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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT