Bill Of Rights to be Pared Down To A Manageable Five

May 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC-Flanked by key Democrat members of Congress, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill
of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight,
no-nonsense" five.
As supporters looked on, Pelosi signed the "Bill Of Rights Reduction
And Consolidation Act of 2007."
A Democratic 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 five
amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second
Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the first
on chopping block.
Calling the historic reduction "a victory for Blue State America,"
Pelosi promised that the new document would do away with "constitutional
impediments to Democrat government power."
"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this living
document and enduring symbol of American ideals," Pelosi said. "By
making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to
political power, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."
The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against
unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments.
Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration
of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of
rights not mentioned.
"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth
Amendment meant anyway," said new House Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights.
"So goodbye to that one."
Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal
counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy,
testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have
been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials which grants
equal rights to terrorists.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales criticized the slimmed-down Bill
of Rights as "another liberal power grab."
"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of
Rights," Gonzales said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion.
They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their
individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a
good thing, but Democrats, as usual, think the American people are
clueless dolts who can't count to ten so the fewer the Amendments the
better."
Pelosi responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of
Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights. "We're
not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security and
cleaning up the house," Pelosi said. "By allowing for greater government
control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights
will now offer condensed personal freedoms whenever they are deemed
appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective
operation and expansion of the federal government."
Pelosi added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of
Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including
the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment
III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the
states and people will be carried out by the federal government
(Amendment VI), and freedom from Judeo-Christianity and anti-Democrat
Party speech (Amendment I).
According to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the original Bill of
Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."
"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791,"
Reid said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution
never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one
day attempt to jail alleged terrorists indefinitely without judicial
review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants
back then. These aspiring world citizens who have every right to tax
supported lawyers and speedy trials and writs of habeas corpus."
"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a
tune-up to keep it in good working order," Speaker Pelosi said. "Now
that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be
purring like a kitten for the upcoming 2008 elections - just in time to
consolidate Democratic power."
"Ten was just too much of a handful," Pelosi added. "Five civil
liberties are more than enough."
President Bush promises a veto.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur didn't say so, but this was published in The Onion.

John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Bill Of Rights to be Pared Down To A Manageable Five

May 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC-Flanked by key Democrat members of Congress, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill
of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight,
no-nonsense" five.
As supporters looked on, Pelosi signed the "Bill Of Rights Reduction
And Consolidation Act of 2007."
A Democratic 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 five
amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second
Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the first
on chopping block.
Calling the historic reduction "a victory for Blue State America,"
Pelosi promised that the new document would do away with "constitutional
impediments to Democrat government power."
"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this living
document and enduring symbol of American ideals," Pelosi said. "By
making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to
political power, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."
The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against
unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments.
Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration
of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of
rights not mentioned.
"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth
Amendment meant anyway," said new House Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights.
"So goodbye to that one."
Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal
counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy,
testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have
been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials which grants
equal rights to terrorists.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales criticized the slimmed-down Bill of
Rights as "another liberal power grab."
"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of
Rights," Gonzales said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion.
They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their
individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a
good thing, but Democrats, as usual, think the American people are
clueless dolts who can't count to ten so the fewer the Amendments the
better."
Pelosi responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of
Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights. "We're
not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security and
cleaning up the house," Pelosi said. "By allowing for greater government
control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights
will now offer condensed personal freedoms whenever they are deemed
appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective
operation and expansion of the federal government."
Pelosi added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of
Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including
the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment
III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the
states and people will be carried out by the federal government
(Amendment VI), and freedom from Judeo-Christianity and anti-Democrat
Party speech (Amendment I).
According to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the original Bill of
Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."
"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Reid
said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never
could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day
attempt to jail alleged terrorists indefinitely without judicial review.
There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back
then. These aspiring world citizens who have every right to tax
supported lawyers and speedy trials and writs of habeas corpus."
"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up
to keep it in good working order," Speaker Pelosi said. "Now that we
have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like
a kitten for the upcoming 2008 elections - just in time to consolidate
Democratic power."
"Ten was just too much of a handful," Pelosi added. "Five civil
liberties are more than enough."
President Bush promises a veto.

Wilbur Hubbard

"John Andrews" wrote
Wilbur didn't say so, but this was published in The Onion.

I knew that.

Ole Wilbur must be missing a few keys on his keyboard.

--
wingnut
"of no ilk"

This is so lame, you have lost more rights then you realize during the
last 6 years. It may be years more before the full loss and impact of
the this from past 6 years is completely understood. They have been
waving the flag telling you it is for your own good while they have
been taking them away last 6 years.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:26:29 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Bill Of Rights to be Pared Down To A Manageable Five

May 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC-Flanked by key Democrat members of Congress, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill
of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight,
no-nonsense" five.
As supporters looked on, Pelosi signed the "Bill Of Rights Reduction
And Consolidation Act of 2007."
A Democratic 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 five
amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second
Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the first
on chopping block.
Calling the historic reduction "a victory for Blue State America,"
Pelosi promised that the new document would do away with "constitutional
impediments to Democrat government power."
"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this living
document and enduring symbol of American ideals," Pelosi said. "By
making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to
political power, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."
The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against
unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments.
Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration
of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of
rights not mentioned.
"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth
Amendment meant anyway," said new House Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights.
"So goodbye to that one."
Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal
counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy,
testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have
been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials which grants
equal rights to terrorists.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales criticized the slimmed-down Bill
of Rights as "another liberal power grab."
"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of
Rights," Gonzales said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion.
They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their
individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a
good thing, but Democrats, as usual, think the American people are
clueless dolts who can't count to ten so the fewer the Amendments the
better."
Pelosi responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of
Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights. "We're
not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security and
cleaning up the house," Pelosi said. "By allowing for greater government
control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights
will now offer condensed personal freedoms whenever they are deemed
appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective
operation and expansion of the federal government."
Pelosi added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of
Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including
the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment
III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the
states and people will be carried out by the federal government
(Amendment VI), and freedom from Judeo-Christianity and anti-Democrat
Party speech (Amendment I).
According to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the original Bill of
Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."
"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791,"
Reid said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution
never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one
day attempt to jail alleged terrorists indefinitely without judicial
review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants
back then. These aspiring world citizens who have every right to tax
supported lawyers and speedy trials and writs of habeas corpus."
"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a
tune-up to keep it in good working order," Speaker Pelosi said. "Now
that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be
purring like a kitten for the upcoming 2008 elections - just in time to
consolidate Democratic power."
"Ten was just too much of a handful," Pelosi added. "Five civil
liberties are more than enough."
President Bush promises a veto.

Wilbur Hubbard
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

SnoMan wrote:
This is so lame, you have lost more rights then you realize during the
last 6 years.

Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:15:22 GMT, SnoMan wrote:

This is so lame, you have lost more rights then you realize during the
last 6 years. It may be years more before the full loss and impact of
the this from past 6 years is completely understood. They have been
waving the flag telling you it is for your own good while they have
been taking them away last 6 years.



Would you care to tell me what 'rights' I have lost in the last 6+
years?

Dean

On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:10:53 -0700, miles wrote:

Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.


For one, I now need a passport to go to Canada that I have to buy and
another there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
eves dropping that has been done on John Q Public last several years.
How many people have been barred from flying because they haver same
name even though it is plain to see that they are not a threat. And on
this whole plane security thing, back in late 70's they put air
marshalls on flights but they stopped them under reagan. Had they kept
them up the long term cost would have been far less than costs today.
I could go on but I can clearly say I have never seen such secracy in
government as today. Curretn adm9in used fear to get there way well
fortunately the game is about over now. (The Patriot act should have
never been passed and would never been passed today. )
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

miles wrote:... Tell us what right you have personally been affected by
losing.


For one, I now need a passport to go to Canada that I have to buy and
another there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and eves
dropping that has been done on John Q Public last several years.


THAT'S IT ??????
A passport....how completely outrageous.
And .............SILENCE !!!
Oh my God, silence, how terrible.
Silence about something that may not even have happened...........terrible
!!!!

Go count how many leaves you have in your springs.



--
JerryD(upstateNY)

SnoMan wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:10:53 -0700, miles wrote:

Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.


For one, I now need a passport to go to Canada that I have to buy and
another there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
eves dropping that has been done on John Q Public last several years.
How many people have been barred from flying because they haver same
name even though it is plain to see that they are not a threat. And on
this whole plane security thing, back in late 70's they put air
marshalls on flights but they stopped them under reagan. Had they kept
them up the long term cost would have been far less than costs today.
I could go on but I can clearly say I have never seen such secracy in
government as today. Curretn adm9in used fear to get there way well
fortunately the game is about over now. (The Patriot act should have
never been passed and would never been passed today. )
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

SnoMan wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:10:53 -0700, miles wrote:

Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.


For one, I now need a passport to go to Canada that I have to buy

Huh? You never had a "RIGHT" to travel where you want without a
passport. No right was taken away. Security became stronger. You need
to learn what the term 'rights' mean. Start by reading the constitution.

another there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
eves dropping that has been done

I asked what right YOU had taken away and have been affected by. Now
you're making a guess and touting what you've 'heard'. How about facts?

How many people have been barred from flying because they haver same
name

We learn and make improvements to try to avoid issues like this but they
have happened for years and will continue. Nothings perfect. How many
people has this security caught and prevented possible serious crimes?
Again, what right of yours was taken away? Or are you just on the
liberal bandwagon of hearsays and guesses?


I could go on but I can clearly say I have never seen such secracy in
government as today.

Yes I know the liberals want our enemies to know our security plans and
actions. Still can't answer what right YOU have had taken away can you?
Just the liberal whines about what you do not know...but it must be
bad right?