#billofrights — Public Fediverse posts

James Woods harshly criticized a joke told by Jimmy Kimmel, but at the same time James wrote:
"The First Amendment, while a glorious right enshrined in our Constitution, was not conceived to protect pleasant speech. It was designed to protect all of us."
Including Jimmy Kimmel.
#BillOfRights

Weird as it sounds, I think we need an actual law, like some kind of bill of rights, that says you can't notify me on my phone without offering me highly fine-tuned control of each kind of message.

Notifications intrude into my life. Sometimes my phone is on waiting for emergencies or other high-priority issues while I sleep. If a friend wakes me, I can have them dialed up or down in priority.

But Android is designed so Audible won't let me have control of my audiobooks in the lock screen without notifications turned on, yet once I've done that, Audible has no compunction against advertising new book releases in the middle of the night via notifications. I should be able to get cash compensation in court for that.

And my USB-C cable, once I plug it into my Android phone insists on randomly popping up an utterly inscrutible notification saying "you need to log in if you want to see notifications", or some such, and then when I do there is no notification to see. It was just random.

And Android Auto likes to give me two completely pointless notifications, one when I plug my phone into the car and one saying Android Auto is available. The first one I don't need a notification about because I just plugged in my phone. But more importantly, the second one is a lie. Android Auto MIGHT be available and it confirms nothing. The handshake may have been done wrong, so all it tells me is the thing I know already, which is that Android Auto is on the phone. But I might have to pull the plug and replug it to be properly connected. So the notification is worse than pointless and just floods my screen with stuff I don't care about that appears to need immediate attention. And then Android asks, as soon as I disconnect it, how my experience was. I always say "Bad" because part of my experience is getting asked that pesky message that I do not want and would happily say "never do this".

These all seem like technical problems, but they are not. They are reminders that we no longer control our lives, that companies can, at a whim, intrude into our lives with pointless rituals that whittle away our existence. I'm not being metaphorical when I say we need laws on this. I absolutely mean that if we don't write strong law on this, it will only get worse. Or we need to enforce the 4th Amendment on a theory, like Larry Lessig has effectively said in the past, that programmatic code is effectively a kind of government that binds us and our choices in life as surely as legal code does.

But what DO we get laws about? Having to login to use an operating system so they can track us better, know who we are and where we are at every moment. We need laws against such laws.

#marketing #notifications #android #ui #ux #settings #design #QualityOfLife #computers #LockScreen #permissions #law #legal #lawsuits #ClassAction #rights #HumanRights #BillOfRights #identity #intrusion #interruption #4thAmendment #government #code

Weird as it sounds, I think we need an actual law, like some kind of bill of rights, that says you can't notify me on my phone without offering me highly fine-tuned control of each kind of message.

Notifications intrude into my life. Sometimes my phone is on waiting for emergencies or other high-priority issues while I sleep. If a friend wakes me, I can have them dialed up or down in priority.

But Android is designed so Audible won't let me have control of my audiobooks in the lock screen without notifications turned on, yet once I've done that, Audible has no compunction against advertising new book releases in the middle of the night via notifications. I should be able to get cash compensation in court for that.

And my USB-C cable, once I plug it into my Android phone insists on randomly popping up an utterly inscrutible notification saying "you need to log in if you want to see notifications", or some such, and then when I do there is no notification to see. It was just random.

And Android Auto likes to give me two completely pointless notifications, one when I plug my phone into the car and one saying Android Auto is available. The first one I don't need a notification about because I just plugged in my phone. But more importantly, the second one is a lie. Android Auto MIGHT be available and it confirms nothing. The handshake may have been done wrong, so all it tells me is the thing I know already, which is that Android Auto is on the phone. But I might have to pull the plug and replug it to be properly connected. So the notification is worse than pointless and just floods my screen with stuff I don't care about that appears to need immediate attention. And then Android asks, as soon as I disconnect it, how my experience was. I always say "Bad" because part of my experience is getting asked that pesky message that I do not want and would happily say "never do this".

These all seem like technical problems, but they are not. They are reminders that we no longer control our lives, that companies can, at a whim, intrude into our lives with pointless rituals that whittle away our existence. I'm not being metaphorical when I say we need laws on this. I absolutely mean that if we don't write strong law on this, it will only get worse. Or we need to enforce the 4th Amendment on a theory, like Larry Lessig has effectively said in the past, that programmatic code is effectively a kind of government that binds us and our choices in life as surely as legal code does.

But what DO we get laws about? Having to login to use an operating system so they can track us better, know who we are and where we are at every moment. We need laws against such laws.

#marketing #notifications #android #ui #ux #settings #design #QualityOfLife #computers #LockScreen #permissions #law #legal #lawsuits #ClassAction #rights #HumanRights #BillOfRights #identity #intrusion #interruption #4thAmendment #government #code

Weird as it sounds, I think we need an actual law, like some kind of bill of rights, that says you can't notify me on my phone without offering me highly fine-tuned control of each kind of message.

Notifications intrude into my life. Sometimes my phone is on waiting for emergencies or other high-priority issues while I sleep. If a friend wakes me, I can have them dialed up or down in priority.

But Android is designed so Audible won't let me have control of my audiobooks in the lock screen without notifications turned on, yet once I've done that, Audible has no compunction against advertising new book releases in the middle of the night via notifications. I should be able to get cash compensation in court for that.

And my USB-C cable, once I plug it into my Android phone insists on randomly popping up an utterly inscrutible notification saying "you need to log in if you want to see notifications", or some such, and then when I do there is no notification to see. It was just random.

And Android Auto likes to give me two completely pointless notifications, one when I plug my phone into the car and one saying Android Auto is available. The first one I don't need a notification about because I just plugged in my phone. But more importantly, the second one is a lie. Android Auto MIGHT be available and it confirms nothing. The handshake may have been done wrong, so all it tells me is the thing I know already, which is that Android Auto is on the phone. But I might have to pull the plug and replug it to be properly connected. So the notification is worse than pointless and just floods my screen with stuff I don't care about that appears to need immediate attention. And then Android asks, as soon as I disconnect it, how my experience was. I always say "Bad" because part of my experience is getting asked that pesky message that I do not want and would happily say "never do this".

These all seem like technical problems, but they are not. They are reminders that we no longer control our lives, that companies can, at a whim, intrude into our lives with pointless rituals that whittle away our existence. I'm not being metaphorical when I say we need laws on this. I absolutely mean that if we don't write strong law on this, it will only get worse. Or we need to enforce the 4th Amendment on a theory, like Larry Lessig has effectively said in the past, that programmatic code is effectively a kind of government that binds us and our choices in life as surely as legal code does.

But what DO we get laws about? Having to login to use an operating system so they can track us better, know who we are and where we are at every moment. We need laws against such laws.

#marketing #notifications #android #ui #ux #settings #design #QualityOfLife #computers #LockScreen #permissions #law #legal #lawsuits #ClassAction #rights #HumanRights #BillOfRights #identity #intrusion #interruption #4thAmendment #government #code

Weird as it sounds, I think we need an actual law, like some kind of bill of rights, that says you can't notify me on my phone without offering me highly fine-tuned control of each kind of message.

Notifications intrude into my life. Sometimes my phone is on waiting for emergencies or other high-priority issues while I sleep. If a friend wakes me, I can have them dialed up or down in priority.

But Android is designed so Audible won't let me have control of my audiobooks in the lock screen without notifications turned on, yet once I've done that, Audible has no compunction against advertising new book releases in the middle of the night via notifications. I should be able to get cash compensation in court for that.

And my USB-C cable, once I plug it into my Android phone insists on randomly popping up an utterly inscrutible notification saying "you need to log in if you want to see notifications", or some such, and then when I do there is no notification to see. It was just random.

And Android Auto likes to give me two completely pointless notifications, one when I plug my phone into the car and one saying Android Auto is available. The first one I don't need a notification about because I just plugged in my phone. But more importantly, the second one is a lie. Android Auto MIGHT be available and it confirms nothing. The handshake may have been done wrong, so all it tells me is the thing I know already, which is that Android Auto is on the phone. But I might have to pull the plug and replug it to be properly connected. So the notification is worse than pointless and just floods my screen with stuff I don't care about that appears to need immediate attention. And then Android asks, as soon as I disconnect it, how my experience was. I always say "Bad" because part of my experience is getting asked that pesky message that I do not want and would happily say "never do this".

These all seem like technical problems, but they are not. They are reminders that we no longer control our lives, that companies can, at a whim, intrude into our lives with pointless rituals that whittle away our existence. I'm not being metaphorical when I say we need laws on this. I absolutely mean that if we don't write strong law on this, it will only get worse. Or we need to enforce the 4th Amendment on a theory, like Larry Lessig has effectively said in the past, that programmatic code is effectively a kind of government that binds us and our choices in life as surely as legal code does.

But what DO we get laws about? Having to login to use an operating system so they can track us better, know who we are and where we are at every moment. We need laws against such laws.

#marketing #notifications #android #ui #ux #settings #design #QualityOfLife #computers #LockScreen #permissions #law #legal #lawsuits #ClassAction #rights #HumanRights #BillOfRights #identity #intrusion #interruption #4thAmendment #government #code

Weird as it sounds, I think we need an actual law, like some kind of bill of rights, that says you can't notify me on my phone without offering me highly fine-tuned control of each kind of message.

Notifications intrude into my life. Sometimes my phone is on waiting for emergencies or other high-priority issues while I sleep. If a friend wakes me, I can have them dialed up or down in priority.

But Android is designed so Audible won't let me have control of my audiobooks in the lock screen without notifications turned on, yet once I've done that, Audible has no compunction against advertising new book releases in the middle of the night via notifications. I should be able to get cash compensation in court for that.

And my USB-C cable, once I plug it into my Android phone insists on randomly popping up an utterly inscrutible notification saying "you need to log in if you want to see notifications", or some such, and then when I do there is no notification to see. It was just random.

And Android Auto likes to give me two completely pointless notifications, one when I plug my phone into the car and one saying Android Auto is available. The first one I don't need a notification about because I just plugged in my phone. But more importantly, the second one is a lie. Android Auto MIGHT be available and it confirms nothing. The handshake may have been done wrong, so all it tells me is the thing I know already, which is that Android Auto is on the phone. But I might have to pull the plug and replug it to be properly connected. So the notification is worse than pointless and just floods my screen with stuff I don't care about that appears to need immediate attention. And then Android asks, as soon as I disconnect it, how my experience was. I always say "Bad" because part of my experience is getting asked that pesky message that I do not want and would happily say "never do this".

These all seem like technical problems, but they are not. They are reminders that we no longer control our lives, that companies can, at a whim, intrude into our lives with pointless rituals that whittle away our existence. I'm not being metaphorical when I say we need laws on this. I absolutely mean that if we don't write strong law on this, it will only get worse. Or we need to enforce the 4th Amendment on a theory, like Larry Lessig has effectively said in the past, that programmatic code is effectively a kind of government that binds us and our choices in life as surely as legal code does.

But what DO we get laws about? Having to login to use an operating system so they can track us better, know who we are and where we are at every moment. We need laws against such laws.

#marketing #notifications #android #ui #ux #settings #design #QualityOfLife #computers #LockScreen #permissions #law #legal #lawsuits #ClassAction #rights #HumanRights #BillOfRights #identity #intrusion #interruption #4thAmendment #government #code

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”*…

Following the often heated debate between Federalists and their opponents that led to the the ratification and adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were still unsatisfied. Then-Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by Anti-Federalists, collected proposals (16 in all), and then crafted a series of 12 proposed corrective amendments. Congress approved the twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. 10 were ultimately ratified– the first 10 amendments to our Constitution… or as we know them, The Bill of Rights.

In an excerpt from his book, Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, Ray Raphael elaborates…

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, did not follow the precedent set by these state constitutions. Despite spending almost four months drafting their new plan, the framers did not include within it a thoughtful listing of rights but only a scattering of guarantees. On September 12, just five days before the end of the Convention, George Mason finally suggested that delegates add a “Bill of Rights” similar to the state declarations of rights, but his motion failed to garner the support of a single state delegation.

Although state conventions ratified the Constitution, several included a caveat: the new plan should be amended as soon as possible. In fact, they proposed scores of amendments, some resembling provisions of what we now know as the Bill of Rights, but many others altering or even deleting structural features of the Constitution. New York’s convention coupled its list of proposed amendments with a demand for a second federal convention to consider these various proposals. The profusion of proposed amendments, plus the prospect of a second convention, frightened supporters of the Constitution, who feared that a new convention, if it met, would revise the fledgling Constitution before it could be put into effect and gut some of its major provisions.

Most leading Federalists hunkered down. In arguing against a second federal convention, they insisted that a bill of rights was not necessary and could even jeopardize rights that were not included. The job of the Constitution, they said, was to state what government could do, not what it couldn’t do. Rights already were secured because the government possessed no power that allowed it to impinge upon them. In fact, any catalog of specified rights would imply that rights were limited to those in the catalog, and not others.

James Madison and George Washington agreed with this argument, but they also took an accurate measure of people’s displeasure. It was strong and it was widespread. Rather than fight a rearguard action against the wave of discontent, they preferred to channel and control it. Article V of the Constitution stipulated that either Congress or state conventions might propose amendments. If Congress acted first, Madison and Washington reasoned, it could take charge of the issue and protect the substantive features of the new plan–congressional taxation, for instance–while giving ground elsewhere. Madison, meanwhile, pledged to his Virginia constituents that he would work to add a bill of rights if they elected him to represent them in Congress.

Once elected, in the First Federal Congress, Madison whittled down the large list of amendments suggested by the states’ ratifying conventions. With President Washington’s blessing, he proposed nineteen that did not endanger key constitutional components. After considerable debate and some revision, Congress pared Madison’s list down to twelve amendments, which it sent to the states for approval. Ten of these, which we call today the Bill of Rights, were ratified by three-quarters of the states, as required by the new Constitution. The genesis of the Bill of Rights, like the origins of the Constitution, was political as well as theoretical.

The short-term effect of the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights was to put a Federalist stamp on the amendments and to doom the attempts by the Constitution’s opponents to modify the substantive or structural features of the new plan. The long-term effect was to reinforce America’s culture of rights and to infuse specific rights into American jurisprudence. After more than two centuries, the Bill of Rights, which had been so casually dismissed by the framers, figures so prominently in our minds that it often eclipses the Constitution itself. In an era when the word “government” has a bad name, the ten amendments that circumscribe the federal government’s authority over individuals are often viewed more favorably than the Constitution the framers created in 1787…

The backstory of the Bill of Rights, via the always-illuminating Delanceyplace.com

For more on the process that yielded them, and the texts of all 16 proposed amendments, see here.

* Thomas Jefferson, a critic of Federalists, in a 1787 letter to James Madison (who had originally been opposed to the idea of a “bill of rights,” both because he believed that the Constitution as written did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights, and because he [and some other Framers] believed that we have natural rights too numerous to list– and that anything not explicitly included in a Bill of Rights would be unprotected.)

###

As we ponder precedent, we might recall that it was on this date in 1930 that a BBC newsreader had nothing to communicate. His entire script for the 8:45 pm news bulletin was: “There is no news”… after which piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment. The wireless service then returned to broadcasting from the Queen’s Hall in London, where the Wagner opera Parsifal was being performed.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”*…

Following the often heated debate between Federalists and their opponents that led to the the ratification and adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were still unsatisfied. Then-Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by Anti-Federalists, collected proposals (16 in all), and then crafted a series of 12 proposed corrective amendments. Congress approved the twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. 10 were ultimately ratified– the first 10 amendments to our Constitution… or as we know them, The Bill of Rights.

In an excerpt from his book, Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, Ray Raphael elaborates…

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, did not follow the precedent set by these state constitutions. Despite spending almost four months drafting their new plan, the framers did not include within it a thoughtful listing of rights but only a scattering of guarantees. On September 12, just five days before the end of the Convention, George Mason finally suggested that delegates add a “Bill of Rights” similar to the state declarations of rights, but his motion failed to garner the support of a single state delegation.

Although state conventions ratified the Constitution, several included a caveat: the new plan should be amended as soon as possible. In fact, they proposed scores of amendments, some resembling provisions of what we now know as the Bill of Rights, but many others altering or even deleting structural features of the Constitution. New York’s convention coupled its list of proposed amendments with a demand for a second federal convention to consider these various proposals. The profusion of proposed amendments, plus the prospect of a second convention, frightened supporters of the Constitution, who feared that a new convention, if it met, would revise the fledgling Constitution before it could be put into effect and gut some of its major provisions.

Most leading Federalists hunkered down. In arguing against a second federal convention, they insisted that a bill of rights was not necessary and could even jeopardize rights that were not included. The job of the Constitution, they said, was to state what government could do, not what it couldn’t do. Rights already were secured because the government possessed no power that allowed it to impinge upon them. In fact, any catalog of specified rights would imply that rights were limited to those in the catalog, and not others.

James Madison and George Washington agreed with this argument, but they also took an accurate measure of people’s displeasure. It was strong and it was widespread. Rather than fight a rearguard action against the wave of discontent, they preferred to channel and control it. Article V of the Constitution stipulated that either Congress or state conventions might propose amendments. If Congress acted first, Madison and Washington reasoned, it could take charge of the issue and protect the substantive features of the new plan–congressional taxation, for instance–while giving ground elsewhere. Madison, meanwhile, pledged to his Virginia constituents that he would work to add a bill of rights if they elected him to represent them in Congress.

Once elected, in the First Federal Congress, Madison whittled down the large list of amendments suggested by the states’ ratifying conventions. With President Washington’s blessing, he proposed nineteen that did not endanger key constitutional components. After considerable debate and some revision, Congress pared Madison’s list down to twelve amendments, which it sent to the states for approval. Ten of these, which we call today the Bill of Rights, were ratified by three-quarters of the states, as required by the new Constitution. The genesis of the Bill of Rights, like the origins of the Constitution, was political as well as theoretical.

The short-term effect of the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights was to put a Federalist stamp on the amendments and to doom the attempts by the Constitution’s opponents to modify the substantive or structural features of the new plan. The long-term effect was to reinforce America’s culture of rights and to infuse specific rights into American jurisprudence. After more than two centuries, the Bill of Rights, which had been so casually dismissed by the framers, figures so prominently in our minds that it often eclipses the Constitution itself. In an era when the word “government” has a bad name, the ten amendments that circumscribe the federal government’s authority over individuals are often viewed more favorably than the Constitution the framers created in 1787…

The backstory of the Bill of Rights, via the always-illuminating Delanceyplace.com

For more on the process that yielded them, and the texts of all 16 proposed amendments, see here.

* Thomas Jefferson, a critic of Federalists, in a 1787 letter to James Madison (who had originally been opposed to the idea of a “bill of rights,” both because he believed that the Constitution as written did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights, and because he [and some other Framers] believed that we have natural rights too numerous to list– and that anything not explicitly included in a Bill of Rights would be unprotected.)

###

As we ponder precedent, we might recall that it was on this date in 1930 that a BBC newsreader had nothing to communicate. His entire script for the 8:45 pm news bulletin was: “There is no news”… after which piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment. The wireless service then returned to broadcasting from the Queen’s Hall in London, where the Wagner opera Parsifal was being performed.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”*…

Following the often heated debate between Federalists and their opponents that led to the the ratification and adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were still unsatisfied. Then-Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by Anti-Federalists, collected proposals (16 in all), and then crafted a series of 12 proposed corrective amendments. Congress approved the twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. 10 were ultimately ratified– the first 10 amendments to our Constitution… or as we know them, The Bill of Rights.

In an excerpt from his book, Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, Ray Raphael elaborates…

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, did not follow the precedent set by these state constitutions. Despite spending almost four months drafting their new plan, the framers did not include within it a thoughtful listing of rights but only a scattering of guarantees. On September 12, just five days before the end of the Convention, George Mason finally suggested that delegates add a “Bill of Rights” similar to the state declarations of rights, but his motion failed to garner the support of a single state delegation.

Although state conventions ratified the Constitution, several included a caveat: the new plan should be amended as soon as possible. In fact, they proposed scores of amendments, some resembling provisions of what we now know as the Bill of Rights, but many others altering or even deleting structural features of the Constitution. New York’s convention coupled its list of proposed amendments with a demand for a second federal convention to consider these various proposals. The profusion of proposed amendments, plus the prospect of a second convention, frightened supporters of the Constitution, who feared that a new convention, if it met, would revise the fledgling Constitution before it could be put into effect and gut some of its major provisions.

Most leading Federalists hunkered down. In arguing against a second federal convention, they insisted that a bill of rights was not necessary and could even jeopardize rights that were not included. The job of the Constitution, they said, was to state what government could do, not what it couldn’t do. Rights already were secured because the government possessed no power that allowed it to impinge upon them. In fact, any catalog of specified rights would imply that rights were limited to those in the catalog, and not others.

James Madison and George Washington agreed with this argument, but they also took an accurate measure of people’s displeasure. It was strong and it was widespread. Rather than fight a rearguard action against the wave of discontent, they preferred to channel and control it. Article V of the Constitution stipulated that either Congress or state conventions might propose amendments. If Congress acted first, Madison and Washington reasoned, it could take charge of the issue and protect the substantive features of the new plan–congressional taxation, for instance–while giving ground elsewhere. Madison, meanwhile, pledged to his Virginia constituents that he would work to add a bill of rights if they elected him to represent them in Congress.

Once elected, in the First Federal Congress, Madison whittled down the large list of amendments suggested by the states’ ratifying conventions. With President Washington’s blessing, he proposed nineteen that did not endanger key constitutional components. After considerable debate and some revision, Congress pared Madison’s list down to twelve amendments, which it sent to the states for approval. Ten of these, which we call today the Bill of Rights, were ratified by three-quarters of the states, as required by the new Constitution. The genesis of the Bill of Rights, like the origins of the Constitution, was political as well as theoretical.

The short-term effect of the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights was to put a Federalist stamp on the amendments and to doom the attempts by the Constitution’s opponents to modify the substantive or structural features of the new plan. The long-term effect was to reinforce America’s culture of rights and to infuse specific rights into American jurisprudence. After more than two centuries, the Bill of Rights, which had been so casually dismissed by the framers, figures so prominently in our minds that it often eclipses the Constitution itself. In an era when the word “government” has a bad name, the ten amendments that circumscribe the federal government’s authority over individuals are often viewed more favorably than the Constitution the framers created in 1787…

The backstory of the Bill of Rights, via the always-illuminating Delanceyplace.com

For more on the process that yielded them, and the texts of all 16 proposed amendments, see here.

* Thomas Jefferson, a critic of Federalists, in a 1787 letter to James Madison (who had originally been opposed to the idea of a “bill of rights,” both because he believed that the Constitution as written did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights, and because he [and some other Framers] believed that we have natural rights too numerous to list– and that anything not explicitly included in a Bill of Rights would be unprotected.)

###

As we ponder precedent, we might recall that it was on this date in 1930 that a BBC newsreader had nothing to communicate. His entire script for the 8:45 pm news bulletin was: “There is no news”… after which piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment. The wireless service then returned to broadcasting from the Queen’s Hall in London, where the Wagner opera Parsifal was being performed.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”*…

Following the often heated debate between Federalists and their opponents that led to the the ratification and adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were still unsatisfied. Then-Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by Anti-Federalists, collected proposals (16 in all), and then crafted a series of 12 proposed corrective amendments. Congress approved the twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. 10 were ultimately ratified– the first 10 amendments to our Constitution… or as we know them, The Bill of Rights.

In an excerpt from his book, Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, Ray Raphael elaborates…

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, did not follow the precedent set by these state constitutions. Despite spending almost four months drafting their new plan, the framers did not include within it a thoughtful listing of rights but only a scattering of guarantees. On September 12, just five days before the end of the Convention, George Mason finally suggested that delegates add a “Bill of Rights” similar to the state declarations of rights, but his motion failed to garner the support of a single state delegation.

Although state conventions ratified the Constitution, several included a caveat: the new plan should be amended as soon as possible. In fact, they proposed scores of amendments, some resembling provisions of what we now know as the Bill of Rights, but many others altering or even deleting structural features of the Constitution. New York’s convention coupled its list of proposed amendments with a demand for a second federal convention to consider these various proposals. The profusion of proposed amendments, plus the prospect of a second convention, frightened supporters of the Constitution, who feared that a new convention, if it met, would revise the fledgling Constitution before it could be put into effect and gut some of its major provisions.

Most leading Federalists hunkered down. In arguing against a second federal convention, they insisted that a bill of rights was not necessary and could even jeopardize rights that were not included. The job of the Constitution, they said, was to state what government could do, not what it couldn’t do. Rights already were secured because the government possessed no power that allowed it to impinge upon them. In fact, any catalog of specified rights would imply that rights were limited to those in the catalog, and not others.

James Madison and George Washington agreed with this argument, but they also took an accurate measure of people’s displeasure. It was strong and it was widespread. Rather than fight a rearguard action against the wave of discontent, they preferred to channel and control it. Article V of the Constitution stipulated that either Congress or state conventions might propose amendments. If Congress acted first, Madison and Washington reasoned, it could take charge of the issue and protect the substantive features of the new plan–congressional taxation, for instance–while giving ground elsewhere. Madison, meanwhile, pledged to his Virginia constituents that he would work to add a bill of rights if they elected him to represent them in Congress.

Once elected, in the First Federal Congress, Madison whittled down the large list of amendments suggested by the states’ ratifying conventions. With President Washington’s blessing, he proposed nineteen that did not endanger key constitutional components. After considerable debate and some revision, Congress pared Madison’s list down to twelve amendments, which it sent to the states for approval. Ten of these, which we call today the Bill of Rights, were ratified by three-quarters of the states, as required by the new Constitution. The genesis of the Bill of Rights, like the origins of the Constitution, was political as well as theoretical.

The short-term effect of the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights was to put a Federalist stamp on the amendments and to doom the attempts by the Constitution’s opponents to modify the substantive or structural features of the new plan. The long-term effect was to reinforce America’s culture of rights and to infuse specific rights into American jurisprudence. After more than two centuries, the Bill of Rights, which had been so casually dismissed by the framers, figures so prominently in our minds that it often eclipses the Constitution itself. In an era when the word “government” has a bad name, the ten amendments that circumscribe the federal government’s authority over individuals are often viewed more favorably than the Constitution the framers created in 1787…

The backstory of the Bill of Rights, via the always-illuminating Delanceyplace.com

For more on the process that yielded them, and the texts of all 16 proposed amendments, see here.

* Thomas Jefferson, a critic of Federalists, in a 1787 letter to James Madison (who had originally been opposed to the idea of a “bill of rights,” both because he believed that the Constitution as written did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights, and because he [and some other Framers] believed that we have natural rights too numerous to list– and that anything not explicitly included in a Bill of Rights would be unprotected.)

###

As we ponder precedent, we might recall that it was on this date in 1930 that a BBC newsreader had nothing to communicate. His entire script for the 8:45 pm news bulletin was: “There is no news”… after which piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment. The wireless service then returned to broadcasting from the Queen’s Hall in London, where the Wagner opera Parsifal was being performed.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”*…

Following the often heated debate between Federalists and their opponents that led to the the ratification and adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were still unsatisfied. Then-Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by Anti-Federalists, collected proposals (16 in all), and then crafted a series of 12 proposed corrective amendments. Congress approved the twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. 10 were ultimately ratified– the first 10 amendments to our Constitution… or as we know them, The Bill of Rights.

In an excerpt from his book, Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right, Ray Raphael elaborates…

The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, did not follow the precedent set by these state constitutions. Despite spending almost four months drafting their new plan, the framers did not include within it a thoughtful listing of rights but only a scattering of guarantees. On September 12, just five days before the end of the Convention, George Mason finally suggested that delegates add a “Bill of Rights” similar to the state declarations of rights, but his motion failed to garner the support of a single state delegation.

Although state conventions ratified the Constitution, several included a caveat: the new plan should be amended as soon as possible. In fact, they proposed scores of amendments, some resembling provisions of what we now know as the Bill of Rights, but many others altering or even deleting structural features of the Constitution. New York’s convention coupled its list of proposed amendments with a demand for a second federal convention to consider these various proposals. The profusion of proposed amendments, plus the prospect of a second convention, frightened supporters of the Constitution, who feared that a new convention, if it met, would revise the fledgling Constitution before it could be put into effect and gut some of its major provisions.

Most leading Federalists hunkered down. In arguing against a second federal convention, they insisted that a bill of rights was not necessary and could even jeopardize rights that were not included. The job of the Constitution, they said, was to state what government could do, not what it couldn’t do. Rights already were secured because the government possessed no power that allowed it to impinge upon them. In fact, any catalog of specified rights would imply that rights were limited to those in the catalog, and not others.

James Madison and George Washington agreed with this argument, but they also took an accurate measure of people’s displeasure. It was strong and it was widespread. Rather than fight a rearguard action against the wave of discontent, they preferred to channel and control it. Article V of the Constitution stipulated that either Congress or state conventions might propose amendments. If Congress acted first, Madison and Washington reasoned, it could take charge of the issue and protect the substantive features of the new plan–congressional taxation, for instance–while giving ground elsewhere. Madison, meanwhile, pledged to his Virginia constituents that he would work to add a bill of rights if they elected him to represent them in Congress.

Once elected, in the First Federal Congress, Madison whittled down the large list of amendments suggested by the states’ ratifying conventions. With President Washington’s blessing, he proposed nineteen that did not endanger key constitutional components. After considerable debate and some revision, Congress pared Madison’s list down to twelve amendments, which it sent to the states for approval. Ten of these, which we call today the Bill of Rights, were ratified by three-quarters of the states, as required by the new Constitution. The genesis of the Bill of Rights, like the origins of the Constitution, was political as well as theoretical.

The short-term effect of the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights was to put a Federalist stamp on the amendments and to doom the attempts by the Constitution’s opponents to modify the substantive or structural features of the new plan. The long-term effect was to reinforce America’s culture of rights and to infuse specific rights into American jurisprudence. After more than two centuries, the Bill of Rights, which had been so casually dismissed by the framers, figures so prominently in our minds that it often eclipses the Constitution itself. In an era when the word “government” has a bad name, the ten amendments that circumscribe the federal government’s authority over individuals are often viewed more favorably than the Constitution the framers created in 1787…

The backstory of the Bill of Rights, via the always-illuminating Delanceyplace.com

For more on the process that yielded them, and the texts of all 16 proposed amendments, see here.

* Thomas Jefferson, a critic of Federalists, in a 1787 letter to James Madison (who had originally been opposed to the idea of a “bill of rights,” both because he believed that the Constitution as written did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights, and because he [and some other Framers] believed that we have natural rights too numerous to list– and that anything not explicitly included in a Bill of Rights would be unprotected.)

###

As we ponder precedent, we might recall that it was on this date in 1930 that a BBC newsreader had nothing to communicate. His entire script for the 8:45 pm news bulletin was: “There is no news”… after which piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment. The wireless service then returned to broadcasting from the Queen’s Hall in London, where the Wagner opera Parsifal was being performed.

If I had my say, the Bill of Rights would contain the right to be a goofball.

#goof #goofballs #BillOfRights

If I had my say, the Bill of Rights would contain the right to be a goofball.

#goof #goofballs #BillOfRights

If I had my say, the Bill of Rights would contain the right to be a goofball.

#goof #goofballs #BillOfRights

If I had my say, the Bill of Rights would contain the right to be a goofball.

#goof #goofballs #BillOfRights

@aaron.rupar

"Being a citizen in our country is a privilege, not a right."
-Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi (who has apparently never read the US Constitution)

Among other things (so many other things), it is called the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Privileges."

#BillOfRights #USConstitution #Constitution #US #USA

"The First Amendment has been around for a lot longer than Trump and MAGA. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights. Trump’s near-constant attacks on it are a serious matter, and we should take them seriously. Our continued exercise of our rights under the First Amendment is essential to its survival."
- Joyce Vance
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/attacking-the-first-amendment-on

#FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #BillOfRights #Constitution #Freedom #US #USA #UnitedStates #America #Fascism #DonaldTrump #Trump

Kristi Noem is reportedly considering sleeping over in American’s homes (whether or not they want her to) just so she can violate the 3rd Amendment too, and have a matched set of violated Amendments.

#USpol #BillOfRights #noem

Kristi Noem is reportedly considering sleeping over in American’s homes (whether or not they want her to) just so she can violate the 3rd Amendment too, and have a matched set of violated Amendments. #USpol #BillOfRights #noem

@chariselee.bsky.social Absolute truth and El tRumpo donors are investors in both the prison system and the concentration camps #USA #PrisonSlavery #BillOfRights #Constitution #Immigration

All of this talk about having English as a national language is so unAmerican and enforcing it would be unconstitutional. These people do not care about the first amendment, or even the fourteenth. They don't even know the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It is just another form of xenophobia and they are just upset because they heard someone say something in a language they don't like to hear.

#USA #Politics #FirstAmendment #1stAmendment #FreedomofSpeech #14thAmendment #Constitution #BillofRights #History #Xenophobia #USPol

The #BillOfRights is a co-signed statement of #FirstPrinciples and #CoreValues that was—literally—revolutionary for its time in #history.

Remember that.

The #BillOfRights is a co-signed statement of #FirstPrinciples and #CoreValues that was—literally—revolutionary for its time in #history.

Remember that.

The #BillOfRights is a co-signed statement of #FirstPrinciples and #CoreValues that was—literally—revolutionary for its time in #history.

Remember that.

The #BillOfRights is a co-signed statement of #FirstPrinciples and #CoreValues that was—literally—revolutionary for its time in #history.

Remember that.

The #BillOfRights is a co-signed statement of #FirstPrinciples and #CoreValues that was—literally—revolutionary for its time in #history.

Remember that.

#Auspol #BillOfRights

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/31/australia-charter-bill-of-rights

The ‘pleasant fiction’ of a rules-based order has been blown apart. It’s time for Australia to codify a bill of rights

"Clearly something needed to be done to reinforce the rights and safety not just of the Jewish community, but all Australians."

"The immediate response to criminalise and punish was understandable – outlaw hate speech, ban hate groups, prohibit demonstrations and phrases, make the hatred of other human beings and their views go away by force of law and ministerial decree."

"That human rights were again reduced to a debating point in a political game pointed to the need to better define the rights and responsibilities of all citizens and residents."
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/31/australia-charter-bill-of-rights
#HumanRights #BillOfRights #hate #SocialCohesion #SocialFabric

America shoots to kill its own innocent citizens exercising their imaginary rights, like free speech or gun ownership.

The Bill of Rights was dead by the time Japanese-Americans were interred. We hanged citizens over their skin color, for kicks. Now America shoots anyone and anything it gets a rush out of shooting in the face or back. The Bill of Rights has been shot in the face and back so many times since it was written, shot with the blessing of the only politicians we are heavily propagandized to vote for, that to call it Swiss cheese is to insult holes.

#America #BillOfRights #BOR

America shoots to kill its own innocent citizens exercising their imaginary rights, like free speech or gun ownership.

The Bill of Rights was dead by the time Japanese-Americans were interred. We hanged citizens over their skin color, for kicks. Now America shoots anyone and anything it gets a rush out of shooting in the face or back. The Bill of Rights has been shot in the face and back so many times since it was written, shot with the blessing of the only politicians we are heavily propagandized to vote for, that to call it Swiss cheese is to insult holes.

#America #BillOfRights #BOR

The Third Amendment is all relevant again suddenly.

https://mstdn.social/@AngryBlackLady/115967749096398104

Previous time, also under the Shitstain:

https://solarbird.net/blog/2020/06/10/a-brief-thought-on-the-third-amendment/

Before that, I got nothin'. Anybody know anything about pre-Trump Third Amendment action? Or is the Shitstain the first President so obscene to make it matter again?

#uspol #uspolitics #politics #fascism #authoritarianism #ThirdAmendment #BillOfRights #FuckTrump #FuckICE #FuckDHS #FuckCBP

@Osteopenia_Powers
Do they oppose "the *whole* #BillOfRights? Let's see:

1. Freedom of Speech & Assembly? ✔️
2. "Only criminals carry guns"? ✔️
3. Right to privacy? ✔️
4. No warrantless searches? ✔️
5. Due Process? ✔️
6. Speedy trial? ✔️
7. Trial by jury? ✔️
8. No cruel/unusual punishment? ✔️
9. Rights beyond what's in the Constitution? ✔️
10. Rights not listed belong to the states? ✔️

Yep, there's a case to be made that the #DictatorDon Admin has either violated or shown contempt for all 10 rights.

SCOTUS seems to despise the Bill of Rights. The Republican party clearly does.

Democratic leadership has briefly stopped snoring and rolled over.

#USpolitics #Republicans #Democrats #SCOTUS #BillOfRights

ICE says its officers can forcibly enter homes during immigration operations without judicial warrants: 2025 memo

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-policy-officers-enter-homes-immigration-without-judicial-warrant-rcna255305

#ICE #Fascism
#USConstitution
#FourthAmendment
#BillOfRights
#Nazi

@newsguyusa

"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant."
https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d

That is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

There will certainly be lawsuits over this, which will determine if the US Constitution and Bill of Rights still mean anything in the USA.

#4thAmendment #BillOfRights #USConstitution #ICE #CBP #Trump #Fascism #Politics #News #US #USA

"Australia remains the only liberal democracy not to have adopted its own constitutional or statutory bill of rights. Instead there is a patchwork of local laws and international agreements...The Australian commitment to human rights is always subject to political whim."
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/18/for-all-the-talk-of-australian-values-our-rights-as-citizens-and-humans-remain-fragile

Hartmut Rosa, Situation and Constellation, On the Disappearance of Human Agency
"Particularly in our professional lives – but increasingly also in our leisure time – our decision-making is prescribed in advance by guidelines and forms, algorithms and apps, right down to the smallest of details. The role of situational, sensitive consideration and judgment is being replaced by the constellation-based machine logic of execution, which we wield on a daily basis. »Agree«/»Reject« – this is how agents of action turn into executors of actions."

"...When spheres of discretion and judgment disappear and the creativity of human agency is eliminated from everyday practices of execution, we feel an increased sense of powerlessness. And as our power of judgment dwindles, so does our energy to act."
>>
https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/hartmut-rosa-situation-and-constellation-fr-9783518588338

#HumanRights #citizens #dehumanisation #BillOfRights #HumanAgency #HumanAction #PowerOfJudgment #machine #algorithm #robodebt #HumanInTheLoop #HITL #HeterogeneousEnsemble #assemblage #apparatus #ToDoList #governance

"Australia remains the only liberal democracy not to have adopted its own constitutional or statutory bill of rights. Instead there is a patchwork of local laws and international agreements...The Australian commitment to human rights is always subject to political whim."
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/18/for-all-the-talk-of-australian-values-our-rights-as-citizens-and-humans-remain-fragile

Hartmut Rosa, Situation and Constellation, On the Disappearance of Human Agency
"Particularly in our professional lives – but increasingly also in our leisure time – our decision-making is prescribed in advance by guidelines and forms, algorithms and apps, right down to the smallest of details. The role of situational, sensitive consideration and judgment is being replaced by the constellation-based machine logic of execution, which we wield on a daily basis. »Agree«/»Reject« – this is how agents of action turn into executors of actions."

"...When spheres of discretion and judgment disappear and the creativity of human agency is eliminated from everyday practices of execution, we feel an increased sense of powerlessness. And as our power of judgment dwindles, so does our energy to act."
>>
https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/hartmut-rosa-situation-and-constellation-fr-9783518588338

#HumanRights #citizens #dehumanisation #BillOfRights #HumanAgency #HumanAction #PowerOfJudgment #machine #algorithm #robodebt #HumanInTheLoop #HITL #HeterogeneousEnsemble #assemblage #apparatus #ToDoList #governance

"Australia remains the only liberal democracy not to have adopted its own constitutional or statutory bill of rights. Instead there is a patchwork of local laws and international agreements...The Australian commitment to human rights is always subject to political whim."
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/18/for-all-the-talk-of-australian-values-our-rights-as-citizens-and-humans-remain-fragile

Hartmut Rosa, Situation and Constellation, On the Disappearance of Human Agency
"Particularly in our professional lives – but increasingly also in our leisure time – our decision-making is prescribed in advance by guidelines and forms, algorithms and apps, right down to the smallest of details. The role of situational, sensitive consideration and judgment is being replaced by the constellation-based machine logic of execution, which we wield on a daily basis. »Agree«/»Reject« – this is how agents of action turn into executors of actions."

"...When spheres of discretion and judgment disappear and the creativity of human agency is eliminated from everyday practices of execution, we feel an increased sense of powerlessness. And as our power of judgment dwindles, so does our energy to act."
>>
https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/hartmut-rosa-situation-and-constellation-fr-9783518588338

#HumanRights #citizens #dehumanisation #BillOfRights #HumanAgency #HumanAction #PowerOfJudgment #machine #algorithm #robodebt #HumanInTheLoop #HITL #HeterogeneousEnsemble #assemblage #apparatus #ToDoList #governance

"Australia remains the only liberal democracy not to have adopted its own constitutional or statutory bill of rights. Instead there is a patchwork of local laws and international agreements...The Australian commitment to human rights is always subject to political whim."
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/18/for-all-the-talk-of-australian-values-our-rights-as-citizens-and-humans-remain-fragile

Hartmut Rosa, Situation and Constellation, On the Disappearance of Human Agency
"Particularly in our professional lives – but increasingly also in our leisure time – our decision-making is prescribed in advance by guidelines and forms, algorithms and apps, right down to the smallest of details. The role of situational, sensitive consideration and judgment is being replaced by the constellation-based machine logic of execution, which we wield on a daily basis. »Agree«/»Reject« – this is how agents of action turn into executors of actions."

"...When spheres of discretion and judgment disappear and the creativity of human agency is eliminated from everyday practices of execution, we feel an increased sense of powerlessness. And as our power of judgment dwindles, so does our energy to act."
>>
https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/hartmut-rosa-situation-and-constellation-fr-9783518588338

#HumanRights #citizens #dehumanisation #BillOfRights #HumanAgency #HumanAction #PowerOfJudgment #machine #algorithm #robodebt #HumanInTheLoop #HITL #HeterogeneousEnsemble #assemblage #apparatus #ToDoList #governance

"Australia remains the only liberal democracy not to have adopted its own constitutional or statutory bill of rights. Instead there is a patchwork of local laws and international agreements...The Australian commitment to human rights is always subject to political whim."
>>
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/18/for-all-the-talk-of-australian-values-our-rights-as-citizens-and-humans-remain-fragile

Hartmut Rosa, Situation and Constellation, On the Disappearance of Human Agency
"Particularly in our professional lives – but increasingly also in our leisure time – our decision-making is prescribed in advance by guidelines and forms, algorithms and apps, right down to the smallest of details. The role of situational, sensitive consideration and judgment is being replaced by the constellation-based machine logic of execution, which we wield on a daily basis. »Agree«/»Reject« – this is how agents of action turn into executors of actions."

"...When spheres of discretion and judgment disappear and the creativity of human agency is eliminated from everyday practices of execution, we feel an increased sense of powerlessness. And as our power of judgment dwindles, so does our energy to act."
>>
https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/hartmut-rosa-situation-and-constellation-fr-9783518588338

#HumanRights #citizens #dehumanisation #BillOfRights #HumanAgency #HumanAction #PowerOfJudgment #machine #algorithm #robodebt #HumanInTheLoop #HITL #HeterogeneousEnsemble #assemblage #apparatus #ToDoList #governance

Let's all revisit the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. #fourthamendment #billofrights #constitution #unitedstates #usa #civilliberties #constitutionalrights #constitutionallaw #privacy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...

Fourth Amendment to the United...

#ÜberwachungsStaat #MenschenRechte #Bürgerrechte
#PrivatSphäre
#ChatKontrolle

(4/4)

...#BillOfRights seit dem Brexit zunehmend einen anderen Weg:

"👉#Großbritannien will #Apple und #Google „ermutigen“, Systeme zur Blockierung von Nacktdarstellungen auf Smartphones zu installieren👈.
Laut einem Bericht strebt die Regierung die Einführung von „#Algorithmen zur Erkennung von #Nacktdarstellungen“ in #iOS und #Android an... "

//

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/12/uk-to-encourage-apple-and-google-to-put-nudity-blocking-systems-on-phones/

@Em0nM4stodon

#Religion #Consciousness #BillOfRights

Heather Cox Richardson 12/21/25

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

Virginia Bill Of Rights

Fulfilling #America's Unfinished Promise of Individual #Liberty: A Second #BillofRights

#StetsonUniversity College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming

90 Pages Posted: 13 Nov 2025
W.C. Bunting

#Corporate consolidation and the expansion of the #administrative state have created unprecedented concentrations of #power that threaten #democratic #selfgovernance. This Article argues that the solution lies not in novel #constitutional theories

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5739408

Fulfilling #America's Unfinished Promise of Individual #Liberty: A Second #BillofRights

#StetsonUniversity College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming

90 Pages Posted: 13 Nov 2025
W.C. Bunting

#Corporate consolidation and the expansion of the #administrative state have created unprecedented concentrations of #power that threaten #democratic #selfgovernance. This Article argues that the solution lies not in novel #constitutional theories

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5739408

Fulfilling #America's Unfinished Promise of Individual #Liberty: A Second #BillofRights

#StetsonUniversity College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming

90 Pages Posted: 13 Nov 2025
W.C. Bunting

#Corporate consolidation and the expansion of the #administrative state have created unprecedented concentrations of #power that threaten #democratic #selfgovernance. This Article argues that the solution lies not in novel #constitutional theories

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5739408

Fulfilling #America's Unfinished Promise of Individual #Liberty: A Second #BillofRights

#StetsonUniversity College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming

90 Pages Posted: 13 Nov 2025
W.C. Bunting

#Corporate consolidation and the expansion of the #administrative state have created unprecedented concentrations of #power that threaten #democratic #selfgovernance. This Article argues that the solution lies not in novel #constitutional theories

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5739408

Fulfilling #America's Unfinished Promise of Individual #Liberty: A Second #BillofRights

#StetsonUniversity College of Law Research Paper Forthcoming

90 Pages Posted: 13 Nov 2025
W.C. Bunting

#Corporate consolidation and the expansion of the #administrative state have created unprecedented concentrations of #power that threaten #democratic #selfgovernance. This Article argues that the solution lies not in novel #constitutional theories

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5739408

The US Constitution is Above Trump 💯 He does not get to say whatever he wants, & then that becomes law. That is the definition of a King. Which the Constitution gives the US people legal authority to evict him from office. The system is trying to fool people with this massive gaslighting campaign that we don't have these powers. "We the People..." 💯 do have these powers
#constitution #law #channelheed #billofrights #usa #mason #lake #america #constitutional #power #rights #citizens #unitedstates

Is speech truly free
When the cost is made so high
That we are muted

#Haiku #OneHaikuADay #WritersCollective #writingcommunity #BackToHaiku #Seasons #Summer #Autumn #Speech #FreeSpeech #Freedom #FreedomOfSpeach #Expression #FreedomOfExpression #Thought #Think #USA #Constitution #USConstitution #FirstAmendment #BillOfRights

September 16, 2025