Five Things You Thought Were in The US Constitution
We've all heard people shout, "It's my Constitutional Right!" or "That's Unconstitutional!", but how much of that is actually true? While there may be court cases that questioned some of the items in the Constitution, or laws that state otherwise, does the average person actually know what is in the Constitution? Here are five "Constitutional Rights" that you may not actually have...
I'm Innocent Until Proven Guilty!
This is a popular misconception of what the Constitution states. In the United States, you're actually guilty if you did the crime, no matter what you think your rights are. Our legal system only presumes innocence until it is otherwise proven that you did it. The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from old British laws. Although, it has been a part of our system for so long, that it is considered common law. What you can find in the Constitution is your Right To Remain Silent (which means information can't be forced out of you) and your Right To A Trial By Jury (so you can try and prove your innocence).
No Taxation Without Representation!
Ahhhh, the rallying cry that gave rise to the birth of a nation. Not in the Constitution, however. If you aren't represented in the United States, you still have to pay taxes (whether you do or not is subject to opinion). Those taxed without proper representation in government include: Convicts, Immigrants (the legal kind), and Citizens of Washington, D.C. What? It's true, Washington D.C. does not have a vote in congress. While, they have been allowed to have 3 electoral college votes and a silent member of the House of Representatives (without voting rights), the people of our nation's capital don't get to say "Boo" when it comes to our Federal laws being made. Where did the notion of "No Taxation Without Representation" come from? It evolved out of the Sugar Act of 1764. The British levied a tax on food to help pay for the French-Indian War. It became a rallying cry for colonists to have Independence. They cared less about having a vote in Parliament. Don't believe this is one of your Constitutional rights, however, because you won't find it there.
I Have A Right To Vote
Well...you might, but it isn't in the Constitution. The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot be denied voting privileges due to race or sex. You have to be 18 years old to vote (this used to be 21, until people realized you could be drafted to die for your country, but not allowed to vote). However, the Constitution never gives you the Right to Vote. It does state that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. As long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote.
There's A Separation of Church and State
No there's not. At least not in the Constitution. Where we get this concept is through a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in 1802. In it he said that there was a "wall of separation" (from which Jefferson stole from English philosopher John Locke - not the guy from "Lost"). Years later, in 1878, the Supreme Court mentioned it and nothing was said again until 1947. The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. Yeah...that's not the case. Really, the Constitution offers Freedom of Religion, which means you can't be forbidden from holding office because you don't believe in a "Government sanctioned" religion. It means that the U.S. isn't a Theocracy. However, this also means that you can choose not to worship any religion and you should also not be able to dictate how other people practice their religions. People - on both sides of this argument - take this too far.
The Federal Government vs. Immigration
Since this has been in the news so much, I thought this should be included into this list. First off, the Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, includes the power to regulate immigration. According to their thought process, it would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. The United States, as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine who comes within its borders. Where the issue becomes gray is that the 10th Amendment allows for states to control that which isn't the Constitution. The Federal government falls upon their naturalization jurisdiction. The future may prove very interesting when it comes to the new Arizona law.
If you are interested in getting a free copy of the Constitution, you can order one here ($3.00 Shipping and Handling charges apply). This site has nothing to do with myFiveBest and we receive no benefit from this.
http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-pocket-constitution/
[...] Five Things You Thought Were in The US Constitution | myFiveBest [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRevolutionary, TheBobRoseShow. TheBobRoseShow said: Five Things You Thought Were in The US Constitution | myFiveBest http://bit.ly/9UeNQ1 [...]
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
At the time of the drafting of the First Amendment and for several decades thereafter, a political “disestablishment” movement swept the country, with the result that not only was the First Amendment adopted to constrain the federal government but also by the 1830s all states ended the practice of supporting a favored church and adopted various constitutional provisions against establishing religion. An early observer of our republic noted the result: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
Great commentary, corny pseudonym…=)
[...] Five Things You Thought Were in The US Constitution | myFiveBest [...]
[...] Five Things Yου Tһουɡһt Wеrе іח Tһе US C… [...]
[...] Five Things You Thought Were in The US Constitution | myFiveBest [...]
[...] Five Things US C… [...]
I did not know that this page got so much traffic….
[...] Five Things You Thought Were in The US Constitution | myFiveBest [...]
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
At the time of the drafting of the First Amendment and for several decades thereafter, a political “disestablishment” movement swept the country, with the result that not only was the First Amendment adopted to constrain the federal government but also by the 1830s all states ended the practice of supporting a favored church and adopted various constitutional provisions against establishing religion. An early observer of our republic noted the result: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
I wanted to compliment the webmaster for running a great site….
I like the way things get done around here….
I wanted to compliment the webmaster for running a great site….
I only wish that I had found this website a long time ago!…
I have to give you credit for running a fabulous site here….