The Republican bill of rights - satire on Constitutional reform - Column

Chair: As you know, we're already well into the second hundred days, and we've set aside the second week of April to reconsider the Constitution. The sixteenth is Easter, so I figure the seventeenth through the nineteenth should be ample for the Bill of Rights; it's only ten amendments. The Democrats thrashing about nearly pulled us under when they introduced the Fourth Amendment on the floor and we were compelled to vote it down, but, although that was premature, I don't believe any damage was done. In fact, only MacNeil/Lehrer picked it up, and they were afraid--in the present climate--to make a big deal about it. Sure would hate to see those two boys separated.

Anyway, looking at the whole package, I say we keep the title "Bill of Rights," especially as we're adding "and Responsibilities," although we will refer to it collectively as the Armey/Hatch Act, and we naturally hope the legislative title will catch on with the media. Kind of like adding our signatures to the Constitution.

Now, to get down to brass tacks, Amendment One, religion--window dressing, really, you can't really come out against it, although the language we're adding, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in school" should make a difference. The nice thing about it is it's unobtrusive. "Not abridging the freedom of responsible speech," I like, and I think we need to insert something before "press" as well, but I don't think we should use "responsible" again. "Legitimate," maybe, or "mainstream." We've already got "peaceably" in the right to assemble, so that's nicely qualified. Overall, religion needs to be in there, but I don't like to lead with it--too controversial. You know what they say, one of the two things you don't talk about.

The second. Guns. See, that should be first. People assume these things are prioritized. It might be helpful to say "rifles and guns" or specify barrels and bores, automatic, semi-automatic, magazine sizes, etc. I'll mention it at the NRA Donor. If there's some way of writing it so it's not ambiguous, you know, the militia part--you clearly don't have to join a militia to "keep and bear Arms"--that needs to be cleaned up, but I love the capitalization.

Three--no soldiers shall be quartered in a house? Is this a problem? Can't this be addressed through zoning? I don't see what this is doing in here. With base closings, I could see it being a question, but it's a waste of an amendment, especially so high up. Why don't we put the "we won't pay for the little bastards"--you know, the welfare proposal--in here?

Four, search and seizure--most of this has already been updated on the floor--it's always been a matter of what's "unreasonable." I don't think we're any more unreasonable" than the Founding Fathers; in fact, from what I've read about some of them, we're a lot more reasonable. Jefferson used to run around the woods naked with the help when he wasn't founding the Democratic Party. Anyway, now that we've made it clear that what's reasonable is a judgment call on constitutional law by the arresting officer (who should not have to explain it verbally while making a bust, like Miranda), I think we've laid to rest the vagueness. The other part should read something like "a warrant would be nice."

Five has that problem with due process we talked about. A lot of due process is really just the process of doing it. I'll tell you one thing, not only should they not allow barbells in prison, they should throw out the law books. You don't put people on death row to make more lawyers. Once again, the main point, the protection of private property rights, is buried at the bottom of a lot of language protecting the rights of criminals. Grand jury, self-incrimination, double jeopardy, etc., would all be better off in a manual or something. Property rights reads a lot stronger without them. "Taking the Fifth" would then mean taking whatever means necessary in defending your home.

A speedy and public trial--six--sure, and what about broadcasting it on public television and radio (I just came up with this) with the profits and product tie-ins going back to the Corporation (for Public Broadcasting) to replace the current entitlement? Also, "right to counsel" needs looking at, particularly with that train killer doing such a credible job of defending himself. Maybe "counsel available," or "counsel applied for," is what we need. Once we get rid of the backlog of jury trials--in this next amendment--the trial judge will be free to referee.

The seventh (and this is a good example of what we're up against with tort reform)--the right to a "trial by jury where the value in controversy is more than twenty dollars"--that needs upping. Way up. I think a hundred thousand is low. Half a million you still get product-liability juries and nobody needs that. Right now, a guy steals a hose reel he gets a trial by jury. Let's pencil in a million and see if they salute.

Eight. Here we go, "cruel and unusual, cruel and unusual." I don't know about you, but I think the phrase is cruel and unusual. We could turn down the volume more than just a few db's by eliminating it altogether. Obviously, we're not going to do anything cruel or unusual, and if we do, that's where term limits kick in. The death penalty is now humane and common, so it's exempt anyway. As for "no excessive bail or fines," OK, but where does it say anything about acceptable collateral? I run my business like this, I'm out of it.

Nine is just a disclaimer--"if we have any other rights we have them"--although you couldn't write an insurance policy that way. I don't know if there's anything like "pre-existing conditions" or acts of God for rights, but if there is, I think we ought to put it in there just to protect ourselves.

And ten, "the powers not delegated to the U.S. are reserved to the states," now should read on your copies, "the powers not delegated to the States, are reserved to the U.S." although the "reserved to" still sounds wrong to me, but I don't want to mess with original intent. This ". . . or to the people," at the end, no. Waters it down.

OK, that's the first ten. We'll be looking at the others in the next round. Any in particular give you trouble, let me know as soon as possible, as the printing takes about three weeks.

Michael Feldman is the executive producer and host of Public Radio International's "Whad'ya Know?"

COPYRIGHT 1995 The Progressive, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group