How? (Page 2): James Madison, Property 29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68 This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JFlorio wrote:

Very curious. One of the debates on here is always about losing our rights, This question is for Democrats. How would you rewrite if you could the Bill of Rights?
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

elledee

JFlorio wrote:

Do you think most have even read the first ten amendments?

They don't teach them in school or college

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

LostAggie66 wrote:

The Bill of Rights does NOT Need to be re-written. If there are additions then the Bill of Rights can be amended.

Preaching to the quire.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Blade_Runner wrote:

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

i b James Madison, Property /b br br 29 Mar. 1... (show quote)

pegw

If I was to rewrite the Bill of Rights. I would delete the second amendment. We really don't need all these nut jobs having unfettered access to guns.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

pegw wrote:

If I was to rewrite the Bill of Rights. I would delete the second amendment. We really don't need all these nut jobs having unfettered access to guns.

To make sure you never have to worry about one of them protecting you, put the following in your yard.

Big dog

pegw wrote:

If I was to rewrite the Bill of Rights. I would delete the second amendment. We really don't need all these nut jobs having unfettered access to guns.

So you explicitly trust the government to do everything in the world to keep you safe?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JFlorio wrote:

Preaching to the quire.

choir.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

pegw wrote:

If I was to rewrite the Bill of Rights. I would delete the second amendment. We really don't need all these nut jobs having unfettered access to guns.

Define nut job, peg. Is a nut job a right winger, or a multi-arrested felon released without bond only to kill again?

Must be us America lovers, huh?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

archie bunker wrote:

Define nut job, peg. Is a nut job a right winger, or a multi-arrested felon released without bond only to kill again?

Must be us America lovers, huh?

According to her thinking (an oxymoron), anyone who wants to own a gun is a nut job.

Hmm…does pot kettle apply here?

Big dog

AuntiE wrote:

According to her thinking (an oxymoron), anyone who wants to own a gun is a nut job.

Hmm…does pot kettle apply here?

Clearly one of those that fit the description of;“Enemies, both foreign and domestic”.

Bassman65

pegw wrote:

If I was to rewrite the Bill of Rights. I would delete the second amendment. We really don't need all these nut jobs having unfettered access to guns.

People like you in the government is the reason why the 2nd Amendment was put in the bill of rights. You should truly study 20th century history and educate yourself about the history of genocide and gun control.

LostAggie66 Loc: Corpus Christi, TX (Shire of Seawinds)

AuntiE wrote:

You best not let your fellow cult members know you support the Bill of Rights as they currently stand. Such is strictly verboten.

Why do you keep referring to me as a member of the Leftist Democrats. Iam not and the BOR's does not need to be re-written. I don't care what melosia or kevyn or any of the extreme posters here think or say. I support the Constitution as it is written with amendments when needed.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

LostAggie66 wrote:

Why do you keep referring to me as a member of the Leftist Democrats. Iam not and the BOR's does not need to be re-written. I don't care what melosia or kevyn or any of the extreme posters here think or say. I support the Constitution as it is written with amendments when needed.

Okay, you are just a mini cult member.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

AuntiE wrote:

Okay, you are just a mini cult member.

Snack sized.😁