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?


  • 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

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
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you? http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/state-takes-legal-action-to-seize-135k-from-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: https://web0.memphis.edu/law/currentstudents/mentalhealthjournal/1-2-203-Bird.pdf Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?