I just received the following email, in response to "'Privileges' Watch," my current
Rights Watch column in
GUNS Magazine:
David, I appreciate your time and effort in support of 2nd Amendment.
However, you make a statement in the article that I believe is incorrect and I thought I'd bring it to your attention. 4th para. into the article, "The Bill of Rights grants no rights. To believe that it does reverses the proper role...."
Please read the Sixth Amendment below:
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 where in 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.
Also, the Ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Anyway, my red flag goes up when I hear or read sweeping general statements like that. The Bill of Rights does include the granting of certain rights, at least one is clearly stated in the 6th Amendment.
Be well,
ER
It's an interesting perspective, and I'm not trying to be stiff-necked, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this. The Sixth Amendment is not granting a right, it is acknowledging one codified in English Common Law and predating the Constitution, as do discussions of judicial powers and jury trials in the Federalist Papers. I guess we could also bring up differences between civil/legal rights and natural ones, and the dangerous blurring of what "rights" are, particularly with politicians bandying about terms like "Patients' Bill of Rights", etc., in an attempt to pander for votes and defraud people out of
real ones...
But I'm starting to digress. I will cede that a right to trial by jury is meaningless in the absence of government, and that at one point, a body of men decided that a jury trial was a right to which government would yield. But that decision was also made about everything else we consider "unalienable" as well, and we see them being alienated all the time.
As for the Ninth Amendment, I believe the fact that it states rights are "retained by the people" speaks for itself as predating the article, and goes to the core of why some warned against including a Bill of Rights in the first place--so that what was enumerated wouldn't be construed as all that there was.
It's an interesting question, and I'd be interested in hearing more thoughts on this.
