What they don't teach in school: Bill of Rights 101

I must say that this thread has been a long time coming. I have had the idea for an in depth review of The Bill of Rights for some time now. I had left it on the back burner for this long because quite frankly I am a little lazy when it comes to the amount typing I figured this would require. But it has become more apparent to me that people are losing sight as to what the The Bill of Rights is about and who it is for. So without further ado, Ahabstar's Guide to The Bill of Rights.

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.

You the individual have the right to think the way you want, to follow your own philosophies, morals and mantras to support that thought. As much as we may hate Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelp's insistence that “God Hates Fags”. He has the full right and privilege to think that way. Let us make no mistake, Religion is Philosophical Thought and neither the government nor any other person interfere with what you think.
You have the right to express that thought (no matter the premise or even lunacy of that thought) via speech, the written word or amongst a group of like-minded (or opposing) individuals. Yes you can stand on the street corner and mumble that “The end is near because your cat licked its paw and washed its ear three times before licking its paw again”. Not only that, but you can write a pamphlet, a book or even a webpage detailing it in every nuance.

And of course you can petition the government if you feel your rights have been trampled. You can address it via the courts as a civil issue or to your elected representatives directly. Doesn't mean it will go anywhere, just that you can do so.

One thing here that is always confused is that Freedom of the Press is for media outlets only. It is not. As an individual, you can start your own paper, write a book, host a website. In fact, ATS is a very good example of exercising the First Amendment. Yes there are limitations as to what can be written, but those are the rules of the owners not the government.

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.

This is the most confused amendment of the lot. As well as the most often broken on the State and Local level, and occasionally on the Federal level such as Ruby Ridge. Simply put, you the individual, have the right to own a firearm. As to the preposterous limitation that you have to be part of a sanctioned militia please see Article 1, Section 8

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress has a limitation on for what reasons it can call forth the militia and must arm the militia when it is called forth. So is the Second Amendment redundant?

No, civil responsibility means that individuals are to have the power to protect themselves, their rights and property. It is not a physical State, but a state of being free that you are to protect. There are two types of enemies mentioned in the Constitution, foreign and domestic. But no clear definition as to what makes an enemy, other than insurrection and invasion which falls under the providence of Congress to decide those (and calling forth and providing arms for the militia to battle those). So why would an individual need arms?

The answer is very clear. Individuals may own arms to protect their rights and freedoms from those that wish to remove them, whether such an enemy to such securities is foreign or domestic. In other words, should another country or our own decide to overstep its bounds, you may defend yourself. Should the Federal, State or Local Government begin to oppress the people, the people have the full legal right to remove that entity by armed force if need be.

On that note, be aware that a lone gunman, the small and splintered little backwoods militias are going to be fought. So take that in consideration. However 250,000 people on the Mall in DC with rifles, shotguns and pistols demanding that everyone in Congress to either resign immediately or be removed by lethal force is going to be treated with a little more respect/fear.

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.

Pretty straight forward, but it is the recognition that the individual homeowner has rights and sovereignty that the government cannot suppress at will. Although I would love to see a legal challenge to eminent domain laws based on this amendment. Since the spirit here is that a land owner should not be considered a subject of the realm, but as a sovereign entity.

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.

If there is ever a reason to revolt, it is this one right here. This one is violated so many times on a hourly basis by all levels of government that I wonder if it is even printed anymore in modern copies of the Constitution.
A little background, during the Revolution, many patriots would ferry information to various camps. The suspected ones were often searched by the British Army. Still feeling the sting of having to be subjected to such “contraband searches” at random or at checkpoints, this was the result. With DUI checkpoints, car searches, owning of “drug paraphernalia” such as a set of kitchen scales or a hand carved tobacco pipe, TSA fondling pat-downs, to the IRS having inspection/reporting rights on the new HCR (when in full effect) you have to wonder if Paul Revere and Patrick Henry would think we lost the Revolution today.

Oh sure, it is an important tool for criminal investigations and public security, right? See the Second Amendment for an appropriate answer if they do not take No for an answer.

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 for the same offense 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.

One of the cornerstones of American Judicial Procedure. You have the right to not testify against yourself, summery judgements (a if “that” then “this” happens—list of crimes and punishments) but only if it deprives life, liberty, or property.

Oh look, what is that? Eminent Domain Laws are a direct violation of which Amendment specifically, again? And why is that?

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 defense.

This is the definition of due process. You have the right to an attorney, you have the right to face your accusers and cross-examine their testimony, you have the right to call witnesses in your favor to refute the accusations. However, if your rights have been trampled and you wish to sue, you have to secure (pay for) your own attorney.
So if the State in which you reside should make a law that violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, you can sue if you have the money to do so...otherwise, you just have to take the oppression and live with it. But prior to HCR if you didn't have the money but needed medical attention you could go to any hospital and be treated. What you could not pay was written off and was no big deal. That is, if you were not already on Medicaid, which covered it anyway because Medicaid is insurance for the poor.

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 the common law.

An interesting right that has been subverted. Parking/speeding tickets are not suits of common law. There is no jury and often the judge is the mayor of the town as these are held in Mayor's Court in small towns.
But this allows for an appeal to a judgement against you provided there is grounds for a new trial.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As much as a pedo should have his junk cut off and be forced to dice it with a dull butter knife while a gun is at his head, it just is not going to happen. And this is a good thing if you were falsely accused and convicted of being a pedophile. Juries are made of humans and can be swayed by preconceived notions and prejudices against the accused.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A very good amendment, unlike Congress, individuals are not limited by these enumerations of rights in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. A classic example is Roe v. Wade.

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.

And the spirit of the law of the land is that the States trump the Federal Government (unless specifically mentioned) and that the Individual trumps all, always and every single time. This is the amendment that prevents the People from being oppressed legally and the Second Amendment makes damn sure that it does not happen.
Well that is supposed to be how it works. Best example would be the Jim Crow Laws. Perfectly valid and legal laws in the states that had them. However the rights of the people were oppressed by, therefore making them absolutely Unconstitutional and eventually overturned and outlawed.

Here is where the strongest case against the Health Care Reform law will be fought. Article 1, Section 8 doesn't not give Congress the authority to create legislation that requires an individual to purchase anything. Even the Second Amendment gives the individual the right to own a firearm but does not make it compulsory under penalty of law to not own one. But even if decided against the People here, then consider this: An insurance policy requires money to purchase. Individual ownership of money is derived from income (from whatever source).

The Fifth Amendment requires that due process, that is a trial by jury, must occur for an individual to be deprived of property. Unless of course a legal decision is made that income is not property. And that would make me smile, because it would invalid the Sixteenth Amendment and I would demand immediate and complete repayment of stolen money gathered by the IRS under the guise of “Income Tax” and would gladly invoke the Second Amendment as needed to ensure the expedited return to the People of their stolen money as well. I would suspect that the difficulty of finding like mined individuals to assemble would be low.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Excellent post Ahab

You summed up exactly how I feel,

I think now more than ever Parents need to realize that they cannot leave it up to the public school system to inform thier children of our Basic Civil Liberties and Rights .

If I had children of my own I would be reading them your thread right now

S+F

~meathead

reply to post by Ahabstar


I want the health care bill so you are fighting "we the people" with that one. Although they may not be posting here, there are more than a few individuals, as you so eloquently point out in an excellent helpful post by the way...who feel the same way and will hold sway over Boehner and the "bought and paid for" Govenors of 33 States.
So that is a welcome relief!

And furthermore this...

Well that is supposed to be how it works. Best example would be the Jim Crow Laws. Perfectly valid and legal laws in the states that had them. However the rights of the people were oppressed by, therefore making them absolutely Unconstitutional and eventually overturned and outlawed.

...will help propel the rights of gay individuals to the forefront. Finally homosexuals will have equal rights to marry since the current laws oppress those individuals making the laws themselves unconstitutional. Can't wait until the Supreme Court gets it's hands on that one.
This is all good news. Thanks for a great thread topic as well as an encouraging, enlightening post.

Oooh! Very juicy and wonderful post! Just scrumptious! Thanks you, Ahab!

I think we (as Americans) need to really GET the concept of protecting our own, as well as others', rights even if we strongly disagree with them! In my opinion, we apparently don't have enough to do in our own lives, because we have the time to stick our noses into others' lives and judge what they're doing in their privacy as our business, then try to bring the government in to enforce our beliefs over other people's lives. It's INSANE!

Over the years here at ATS, I have learned more and more about our rights - and the threat to them that our government represents - and I've become quite a hard ass where our rights are concerned. I am grateful for all the great minds at work here on ATS...

Thanks for this well-written post on probably the most important documentation we have.

Very Good Work.

To drive the point home futher.

The WELL REQULATED clause of the 2nd refers to the type of equipment the miltia will have. The British troops were called "REQULARS" meaning each had the same equipment. In 1776 this was the common usage of this term. Today the common useage incorrectly sees requlated as Controled.

Next the founding fathers never intended the United States to have a Standing Army. The Navy was the only standing military force intended. The States would raise a Milita to responded to Invasion. The founding fathers understood that a Standing Army is not a Defensive but Offensive force. In which the United States would never need because we were intented not to become intangled in the affairs of other countries. Look at us now.

Here is a task for each of us to complete. Find out how many "Planks"of the Communist Manifesto we have adopted in the United States and you will begin to see how far from the orignal purpose we are.

To get you started :
Right of Assembly shall not be infringed. Communist allow Assembly in a DESIGNATED area, an infrigment. Can US Citizens Assemble with or without interference any longer?

Next (a Hint) is Central Banking and graduated taxes

See You Later COMRADE.

reply to post by brokedown


Central banking, huh?

Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, thus the Constitution gives Congress control over the U.S. monetary system.

Congress has handed over control of our currency to private entities (unconstitutionally in 1913), who will eventually own everything if we let them. They collect interest off of every dollar every year, whittling it away until it buys very little. When they need more, they simply print more to continue collecting their 'cut'

Awesome post! Should be required reading for the sheople...

One thing that had never occurred to me, after reading "It is not a physical State, but a state of being free that you are to protect." was the difference in state (GA, TX, etc) and state (state of being). And I call myself big on the second amendment.....lol. imadummysometimes should be my screen name...

And really that is the point. That the Bill of Rights is for the individuals. The corruption of those rights is when you extend them out to corporations and other such entities. The government is to look after the collective and step in for the individual when needed to act on behalf of the individual or collective individuals. Like in cases of outright discrimination.

Confusion sets in as States and business try to step in and act as if they have the same rights and immunities as individuals and small collective organizations. This is a major problem I had with the Supreme Court's decision that cooperations can make unlimited undisclosed campaign contributions like individuals can.

For example, it is perfectly fine for the NAACP to pool their members yearly dues and award scholarships to African-Americans. I have zero problem with that. But what if Microsoft had scholarships that excluded Latinos? Or what if the Vatican decided to cash in some its treasure in order to buy votes for an all Vatican approved US Government down to all 535 members of Congress, the White House and Supreme Court?

Local KKK wants to put up a Nativity scene for Christmas, fine. Just do the paperwork and get the permits. But should the City of Cincinnati refuse to allow for the Moonie's hand out pamphlets on Valentine's Day around Fountain Square asking that we should all love one another in harmony?

reply to post by Ahabstar


Could you expound upon why HCR is relevant to the Sixth amendment?
btw - great post!

reply to post by pirhanna


It is more relevant to the Fifth than Sixth. Sometimes I go off on tangents, however the criminal phase and sections do bypass due process and actually provide a basis for a summary judgment which is also unconstitutional. But then again, who exactly is going to stand as a witness against you? Under what authority could they legally check to see if you had an insurance policy?

Moot point, if anyone successfully points out before the Supreme Court that Congress had zero authority to author the Bill in the first place. And that the committee that did author it specifically has no authority over payroll deducted health insurance policies per their charter.

If you guys have time ( make a saturday afternoon or evening) thisset of videos is a very good primer on the constitution by michael badnarik

video.google.com...#

Excellent post !

If more people understood their rights, we probably wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

This is one of the better posts I have seen on ATS. Thank you

Originally posted by brokedown
Very Good Work.

To drive the point home futher.

The WELL REQULATED clause of the 2nd refers to the type of equipment the miltia will have. The British troops were called "REQULARS" meaning each had the same equipment. In 1776 this was the common usage of this term. Today the common useage incorrectly sees requlated as Controled.

Next the founding fathers never intended the United States to have a Standing Army. The Navy was the only standing military force intended. The States would raise a Milita to responded to Invasion. The founding fathers understood that a Standing Army is not a Defensive but Offensive force. In which the United States would never need because we were intented not to become intangled in the affairs of other countries. Look at us now.

Here is a task for each of us to complete. Find out how many "Planks"of the Communist Manifesto we have adopted in the United States and you will begin to see how far from the orignal purpose we are.

To get you started :
Right of Assembly shall not be infringed. Communist allow Assembly in a DESIGNATED area, an infrigment. Can US Citizens Assemble with or without interference any longer?

Next (a Hint) is Central Banking and graduated taxes

See You Later COMRADE.

I mgonna hype michale badnariks teaching again
All 10 planks as shown here( Badnarik 2of 7 I forgot how good these are.) : @ 52:09: in
video.google.com...=-3084263104477390123

reply to post by Ahabstar


You're rather liberal in your interpretations of the Bill of Rights, which is probably why it's not taught as widely and for as long as you'd like.

Liberal in the sense of freely interpreting as you wish. A job that's ultimately left up to the courts. Good start though.

reply to post by links234


Are you saying that the Bill of Rights is not meant for the individuals? That perhaps Freedom of the Press is only for the established media outlets? The Freedom of Religion is only for established churches?

Following that line of interpretation is akin to saying "Free passes are only for those approved by the government." Which comes dangerously close to Orwell's Animal Farm and the revisions to the laws "All animals are equal, except some are more equal than others."

Leaving interpretation to the courts is the most horrible of ideas in the course of retaining freedom. Because some terrible things have already been done and the courts have said nothing. The Seventeenth Amendment is a glowing example. Direct voting by the people of Senators. Sounds good at first doesn't it? Except Senators are supposed to represent the States and not the people directly. That is what the House is for, representatives of the people.

I am willing to bet you do not see the problem with Primaries being held? Notice how it narrows the field of the two parties? And why is that exactly? In order to keep the status quo of a two party system. Nothing more than that. In fact go back and study some past presidential primaries. A good one is 2004, Howard Dean gives a pep talk to his supporters after losing a State Primary and is outed in the press as having a "meltdown". Howard Dean, if that "mentally unstable" should have disappeared, correct? No, he is the head of the DNC.

Some circles of government will flat out tell you that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution and therefore not part of the Law. Some Supreme Court Justices also hold and have held that view. Most lawyers say the same thing. Interesting viewpoint, because it is the Preamble that allows for the Government to exist by the people. Without it, then Government simply just exists regardless of anyones opinion on the matter.

So no, I would rather not have interpretation strictly left to the courts of what should be straightforward common sense definitions. Or have you not noticed that the system has let both the Congress and the President ignore the tasks it is supposed to do in order to pursue things that are outside its very restricted guidelines?

You have the right to believe you have rights

The 9th and 10th are really the most important.

Which explains why they are the least well-known.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

...but they have repeatedly prohibited the free exercise thereof...

...who outlawed many of the religious practices of indigenous americans?... gosh, wasnt it congress?...

...who passed the laws that give the federal government the right to supervise and/or not allow some indigenous sacred rituals?... gosh, could it be congress?...

...who passed the christian-based anti-polygamy laws which not only affected mormons but many others?... gosh, wasnt it congress?...

...lets take the ndn part out of the deal because they werent recognized as citizens anyways and lets just deal with mormons... they were a polygamous sect of jesus believers who, allegedly, gave up polygamy in lieu of utah becoming a state... who allowed that unconstitutional bs?... gosh, was it congress?...

...what about the jehovah's witnesses who dont believe in blood transfusions?... how many times has a state or federal judge ordered that a hospital ignore those people religious beliefs in lieu of protecting a child when the state never gave a damn about that kid before?...

Amendment I (continued)
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

...theres the loophole "peaceably"... all it takes is for some mucky muck to claim you were behaving in a violent manner or potentially violent manner and your right to assemble and freedom of speech goes right down the crapper - and - its not unconstitutional because, according to them, you were not behaving peaceably...

Amendment I (continued again)
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...if you have the money and if congress has time to work you into their so very busy schedule and you dont die of old age or an unfortuneate accident in the interim...

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.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
If there is ever a reason to revolt, it is this one right here. This one is violated so many times on a hourly basis by all levels of government that I wonder if it is even printed anymore in modern copies of the Constitution.

...agreed... however, according to one notable ats leo, as soon as you walk out of your house, IV no longer applies to you... i dont know about that and havent researched the scotus case he stated - but - it doesnt really matter in the long run... they can screw you anyway they want to and get away with it UNLESS you have the money and the crew to take your case all the way to the supreme court and, then, you can still lose...

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed

...that got tossed out the window a LONG time ago via the excuse "excessive is relative to the monetary flux of the time" and how fat your pocketbook is...

Amendment VIII (continued)
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

...and thats never been specifically defined... i think its another one of those "flux of the time" deals...

...which reminds me - who was the lady that gwb put in jail (no trial) for a couple years because she wouldnt reveal her sources?... that was punishment for failing to be a good little nazi supporter but did congress intervene?... the scotus?... how did that go exactly?...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
A very good amendment, unlike Congress, individuals are not limited by these enumerations of rights in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. A classic example is Roe v. Wade.

...i've read a few posts where folks use this to point out that the actions of the tsa are unconstitutional...

...i dont know about that... corporations are now perceived the same as "people" and, so, the airports and airlines could be justified in their acceptance of tsa tactics under the right to protect themselves...

...of course, theres a lot more to it than just that... another aspect is that they're federally subsidized - as well as globally subsidized (oneworld airlines, or something like that)...

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.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
the States trump the Federal Government (unless specifically mentioned) and that the Individual trumps all, always and every single time. This is the amendment that prevents the People from being oppressed legally and the Second Amendment makes damn sure that it does not happen.

...apparently the 2nd isnt worth the paper its written on because we have been oppressed over and over, time and time again, and its always justified - like with the dozens of concentration camps during ww2.. it wasnt just asian or japanese americans who got stuck in those crapholes... lots of german americans lost all of their rights too and it was justified via "we are at war"...

...oddly, prescott bush wasnt sent to prison or a concentration camp even though he was busted for financially supporting hitler - but - he had the kind of connections and constitutional protections that only LOTS of money can buy...

...maybe it is a case of many of us not understanding the wording used in the constitution - or - maybe its a case of the wording meaning different things depending upon how much money and influence you have - or - maybe its just junk that never really was supposed to be anything other than a shut-up ploy to pacify the masses...

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by links234

 

Are you saying that the Bill of Rights is not meant for the individuals?

Not for individuals to interpret as they see fit. It's a fine line though, because judges do it all the time.

That perhaps Freedom of the Press is only for the established media outlets?

Absolutely not.

The Freedom of Religion is only for established churches?

Not at all.

Leaving interpretation to the courts is the most horrible of ideas in the course of retaining freedom. Because some terrible things have already been done and the courts have said nothing. The Seventeenth Amendment is a glowing example. Direct voting by the people of Senators. Sounds good at first doesn't it? Except Senators are supposed to represent the States and not the people directly. That is what the House is for, representatives of the people.

I think it keeps whackjobs from creating their own militias and declaring themselves sovereign from the country that grants them those ten rights.

As for the 17th, it is a great idea, it keeps the power of the government in the hands of the people. The states are the people, this government is NOTHING without the people. It, somewhat, prevents the corrpution and collusion of state legislators weasling their way into the federal government. We all the know the senate is the more powerful of the bicameral. We don't need government deciding what's best for government, we need the people deciding what's best.

I am willing to bet you do not see the problem with Primaries being held? Notice how it narrows the field of the two parties? And why is that exactly? In order to keep the status quo of a two party system. Nothing more than that. In fact go back and study some past presidential primaries. A good one is 2004, Howard Dean gives a pep talk to his supporters after losing a State Primary and is outed in the press as having a "meltdown". Howard Dean, if that "mentally unstable" should have disappeared, correct? No, he is the head of the DNC.

Nothing wrong with primaries, they're kept within the party. It's democracy run amok. The parties elect their chosen candidates and then those candidates go against eachother. You know most third parties have their own primaries, right? Except their bases are so small they're generally decided in one vote rather than across many months in many states.

I really, really liked Howard Dean. I wanted him to win. He did his 'outburst' and looked like a crazy person. It was OK for the party, it wasn't OK for the presidency. The DNC lost it's spine when it lost him for chair.

Some circles of government will flat out tell you that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution and therefore not part of the Law. Some Supreme Court Justices also hold and have held that view. Most lawyers say the same thing. Interesting viewpoint, because it is the Preamble that allows for the Government to exist by the people. Without it, then Government simply just exists regardless of anyones opinion on the matter.

That is your opinion against theirs, once again, liberal with your interpretation. This is also how we can have 'conservative' and 'liberal' judges on the supreme court. It's a matter of interpretation, a matter of their interpretation, but that's how our government was made to function.

So no, I would rather not have interpretation strictly left to the courts of what should be straightforward common sense definitions. Or have you not noticed that the system has let both the Congress and the President ignore the tasks it is supposed to do in order to pursue things that are outside its very restricted guidelines?

If they were truly straightforward, common sense definitions then we wouldn't have much need for federal judges or the supreme court to make rulings or constitutional amendments for clarity.

I've never viewed the constitution as something that restricts anything. Documents that are the embodiement of freedom being restrictive seems...obtuse to me.

So once again, I find your interpretations liberal.

P.S.: Sorry it took me so long to reply, and I realize now that I parsed out one paragraph of your message, but it didn't seem relevant at that point in my train of thought.