Celebrate your rights

December 15, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Dec. 15 is Bill of Rights Day. Which of the first 10 amendments is the most important?

We Americans take for granted a lot of the freedoms we have in this country, freedoms outlined in our Constitution. There’s a group out there – appropriately named The Bill of Rights Institute  – that wants to help remind us about the rights that are protected in the first 10 amendments. That’s why the institute is asking Americans to take 10 minutes to read the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Dec. 15 also happens to be a day of federal observance since 1941.

There’s no doubt the first 10 amendments give us certain key protections and rights in this country, and it may be difficult to pick which one you think is the most important or significant. Is it the First Amendment, allowing us the ability to worship or not worship whomever or whatever we’d like, say or write whatever we want (within reason), or peaceably assembly? What about the Second Amendment allowing us the right to bear arms? The Fourth Amendment – protecting us against illegal search and seizure – often is the topic of lawsuits and court cases.

Thanks to the Bill of Rights, we can “plead the Fifth” and be protected from “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Since you’re in the legal profession, there’s a good chance you’re more familiar with the Bill of Rights than the general public, whom this day is probably geared toward. Do you think the general public is as educated as they should be on their Constitutional rights? Is there a particular amendment you think is the most important?


 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Celebrate?
    Neither Amendments nor Bill of Rights apply to proceedings involving DCS. They are not only ignored, but treated with distain in the State of Indiana.
    They unlawfully 'seize' your children absent the requirements of probable cause in violation of their 4th. They force you to take 'services' by holding your children hostage which meets the federal definition of kindnapping. They force you to take a Psycological Evaluations in violation of you 5th to not incriminate yourself as well as drug and alcohol assessment. Your 9th is clearly violated as well as you 14th (Denial of Civil Rights Under Color of Law). There are maybe 2 or 3 Amendments that they do not violate on a daily basis.
    See what happens when you try and exert your rights. These people with 6 weeks training have the power to take your first born and even the IRS can't do that. They are accountable to no one and judges meet ex-parte to make sure the system is full of children for the sake of money. They skip the first 2 requiremenst of 671 and go straight to removal. There are many satellitte industries that depend on this income. They are paid $4000-$6000 bonuses per child for removal and other bonuses each time they change foster homes. They also enjoy Adoption bonuses as well.
    When it comes to monies received by the DCS and the court system, Amendments or Rights are not in existence. Just ask anyone who has been in the system which is part of a greater plan of the 'nanny state'
    Do your research and see who has actually beat DCS in Federal Court. I can find only 2 nationwide. To claim that we actually have Rights in this arena is nothing but a cruel joke.
  • ultramontanist
    Judge Learned Hand said if the spirit of liberty is not in the people, then no paper will save it. Or words to that effect.

    We all know that "the people" of 2012 as compared to "the people" of Learned Hand's time are a very different "people." They do not share the same predominant ethnicities, not the same religious composition, not the same average occupations nor economic interests nor for any of that, most of all, we lack cultural consensus. It is as many have remarked the twilight of an Empire. Maybe that is a good thing. Let's put a nail in the coffin of the idea of a confessional state. I only confess one religious faith and it is not to Americanism.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT