bil of Rights on the pages of those two originally proposed but later ratified/unratified amendments' pages since they are written on the Bill of Rights?

There were many proposed amendments, hundreds if I am not mistaken, though I suppose not all were proposed in front of Congress, but were simply suggested by the states. Is this what you mean? How were these two extras "proposed", precisely? Fearwig 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madison and Henry

There has been some historical discussion of Madison's motives for so abruptly changing his opinion to favor of the BoR, most notably that he was forced (in return for a more or less promised seat as a Virginia U.S. Representative) by Henry to write a letter to a minister in promise that he would introduce the amendments. He had previously argued that they were worthless, unenforceable, et cetera. So the "Father of the Bill of Rights" had some political motives, in addition (or in place of) the moral motives so often ascribed to him. Is this matter relevant to the main article? I find the existing description of the ratification process somewhat schoolbook-simplistic. Fearwig 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Bill of Rights and other amendments?

Does the Bill of Rights have precedent over other amendments? In other words, is it legally possible to repeal an amendment from the Bill of Rights like the eighteenth amendment (prohibition) was repealed? For example, if an amendment that said free speach does not apply to criticism of the President somehow got through Congress and the States, and was ratified, I assume the Supreme Court would have to uphold the amendment since it becomes part of the Constitution - unless there is some special protection for the Bill of Rights. Texinian 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights has no special legal status, and its amendments, like every part of the constitution, can be amended by the constitutionally provided process. Fearwig 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

Now was the Bill of Rights written and signed in Philadelphia? The article really doesn't say. Bcody 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights was ratified after the original Constitution--while I'm not sure where it was authored, it was passed in Congress, just like other amendments. As for location of authorship, you should also take into mind that most of the first ten amendments were written, in some form or another, long before they were put forward as amendments--those that weren't from older documents were written before the Convention (literally thousands of additions to a proposed "bill of rights"--originally rejected--were written in preparation for additions planned for the Articles of the Confederation, additions hijacked by Federalists to become the Philadelphia Convention). So the Bill of Rights is kind of a collection of the ten "most agreeable" peoples-rights amendments that were put forward over a long period of time... you could say it was authored in many places, over many years. Fearwig 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] origins

just a question, I read in this book (Russell Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America ISBN 0-385-50349-0 (New York, Doubleday, 2004) about the founding of new york, that new york's citizens in these early days adopted a certain package of rights which again was based on liberties that were prevailing in the free republic of that time, the Netherlands. It argues that the bill of rights was heavily argued for by the state of new york, since it was based on a bill that was already in place there. can anyone confirm this? thanks!

[edit] Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages

As a law student, I know that there are different levels of scrutiny in reviewing violations of the Bill of Rights. I don't see these spelled out anywhere on WP. If they exist, can somebody point me to them? If they do not, this should be an article that gets created. After all, it's fundamental to every S.C. review of violations to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, I have my hands full at the moment. --DavidShankBone 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bills of rights

since there is no talk page for Bill of Rights in general, im posting this here.

on the original page, the US Bill of Rights was posted at the bottom with no reference that that was the US Bill of rights. since the page is specifically bills of rights in general, i edited this out.

everyone agree with me?

The reference about Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusets not ratifying the bill of rights does not lead to a usefull reference. Here is a better one: http://ourgeorgiahistory.com/chronpop/1131