WASHINGTON, DC—Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.
A Republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats, the revised Bill of Rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating four amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.
Calling the historic reduction "a victory for America," Bush promised that the new document would do away with "bureaucratic impediments to the flourishing of democracy at home and abroad."
[from an Onion article written in December, 2002].
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: A Republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats...
It's funny because it's--wait, no it's not. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I remember when that came out. It was so funny. Now it is so....funny with a weak worried laugh. How do you even choose which part to quote?
quote:Ashcroft said. "By allowing for greater government control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer expanded personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation of the federal government."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
On this, the 60th anniversary of the Nuremburg trials, we declare that Nazi masterminds have more rights than some non-US-Citizen who donates $50 to a charity that turns out to be a front for some Terrorist organization.
I'm trying to laugh. Really, I am.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."
"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."
And, so, we come to the time when satire becomes predictive. *sigh*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"We're not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security,"
Four years after it was written, this satire cuts a bit too close to reality.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
So did they take out "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"? 'cause, frankly, those are annoying and get in the way of all my fun.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hold on while I get my gun.. Oh wait... I guess that one's not in the expurgated bill of rights either.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pix--The right to Bear Arms is the only one kept intact, according to the article.
Night--They have not tampered with THOSE 10--except that bit about bearing false witness. That one is a bit to close to saying "Don't Lie" and "Don't Spin" and heaven forbid we follow those guide lines.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Not even funny as satire.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: Then the article is obviously wrong.
We can debate about if it's a good thing or not... but it can't be argued that the right to keep and bare arms hasn't been restricted.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pix, I can only quote the article:
quote:The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.
Its only refering to this decision to rewrite the constitution in a more efficient manner.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It can't be argued that the right to keep and bare arms hasn't been restricted.
Since the Supreme Court has consistently argued that laws restricting the personal ownership of firearms do not violate the second amendment, it seems more than a bit disengenuous to claim that such an argument can't be made.
Beyond that, during the past decade laws restricting personal ownership of firearms have been loosened substantially in nearly all US states. As such, its would be difficult to argue that the right to bear arms has been significantly eroded under this administration. Perhaps you could tell us what restrictions the Bush administration has placed on the right to keep and bare arms?
[ September 29, 2006, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: *shrug* It would have been funnier/spookier if it had been true to life.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The 9th and 10th amendments have long since been appealed (by the 14th). So what's the difference if they whittle it down a little more?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If its a living constitution shouldnt the original Bill of Rights eventually need reconsidering?
Why should the first 10 ammendments be eternally true when everything else seems to be debateable?
If the American people all agree to one day get guns off the streets and only allow law enforcement, military, and perhaps some government sponsored militias to maintain arms, wouldnt the RIGHT to bear arms need to be ammended to something along the lines of a "Priveledge?"
Not to mention that some of the ammendments in the bill of rights protect 2 seperate completely unrelated rights. See the 1st, and 5th ammendments.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dan: Then the article is obviously wrong.
We can debate about if it's a good thing or not... but it can't be argued that the right to keep and bare arms hasn't been restricted.
Man, I really hope you don't believe it's the Second Amendment that keeps you free.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:some of the ammendments in the bill of rights protect 2 seperate completely unrelated rights. See the 1st, and 5th ammendments.
I don't know, I think that the rights protect in the 1st amendment are quite clearly related as are the rights described in the 5th amendment.
The first amendment protects "freedom's of conscience", that is they protect our rights to public communicate our beliefs.
The 5th amendment protects our rights to due and just legal processes.
The details within the amendment simply detail what "freedom's of conscience are" and what a "due legal process" is.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
It is not terribly surprising to me that political satire can become reality. These people are not just funny, they are also pretty intense political analysts.
Also, many historians and sociologists do a good job of "predicting the future" by studying the patterns of the past.
Still, it is chilling.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, the hit film about an orphaned boy and his pals at Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry, continues to break box-office records, casting its magic spell over children and creepy middle-aged weirdos alike."
Signed, Middle-aged weirdo
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
You want to see creepy and portentous, check this out:
That article was released in a compilation book around September 1st, 2001, and I bought it around the 15th. It was the weirdest feeling when I found that article; I've never laughed and had goose bumps at the same time before.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)