Question

English prompt question?

"Write a unified, coherent, fully supported essay, at least 1000 words long, in which you consider the importance of precise language (and/or the implications of a lack thereof) in the Bill of Rights."

(If this is in the wrong section, feel free to move it)

Answer 1

See below

Explanation:

While I won't write your essay for you, I'll jump in and help point out a couple of places where you might want to start.

• Amendment 2 - The gun debate:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is where the debate over guns began. Did James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, and the House and Senate ratified, and that the existing states at that time approved, mean that the ownership of guns by "the people" should be allowed as part of maintaining a militia? Or did they mean that "the people" should be allowed "to keep and bear arms" and that maintaining a militia is one reason to allow it?

• Amendment 4 - Seizure of assets

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There are police jurisdictions that use something called "asset forfeiture". In essence, the argument made by those who do the asset forfeiture is that while a person is covered by this amendment, their stuff is not. And so stuff that is used in the committing of a crime can be seized (this happens in the case of drug dealers selling from their car, for example - the car is seen to be used in the committing of the crime and so is seized without having to go through the court process of arresting the drug dealer). Did Madison intend for people to be safe "secure in their persons", but not their stuff?

• Amendment 6 - Rights of the accused

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein 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.

There are a lot of things to pick apart here. How fast should that trial be? What does a "public trial" mean - that it should be broadcast on TV? And with the state of pubic defense attorneys (who are so overworked that they often can't give a defendant more than 10 minutes of their time) - what was meant by "assistance for his defense"? What level of "assistance" should a defendant receive?

Check out this link to see the full text of the Bill of Rights and to explore more places where they could have been more clear:

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/