Different U.S Bill of Rights

Hibernicus

Banned
What kind of state do you think might have evolved from the creation of these rights into the present day with these alterations to the U.S bill of rights

1. Congress shall make no law respecting a seperation of church and state, or promoting the subversive exercise of foreign religion's; or abridging the freedom of speech until called for in special circumstances, or of the press as so long as it protects state rights; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless deemed a public nuisance or is deemed a risk to the nation's interests, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated and constant internal army of at least 10,000 men, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the amy and special officers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless deemed fit by the President.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be denied quarter in any house by law, subject by arrest of Owner.

4.
The right of the government to search persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, the persons or things to be seized are required by law or treason can reasonabely be suspected.

5 .
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a government appointed over-seer, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; life, liberty, or property are subject to the verdict of any governmental judgement.

6. In most criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by a jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense for as long as the nation is at peace and professional summary judgement is not required.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by governmental judgement shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a governmental judgement, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted unless it should be deemed such measure would reveal the true intentions of the accused person.

9. All law shall be subject to change as deemed by a governmental party
reporting to the President in all said laws.

10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the ultimate authority of the President.
 
Yes, best move this to ASB forum as you're going to need some sort of massive changes for this to even be proposed.
 
I agree with the others. Most of this reads close enough to irrationality that I find it difficult to imagine it ever being arrived at naturally. You'd pretty much need the person or people involved to have knowledge of the version that exists in OTL and have malice aforethought to pervert the content and meaning. That lands it squarely in ASB territory, at absolute best.
 
The Founding Fathers would form a musical group before this alternate Bill of Rights would ever be passed.
 

Typo

Banned
It is an interesting bill which makes the POTUS some sort of el presidente figure, but it's really difficult to imagine the sort of US which would accept this bill and not rebel/secede.
 
What kind of state do you think might have evolved from the creation of these rights into the present day with these alterations to the U.S bill of rights . . .

You've started the USA off on a very different footing. Extrapolating out 220+ years is only remotely possible is you answer a couple of quinticentially important questions first: "How does this alternate understanding of the purpose of a Bill of Rights develop?" and "why were these particular alternate 'rights' enshrined in the Constitution?"
 

Hibernicus

Banned
I imagined some scenario where the American revolution was more of a coup than a popular uprising - just like if the revolutionaries decided they wanted their own power instead of giving it off to Britain, while being extremely xenophobic and paranoid to keep this newfound power.. I don't know why everyone would assume this would HAVE to pass I said earlier it would be imposed.

Rhodesia on steroids.
 

boredatwork

Banned
I imagined some scenario where the American revolution was more of a coup than a popular uprising - just like if the revolutionaries decided they wanted their own power instead of giving it off to Britain, while being extremely xenophobic and paranoid to keep this newfound power.. I don't know why everyone would assume this would HAVE to pass I said earlier it would be imposed.

Imposed,

Riiiiiight.

Just like the British Empire - with far more men & money - was able to impose order on the Colonies.

oh wait...
 

Hibernicus

Banned
Revolutionaries would be a lot closer than Britain and would also consider the colonies their home, coupled with some twisted patriotism I think they would impose order harder than any regular Redcoat simply doing his job for money.
 
You'd need a completely different set of Founders, because the ones we actually had didn't think like that. Also, yes, the BoR you have posited would have to be passed by the sitting representatives to be put into law, and I really don't see how that would occur. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights in OTL came about after the Constitution was adopted, specifically as a response to the desire to delineate precisely what rights the citizenry of the new nation enjoyed - and the citizenry had fought to gain these. Precisely what group of general citizens would have fought for the "rights" you listed??

If you posit instead an American Dictatorship, then I see two problems:

1. There would then be no impetus to even bother drawing up a Bill of Rights, since having such a thing provides grounds for the limitation of power of the government - not something generally considered desirable by dictators, and

2. As a necessary leftover result of the recent Revolution that threw off the British yoke (because a coup by just a small group intent on seizing power for themselves would never have managed it against British might), you've got an armed citizenry who know how to fight and how to organize themselves to fight effectively. How long do you really think that these citizens would stand still and allow themselves to be so harshly ruled as you suggest, having just fought to get rid of a different set of harsh rulers?

You're still gonna need those ASBs.
 
The 10th Amendment wouldn't be part of the 'Bill of Rights' but a part of the Constitution much like the Article 10 is. I'm not sure about the 'special circumstances' and 'in most criminal prosecutions' parts. I think those will sink any chance of adoption.
 

Hibernicus

Banned
You'd need a completely different set of Founders, because the ones we actually had didn't think like that. Also, yes, the BoR you have posited would have to be passed by the sitting representatives to be put into law, and I really don't see how that would occur. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights in OTL came about after the Constitution was adopted, specifically as a response to the desire to delineate precisely what rights the citizenry of the new nation enjoyed - and the citizenry had fought to gain these. Precisely what group of general citizens would have fought for the "rights" you listed??

If you posit instead an American Dictatorship, then I see two problems:

1. There would then be no impetus to even bother drawing up a Bill of Rights, since having such a thing provides grounds for the limitation of power of the government - not something generally considered desirable by dictators, and

2. As a necessary leftover result of the recent Revolution that threw off the British yoke (because a coup by just a small group intent on seizing power for themselves would never have managed it against British might), you've got an armed citizenry who know how to fight and how to organize themselves to fight effectively. How long do you really think that these citizens would stand still and allow themselves to be so harshly ruled as you suggest, having just fought to get rid of a different set of harsh rulers?

You're still gonna need those ASBs.

You are right, I should of focused more an an American dictatorship rather than zooming in on the Bill of Rights.
 
Top