Amendments to the US Constitution, Part I

The authors of our Constitution felt that they had left some very important items out of the Document, so they drafted twelve amendments, now known as the Bill of Rights. Two of these twelve amendments failed ratification at the time, however, one of them went on to become the 27th Amendment. Again, testifying to how the original 13 States felt about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 and ratified by those states as follows: NJ, MD, NC in 1789; SC, NH, DE, NY, PA, RI in 1790; VT, VA in 1791; and MA, GA, CT in 1939.

Here are your Bill of Rights, with GUNNER'S VIEWS:

"Amendment I
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."

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."
(http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html)

In essence, the story that prayer in school is forbidden, is just that - a mistaken opinion of some school administrators. If the students want to pray in or on school grounds, it's perfectly fine.

Amendment II
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.

Rather than get into the entire second amendment bruhaha, even though I'm a strong advocate of this amendment, I want to point something out. Let's assume that the anti-gunners are correct, and only the militia shall be allowed to own firearms. Title 10, United States Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 states:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

In other words, even if you do not belong to the National Guard, if you're a healthy male between 17 and 45 YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA!

Now, how do the "Gun-Control states" feel about that? Well here is Article XII from the Constitution of the State of New York: "Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia." It would appear that everyone in New York is in the militia.

Article XII of the Illinois State Constitution states: "SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." It would appear that almost everyone in Illinois is in the militia.

California, of course is in it's own little world, to quote California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.:

"...Likewise, the California Supreme Court has determined that laws passed by the state legislature which address gun control can be valid. "No mention is made in [the California Constitution] of a right to bear arms. (See In re Ramirez (1924) 193 Cal. 633, 651 [226 P. 914, 34 A.L.R. 51][`The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject.'].) Moreover, `it is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function.' (Galvan v. Superior Court, (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866 [76 Cal.Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 930].)" Kasler v. Lockyer, (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, 481.

I am duty bound and constitutionally obligated to defend and enforce the law as written by our state legislature and explained by our courts. And, while I am personally convinced that the Second Amendment was indeed intended to provide some measure of entitlement for individuals to own firearms, the degree of that entitlement, and the extent to which it must be balanced with the state's right and responsibility to protect public health and safety, is still being interpreted by our nation's courts. And I believe that the interpretation of most courts, which holds that the states have the power to regulate firearms possession and usage within their boundaries, is both wise and correct. As a legislator, I supported reasonable measures to regulate firearms over the years. As California's Attorney General, I strongly support the system of government which we enjoy, and which I am sworn to preserve and protect, and I will continue to keep my promise to the people of California to fairly and fully enforce our laws, and to defend the laws our representatives have enacted."

Amendment III
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.

Amendment IV
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.

If H.R. 45 does get passed, you'd better make sure that you're wholly familiar with both the 4th and 5th amendments.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise 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 offense 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.

Amendment VI
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 defense.

Amendment VII
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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why does the Federal Government, in its entirety, constantly ignore both the 9th and 10th amendments? They seem pretty simple, if it's not in the Constitution as the responsibility of the Federal Government, than it's the responsibility of either the state governments or "We the People." Why is that so difficult to understand?

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

These Bill of Rights are quite simple to understand. Unfortunately we have been saddled with an Executive Branch that continues to expand the size of the government, a Legislative Branch that believes they are the ones actually running the country, and a Judicial Branch that believes they can bend the Constitution to fit the politically correct needs of the Congress. None of these politicians or political appointees understand that they are simply employees of "We the People".
Many of them are multi-millionares who have been successful in the business world, yet if they ran their businesses the way they run our government, they'd all be bankrupt and on welfare! Some of them have been in Washington so long they really have no idea what their constituents really think - nor do they care. As of March this year the 4 senior Senators have served for 50, 46, 46, and 34 years respectively. The President of the Senate (VP of the US) spent 36 years in the Senate until sworn in as VEEP! As of last July, 17 members (including mine) of the House of Representatives have served for over 30 years, and one for 50 years.

And I thought the President wanted change!

May God Bless You.
Gunner Sends.