A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties

by Carson MD, Ben

ARTICLE 7: RATIFICATION

  The final article of the Constitution states that ratification by nine states would be sufficient for the Constitution to become the law of the land. The first state to ratify the Constitution was Delaware, followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York. After George Washington became president, North Carolina and Rhode Island also ratified the Constitution.2

  The names of George Washington and the other thirty-nine signers ended the document.3 These men placed their names on a document that would steer our country well for more than two hundred years—and counting. They were not perfect, and neither was the document they signed, but it recognized its own weaknesses and set in place countermeasures. You cannot ask for much more in this life.

  CONCLUSION

  As Articles 4 through 7 demonstrate, the founders thought they had done a pretty good job designing “a more perfect Union,” so they made it difficult to undo their efforts. Fortunately, they were also humble enough to recognize that mechanisms for change would be needed. We can be thankful for that today; it is likely that those mechanisms will be needed in the not-too-distant future to establish term limits, something not needed in our nation’s early days but desperately needed now.

  We can feel confident that our Constitution is flexible enough to accommodate any necessary changes yet rigid enough to withstand unwarranted tampering. We are indeed fortunate to have had founders who were not only brilliant but also compassionate and wise. If we exercise those same characteristics going forward, the future for our children will be secured.

  CHAPTER 13

  THE BILL OF RIGHTS

  “For the Lord is our judge, our lawgiver, and our king. He will care for us and save us.”

  Isaiah 33:22

  It wasn’t long before Americans found the need to improve on the Constitution and passed the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. These were adopted in 1791, and many of them are much more familiar to the general public than is the Constitution itself. This is because the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees individual rights of citizens and is responsible for many of our freedoms today.

  FIRST AMENDMENT

  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.

  Our Constitution was not designed to create uniformity of speech, behavior, or beliefs. Instead it was designed to ensure that everyone could live, speak, and believe as they pleased, as long as their actions did not infringe upon the rights of others. These incredibly important rights were not addressed in the Constitution, yet it is hard to imagine a United States without these safeguards.

  Many of the founders of this nation and their ancestors had suffered religious persecution overseas and were acutely aware of the dangers of having a state-sponsored religion. A theocracy was clearly not the goal of the establishment of our nation, and this amendment guaranteed that we would never allow religion to dictate to government.

  Looking back at the extreme intolerance manifested in the past by many religious groups, including some Christian groups, and looking today at the extreme intolerance of some radical Islamic groups, it is not hard to understand why our founders were so frightened of religion controlling government. The wall of separation between church and state is important and should be maintained. However, it should not be extended and reinterpreted as the separation of God and state.

  There is nothing in our Constitution or its amendments to indicate that all vestiges of faith must be removed from the public square. This inappropriate extension of the concept of separation between church and state is in fact in direct opposition to the portion of the First Amendment that says Congress can make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This phrase means that no one should be prohibited from living a life of faith according to the dictates of conscience, as long as they are not harming others.

  It becomes somewhat absurd when some claim that the sight of a Bible or a cross causes them so much psychological distress that it impinges upon their freedom. It is important that we learn to be reasonable and tolerant of everyone’s beliefs without going to such extremes that we compromise everyone’s rights.

  The First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Suppression of freedom of speech is the ultimate manifestation of intolerance. Tyrants never want to be challenged, nor do they wish for others to hear anything that opposes their views. Dictators know that free speech may inspire suppressed populations to turn against them, so they quell speech through intimidation.

  While we rarely see direct silencing of speech by the government in America today, there are other groups out to destroy free speech. On many college campuses in America today, conservative students and professors are intimidated into silence, and conservative speakers are not invited to give commencement addresses because the liberal administration does not wish for the students to be exposed to an alternative way of thinking.1 This also occurs on some conservative campuses in the opposite direction, but to a much smaller degree. Rather than concentrate on assigning blame for this intolerance, we should concentrate on creating an open and stimulating environment for discussion, especially in our institutions of higher learning. After all, if our young people are not taught to value free speech, they may not defend it when their generation rises to power.

  The only business specifically protected by our Constitution is the press. Our founders saw the press as an ally of the people. They believed that a free press would expose all questionable actions and policies of our leaders, regardless of their political affiliation. Unfortunately, they would be disappointed with our media today.

  When the press largely ignores this noble calling and instead aligns itself with one political party or another, it gives license to that party to ignore the rule of law without fear of exposure or questions. This eventually leads to the erosion of trust and freedom. We can all hope and pray that at some point the majority of members of the press will once again align themselves with the interests of the American people and reject partisan politics and manipulation. Our nation needs a free and unbiased press.

  Finally, the First Amendment addresses the right of Americans to assemble. Some societies do not allow their citizens to assemble and peacefully protest governmental policies because the governments are afraid of being overthrown. Our founders wanted to ensure the rights of citizens to gather for any reason, as long as they did it in a peaceful manner. They were not fearful of criticism and actually wanted to hear the thoughts of all of the constituents of the union. This freedom to assemble and express grievances has served as an outlet for unrest and as an effective way of requesting change. As a result, we have had hundreds of years of relative domestic peace.

  It should be noted that there is a significant difference between peaceful assembly and assembling to incite rioting and violence. The latter is not protected by the Bill of Rights, nor should it be. We are a country under the rule of law, and if we fail to uphold those laws, lawlessness will increase and freedom will decrease. The purpose of the First Amendment was to increase freedom, not to decrease it, and we must keep that in mind as we consider how to uphold it.

  SECOND AMENDMENT

  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.

  Our founders wanted us to have a strong national military, but they also wanted the citizens of each state to have the right to own and keep arms. In case of invasion, the populace would be able to aid our national military, and being armed would enable them to defend themselves, their families, and their property from violent criminals. To this end, the National Guard in each state is composed
of its citizens and is under the control of the governor of the state. These National Guard units are under the ultimate control of the federal government, and their members can be pressed into service in the United States military.

  Perhaps of even greater importance is the right of individual American citizens to own and maintain any legal arms that they can purchase or obtain. The founders knew that tyranny was often preceded by the confiscation of weapons from the citizenry. They felt confident that good leaders were in place at the time that our Constitution was formulated, but they were not certain that a time in the future might not produce leaders with a different vision of what America should be, who might use force to bend America to their own will. If that happened, the founders wanted the American people to be able to fight for their freedom and for the values and principles that established our nation. They knew that this kind of uprising would not be possible unless the people were able to own and keep arms.

  This right can in no way be violated, and any attempt to erode it should be vigorously resisted. Those who insist that tyranny could never come to America should read about how it came to so many other places that also felt safe. No one ever expects tyranny, but wise men will always be prepared for it.

  Many Americans who are antigun are good people with good hearts and are concerned about the safety of children and all citizens. Unfortunately, too often they are narrowly focused on their primary concern and simply cannot imagine a situation where American citizens would have to physically fight for their freedom. They would likely learn the importance of the Second Amendment only after their freedoms had been lost.

  Those who do understand the importance of this amendment should make every attempt to be sensitive to the concerns of those who are frightened by guns and violence. There is nothing to be lost by engaging in rational conversations about how to quell gun violence. There are many reasonable ways to reduce violent crime without compromising the integrity of the Second Amendment. At all costs, however, we must uphold the rights of the citizens to have and bear arms.

  THIRD AMENDMENT

  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.

  This amendment was a direct result of the resentment that Americans had felt when British soldiers invaded the homes of Americans during the revolution. The British government gave its soldiers the authority to demand that the colonists feed them and provide them with sleeping quarters. In many cases the soldiers abused this privilege. Our Congress wanted to be sure that this never happened again except in extraordinary cases of war with government oversight.

  FOURTH AMENDMENT

  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.

  This amendment protects our right of privacy. In America no authority has the right to search your private properties or information without just cause. If the authorities suspect criminal activity, they are required to obtain a search warrant from a judicial authority before conducting a search. Without this kind of protection, any citizen could be mercilessly harassed at any time of the day or night, and no one would be entitled to privacy in their lives.

  This is one of the reasons why so many people were alarmed when it was discovered that the National Security Agency (NSA) was surreptitiously collecting private information about random American citizens in an attempt to thwart terrorist plots. This would perhaps be less concerning if everyone trusted the government to be honest in all of its dealings with citizens. However, situations like the scandal about a government agency (the IRS) being used to persecute political foes do much to erode such confidence.

  As technological advances occur, wise leaders will need to continue to study the Fourth Amendment and consider how it should be applied to these ever-more-sophisticated technological advances. We no longer live in the age of papers and books alone; rather, we have advanced into the cyber age. This means that much of our private information can be hacked or monitored by external forces, including governmental agencies, without our knowledge. I am virtually certain that our founders would not have approved of the random monitoring of private information that is possible in cyberspace.

  Of course, the excuse is given that the government has to perform random monitoring to decrease the chances of successful attacks by terrorists. We have been repeatedly assured that safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the information gathered about innocent citizens. That would perhaps be more comforting if there had not been so many instances of inappropriate secrecy and dishonesty recently by agents of the federal government.

  The wonderful thing about our system is that we have the ability, through judicial review and the establishment of a legal precedent or by constitutional amendment, to rectify the situation. In case anyone fears that government authorities will be kept from getting information they need, it should be pointed out that officials can readily obtain the necessary search warrants if they have a legitimate suspicion about one of our citizens. There is never a good reason for indiscriminate violation of privacy. If we are to remain free, we must be vigilant about protecting our liberties, not quick to give them up for the sake of security.

  FIFTH AMENDMENT

  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other 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 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.

  The Fifth Amendment prohibits the authorities from taking your life, liberty, or property in an arbitrary manner. First this amendment protects American citizens accused of serious crimes from being tried in a court of law by our government without first being indicted by a grand jury. A grand jury reviews the evidence in the case and decides if there is enough evidence to bring charges. This prevents the government from arbitrarily putting people in prison or executing citizens without due process.

  This amendment also includes the “double jeopardy” clause frequently quoted by legal authorities. This clause declares that a citizen cannot be tried again for the same crime if he was found not guilty the first time. There are exceptions to the rule and a number of legal maneuvers that can allow prosecutors to go after criminals who have beat the system, but the rule is really there to prevent the government from harassing people endlessly.

  When defendants say, “I’m pleading the fifth,” they are referring to the portion of the Fifth Amendment that says you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. This makes forced confessions, torture, blackmail, and a host of other unsavory tactics less likely to be used by prosecutors and law-enforcement agents.

  Finally, the Fifth Amendment prevents the government from confiscating private property that is needed for governmental purposes without fairly compensating the citizen who owns the property. Many emotional disputes between the government and citizens arise because the government feels that it needs someone’s property to initiate or complete a project. Sometimes that property has been in a family for many generations and is worth far more to the family than it is to the government. If the government can demonstrate that the property is needed for the public good and provides fair compensation, the property owner has no recourse.

  SIXTH AMENDMENT

  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.

  This amendment governs the way a defendant is tried. It ensures that people do not languish in jail for extended periods of time while awaiting trial. The amendment states that the defendant is entitled to a trial by jury and that the jury must be from the area in which the crime was committed. Furthermore, the person being tried must be provided with information about the accusations against him so he can form a defense. If the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the government must provide one, and if necessary the court is to use its power to compel defense witnesses to come to court. We should be thankful that we live in a land where the government is required to work so hard to protect the rights of the accused.

  SEVENTH AMENDMENT

  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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  The Seventh Amendment governs the majority of court cases in America, which are civil cases, not criminal cases. These cases can be tried by a judge or by a jury. When money is at issue, cases of low value are generally tried by a judge, because the amounts at stake do not justify the expense of assembling a jury.

  Cases tried in a lower court cannot be overturned by a higher court unless there is evidence that the applicable law was misapplied by the lower court or that the lower court’s decision was inappropriate for a variety of other reasons.