Lana asks: "What does the 9th amendment of the US stand for? Thanks for the answer in advance."

What Amendment IX means is that people have inherent rights granted to them by God (self defense, liberty, etc.) And just because those rights are not specifically enumerated (listed) in the Constitution doesn't mean they are denied.

A person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While those may be rights that we "protect" here in the United States, it is NOT a right granted by government. The founders of this nation recognized that those rights were inherent to all men. So much so, that the Amendment IX was included in the Bill of Rights to say that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Samuel Adams noted that:

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature--

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule.--

I hope this helps.

Zell Miller is proposing the repeal of the 17th Amendment, reports World Net Daily.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller is calling for the United States to restore the wishes of its Founding Fathers and empower state legislatures to appoint senators rather than be elected by voters.

The retiring Miller, who has garnered attention over the past year with stinging critiques of his Democratic Party, believes rescinding the 17th Amendment would curb the power of special interests in Washington while increasing the power of state governments.

If that notion sounds familiar to you, it may be because you read about it right here almost 2 years ago.

First, the popular election of Senators created all sorts of campain finance problems. With the passing of Seventeen, senators were immediately beholden to special interests, and large campaign contributors. While this influence was recently addressed with the McCain-Feingold law, both Senators and special interests have been busy finding ways around it.

Seventeen also dealt a serious blow to state's rights. With states removed from the federal process, the checks and balances the states had over the federal government was limited. The federal government not only began to expand uncontrollably, but it was empowered to impose its will over the individual states. Over time, mandates were imposed on the states, and the fed took control over some state institutions.

With the removal of checks and balances over the legislative branch, states were also removed from the federal judicial process. With states no longer having an influence on the selection of federal judges, Seventeen also destroyed the checks and balances over the judicial branch.

The movement to repeal Seventeen is nothing new. But this is the first I've heard of it from a sitting U.S. Senator (albeit a retiring one). Let's hope it picks up steam.

Should a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage be a priority? Some people seem to think so. Personally, I agree with this guy that there are much better Amendments we should be pushing. I don't want to quote the whole thing, so I'll paraphrase:

Repeal the Seventeenth
Amen to that. The Seventeenth allows for the popular election of Senators, and shifted political power away from the states to the all knowing federal government. Repealing it would not only restore some of the power to the states, but would also help limit ths size and scope of the fed.

Enact the Bricker Amendment
This Amendment basically states that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that no foreign treaty can override it. It sounds like common sense, but this Amendment was actually defeated in the Senate along party lines, 42-50; with Republicans voting for it, and Democrats voting against it.

Limit the government's power to seize private property
Many people don't realize it, but if a policeman stops you and discovers that you are carrying a large sum of money (with no real definition of large) he can seize it without due process. How would you like it if you just sold your car for $3000 cash and got stopped on the way to the bank. The officer could take your money and send you on your way, and according to the Supreme Court, it's all perfectly 'legal'.

Limit the government's power to seize real property
Eminent domain abuses are on the rise. Let's say Wal-Mart wants to tear down a few houses in your neighborhood to build a new store. They make an offer to buy your property, but you refuse. Rather than look for a different location, they head over to city hall and strike a deal with your local government. The town council decides to condemn your property and force you to sell to Wal-Mart. Their justification is that they can seize your property under 'eminent domain' because the town is better served by the tax revenue and jobs created by Wal-Mart, than with the paltry property taxes they collect from you each year. Not only is this happening, but our Supreme Court has said that it's okay.

Neal has some good ideas, but why stop there. I would add several more proposed Constitutional Amedments, all of which are more important than the "defense of marriage".

Limit the government's power to usurp private property rights
Right now there are numerous state and local governments telling people what they cannot do on their own property. New York, California, Florida, and other state and local governments have passed laws telling people they cannot smoke on their own property. Some government employees have been told they cannot smoke at all, and if they do they'll be fired. Smoking may be a disgusting habit, but it's legal, and telling someone that they cannot allow people to smoke on their property or on their own spare time is no business of the government. I would wholeheartedly support an Amendment that tells the Pleasure Police nannies that they cannot usurp the rights of property owners and individual citizens. I could call it the "If you don't like it, carry your ass" Amendment.

Re-affirm the Bill of Rights
How about we re-affirm the Bill of Rights, and put some of these arguments to bed forever. Wouldn't it be nice if you could speak out against a politician within 60 days of a general election? How about if in spite of the fact you live in New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, or California, you could buy a gun and use it to defend your life, liberty, and property? How about we restore the States Rights Amendment (Amendment Ten)? Over the past several years the Bill of Rights has been just about gutted, and it's time we restored the enumeration of our rights to their former glory. Wouldn't it be nice if the phrase "Congress shall make no law" actually meant that Congress shall make no law. Would that be so bad?

Whether you support gay marriage, or are vehemently opposed to it, can you honestly say that an Amendment on the subject is more important than any one of these?

Flag burning, and desecration of the flag of the United States is a hideous act. I hold nothing but contempt for people that burn our colors. That said, I think that Republican's repeated attempts to ban flag burning are wrong, and should be stopped.

Flag burning is a form of political expression, that should be protected under the First Amendment. This is exactly the kind of unpopular political speech that the First Amendment was created to protect. (Too bad the First was repealed by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Incumbent Protection Act.)

That is why it upsets me to hear that the House of Representatives passed a Constitutional Amendment that, if ratified, would decree: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States"

Fortunately, passage of this Constitutional Amendment to protect the flag is not likely. Although it passed the House, it still needs to pass the Senate with a two-thirds majority, AND be ratified by at least three-fourths of the states. Perhaps they could try attaching the William Jefferson Clinton Third Presidential Term Amendment to the measure as a sort of 'poisoned pill'.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XXIV, which prohibits States from collecting a "poll tax" for federal elections. Twenty-Four states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Amendment 24, which was 100 years overdue, was passed largely because of the Civil Right's movement of the 1960s. The general premise is that the government should not regulate the basic rights of American citizens. As with any government regulation, taxation or otherwise, comes the infringement of freedom. For those of you who don't know, many states implemented poll taxes after the Civil War. It was a useful tool to keep poor blacks from voting. Upon the Amendment's ratification in 1964, there was a great number of people that were able to vote for the very first time in their lives.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment IX. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Since I have been taking some expected abuse over at the Command Post for my criticism of the Allied gun grab in Iraq, I'm reviving this category, to pay homage to this often overlooked member of our Bill of Rights. I am not surprised that pundits have resorted to name calling and abuse, calling my views "extremist", and suggesting I have a "militia" like attitude. I can only assume that this is just short of playing the "race card", and likening me to the "Militias" formed by 1980s white supremacists. Still, I shrug all that off.

Most notable though, is the common feeling that Iraqis are living in a war zone, and thus have no right to bear arms. The feeling is that the safety of our troops is paramount, and that taking guns away from Iraqi citizens is just good "common sense." I've also been criticized for holding the belief that all humans, not just Americans, have a right to defend themselves. The feeling is that Americans have the right to liberty and self-defense, because our Constitution gives us that right. Since Iraqis are not bound, nor protected, by the U.S. Constitution, they have no such rights.

While I have the utmost concern for our men and women in harms way, it is still my firm belief, that the right to defend yourself is not something that is granted, or written down. It is inherent and absolute. A law of nature, or if you will, a right granted by God.

If you look at nature, creatures all over the planet exercise their defensive instinct. If you go to pick up a snake or a rat or anything else, and it bites you, do you blame the thing for biting you? Do you say that it had no right to defend itself? Do you ask what government or societal entity granted that creature the right to defend itself? Why should humans be any different?

A person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While that may be a right that we "protect" here in the United States, it is NOT a right granted by government. The founders of this nation recognized that those rights were inherent to all men. So much so, that the Amendment IX was included in the Bill of Rights to say that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Samuel Adams noted that:

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature--

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule.--

And that, my friends, is why I contend that every being has a natural right to self defense and liberty. They have and should defend those rights the best way that they can. That is also why I feel that no governmental body can take away those rights, nor should they try.

I had been planning on ranting about this topic for quite some time. A recent post I read on another weblog made me finally take the plunge. Things have been heating up in a certain corner of the blog universe. Someone posted something. Then when they got some criticism about what they posted, they took it personally. They viewed that criticism as personal attacks. They started deleting negative comments and criticism, and even banned several readers, which is no less than censorship. Then they had the gall to whine about their First Amendment rights being violated, and people trying to suppress their freedom of speech, simply because they were criticised for what they said. THAT HITS A NERVE.

Freedom of expression means that you have the right to express yourself without fear of persecution, not fear of criticism. The notion that criticism equates with censorship is ludicrous. As a matter of fact, criticism is a celebration of their freedom of speech, not a suppression of it.

The notion that someone has the right to say what they feel without any accountability what-so-ever is a rather new phenomena that has been creeping in from the left. Those that preach 'tolerance' of others are typically the first ones to scream persecution whenever someone disagrees with what they have to say.

Lets say I take the position that the world is actually a giant disc on the backs of four huge elephants. And those four elephants are standing on a giant turtle that is swimming through space. Lets say I present this position and all sorts of evidence to support it. People would probably start saying I was a crackpot, and an idiot, or that I was living in a fantasy world. I would definitely get some criticism. That criticism however, is not a suppression of freedom.

You see, even though I have the right to speak out for what I believe in, you have the right to judge me and hold me accountable for what I say. You have the right to hate me. You have the right to refuse to hire me for a job, or vote me out of public office. You have the right to turn off my TV show, walk out of the movie I star in, or refuse to eat in my restaurant. You even have the right to complain to my employer, and tell them you won't buy their products as long as I work for them. You may support me and my right to voice my opinion, you may ignore me, or you may exercise your right to speak out against me. Regardless of your actions, my right to speak out has not been infringed. Even if your opposition causes me to lose my job, my family, my livelihood, that is the price I pay for my freedom.

Let me give you a better example. Lets say your wife comes home from the beauty salon with a new hair cut, and you think it looks horrible. Naturally, the first thing she does is ask you how she looks. What are you going to do? Are you going to exercise your freedom of expression, and tell her it looks like someone attacked her with a weed wacker? If you do, the price you pay for freely expressing your opinion may include sleeping on the couch, or going to bed without supper. Does that mean she's taking away your freedom of expression? No. It simply means that everything has a price. You can pay the price and tell her what you really think, or you can bite your tongue and live to pay the price some other day. (Like when your mother-in-law comes to visit)

About two weeks ago, in the heart of my Constitutional Amendment rants, I wrote about Bad Constitutional Amendment number XVII.

The next day, John W Dean wrote about it. (But I didn't see it until today.) Dean writes about how our 20th Century tinkering with the Constitution has shifted the balance of power between the states and the federal government, and what the ramifications have been over the years.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XXVII:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Twenty Seven is not really all that ground breaking or special, as much as it is interesting. The amendment was originally drafted in 1789, but not ratified until 1992, more than 200 years later. It was one of the first 12 Amendments to be drafted, and would have been part of the Bill of Rights, but it wasn't ratified by enough states. With no expiration date, it sat un-ratified for 80 years, when Ohio ratified it to protest a Congressional pay hike. It then languished for more than 100 years, until Wyoming ratified it in 1978. From 1983 to 1992, it steadily gained enough states to become law, largely due to the championing of Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator.

In a time when Congressional pay raises are automatic, unless Congress votes to stop it, it is nice to note that our founding fathers had the foresight to propose this Amendment.
src

Today's Bad Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XVII, which requires that Senators be elected by popular vote. There currently isn't much debate over Seventeen, and most people couldn't even tell you what it changed. Seventeen was passed in 1912 and ratified in 1913. It was passed to try to bring the government closer to the people, and the people closer to a true democracy. Previously, Senators were appointed by state legislatures, and there were procedural problems with deadlocked legislatures, unable to agree on a Senator. There were also allegations that legislatures could be easily corrupted. While Seventeen cleared away these problems, it created many more.

First, the popular election of Senators created all sorts of campain finance problems. With the passing of Seventeen, senators were immediately beholden to special interests, and large campaign contributors. While this influence was recently addressed with the McCain-Feingold law, both Senators and special interests have been busy finding ways around it.

Seventeen also dealt a serious blow to state's rights. With states removed from the federal process, the checks and balances the states had over the federal government was limited. The federal government not only began to expand uncontrollably, but it was empowered to impose its will over the individual states. Over time, mandates were imposed on the states, and the fed took control over some state institutions.

With the removal of checks and balances over the legislative branch, states were also removed from the federal judicial process. With states no longer having an influence on the selection of federal judges, Seventeen also destroyed the checks and balances over the judicial branch.

With the Florida election problems of 2000, and now 2002, there is a movement to disband the electoral college, and the checks and balances states currently have over the executive branch. This will remove the final check and balance states have over the federal government, and bring America closer to true democracy. While many people don't understand the difference between a democratic republic, and a true democracy, our founders understood the dangers of a true democracy and purposely established a representative government.

Democracy is a dangerous form of mob rule, where the will of the majority outweighs the rights of the individual. To borrow an example from the great Dr. Williams, how would you like it if democracy decided whom you were to marry, or where you were going to work. You'd probably object, wanting to make those decisions for yourself. Democracy is also dangerous in that it lends credibility to immoral acts. You need only look as far as Zimbabwe to see that a majority of the people should not be allowed to impose will over the minority, just because they voted on it first.
src src src

Today's Bad Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XVIII: Prohibition of Alcohol.

Believe it or not, there are some Bad Constitutional Amendments. Amendment Eighteen was passed largely due to special interest movements that started in the mid to late 19th Century. More than a dozen states had prohibition laws before the start of the Civil War, hoping to curtail public drunkenness, gambling, and prostitution. After the war, the movement, largely waged by women's groups, organized into the "Anti-Saloon League". The ASL, whose goal was national prohibition, polled politicians on their views, and was able to sweep the election of 1915. A few years later, Prohibition was quickly passed and ratified.

Eighteen is good proof that bans by the 'pleasure police' simply do not work. Whether or not you are banning alcohol, guns, drugs, or gambling, people are going to find a way around it. In the Roaring Twenties, organized crime profited heavily from prohibition. Bathtub gin and bootlegging were big money makers, while speakeasy saloons popped up all over the place. Countless people died, both from the lawless methods of production and distribution, and from the lack of liquor production standards. (Moonshine, if not manufactured properly can cause blindness or death.) Enforcement of the liquor ban was both expensive and ineffective, and it didn't help that the government could no longer collect tax revenue on the illegal products.

Lessons learned from prohibition are lost on today's special interest groups, who still hope to control your behavior. Movements are currently underway to ban or limit your access to cigarettes, guns, gambling, SUVs, and even fast food. Gun grabbers think that a gun ban will stop violent crime, while anti-smokers think that prohibitive sin taxes will stop smoking. In the 00's, numerous localities have attacked personal behavior from smoking to drinking gourmet coffee*. Eighteen should stand as a stern reminder of what can happen when special interest groups and pleasure police conspire to take away your rights, and control your behavior.

*Please note that while I am neither a smoker, nor a coffee drinker, I stand up for an individual's right to kick back and enjoy the pleasures of life as a personal reward for a hard day's work.

Ruston Easton continues his assault on the Second Amendment:

What I said was the INTENTION of the law was written for militias before there was any real "law enforcement agencies." And, yes, it does matter that no handguns or semi-automatic weapons existed at the time. And no, you can't apply the "there was no internet either, so they would have changed the 1st amendment if they knew about it," either. The internet doesn't kill people.

First, Ruston tries to twist the intention of the Founding Fathers to fit his argument. Lets look at the Bill of Rights. The first eight Amendments secure individual freedoms and liberties. Amendments 1 through 8 refer to an individual's right to expression and religion, right to bear arms, protection from quartering soldiers, protection against government searches and seizures, right to due process and compensation for takings, right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses, right to trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Amendment 9 even adds that these individual rights are not the only rights an individual has. However, Ruston would have you believe that even though all these other rights are specifically listed as individual rights, and even though the Second Amendment specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the Framers of the United States Constitution were actually referring to the 'state', AND, they were so careless, that they said 'people', when they actually meant to say 'state'.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789. src

Second, Ruston tries to say that advancements in firearms makes a difference. Not so. Your right to bear arms is an unalienable right of self protection and preservation. It is NOT a right to bear a vintage model long-bore mussel loading musket manufactured in 1798 . Just as criminals are carrying advanced firearms, so should you, to defend yourself and keep them in check.

Third, Ruston tries to demonize and personify guns as being a 'cause' of crime by saying the "internet doesn't kill people." Well, Ruston, firearms, SUVs, and fatty foods don't kill people. It is what PEOPLE DO with those inanimate objects that kills people.

Fourth, as for the internet killing people, you might as well say newspapers never killed anyone either. While you can argue back and forth the indirect involvement of media and communication in wars and crime, the point you made is a non sequitur. Don't bother grabbing your dictionary, that simply means that one point has nothing to do with the other. While comparing the advancements in media to the advancements in firearms IS logical when discussing the First vs. Second Amendments standing the test of time, it is quite ILLOGICAL (and incorrect), to say that an implement of freedom of speech never killed anyone, because that is not what we were discussing. It would be like me saying you can't use a typewriter to hunt a turkey.

Ruston, you like most liberals, speak from abject fear and emotion. I don't know whether or not you have ever handled a firearm, much less used one. I do know that liberals are very quick to try to take away or limit the very freedoms that I enjoy. While they may have the noblest of intentions, the proof is in the pudding. Crime is not caused by guns. We've had crime since the beginning of time, and will continue to have it with or without the availability of firearms.

I do know one thing for sure, guns are a great equalizer and deterrent. Unarmed, a 5' 100 lb woman doesn't stand much of a chance against a 6' 5" 300 lb man. Let her buy a snub nose .38 and learn how to defend herself with it, and you'd be surprised at how fast that man runs away. Sprinkle a few of those well armed and capable women around the city, and you'll be surprised at how many attackers think twice before trying to make one of them their victim. In fact, they'll probably leave that city, in search of easier prey. They may even turn up in your neighborhood, where liberals have been so kind as to disarm their victims for them.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XIV; specifically the equal protection and due process clauses:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment is long and verbose, but has some very important aspects to it. It was a direct product of the Civil War, and basically gave citizenship rights to any born or naturalized person in the US over 21 years of age.

The equal protection and due process clause, however, is highly important and the most used clause in Amendment 14. Most importantly, it forced individual states to abide by the Bill of Rights, which they were previously free to ignore. While the clause resulted in such good legislation as the Voting Rights Act, it was however, a direct blow to states' rights which were quickly eroding following the war.

Dr. Walter Williams points out that Fourteen has also protected citizens rights to free association. In 1958, two Virginia residents were convicted of miscegenation, for marrying interracially. Their case was heard by the US Supreme Court, which held that such laws were a violation of Fourteen. While today, most would agree that states should not be able to bar interracial marriage, what if they demanded it? What if you were forced to pick your wife based solely on her qualifications for the job, regardless of whether she was fat or thin, ugly or pretty, or black or white? Surely, that too would be a violation of Fourteen. Why then, do feminists insist on trying to break up private, all male golfing clubs such as Augusta National? Just as you should not be barred from allowing women or blacks into your private club, you shouldn't be mandated to do so either. Forced membership also violates Fourteen.

As Dr. Williams so eloquently puts it, the "true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable."

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment IV:

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.

Amendment IV protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Hopefully Congress will remember this Amendment when they are drafting RIAA butt-schmoozing legislation that permits them to hack into your computer looking for pirated music. Even Jack Valenti, President and CEO of the Motion Picture Ass. of America, started to step back from legislation that would not only try to repeal Amendment IV, but would limit a citizens right to file suit against firms for such invasions.

Most attacks against the Fourth Amendment have focused on deciphering just what constitutes 'unreasonable' searches and seizures, and how much 'probable cause' is needed. As the debate moves into cyberspace, look for private organizations like the RIAA and MPAA to resort to entrapment to get the 'probable cause' they need.

Apparently I struck a chord with Friday's "Constitutional Amendment of the Day".

Ruston Easton, would very much like to limit your gun rights:

Do we forget so easily that when the constitution was written the "arms" that would have been "beared" were muskets, which took maybe 30 sec. to a minute to load? There were no handguns, which were specially designed to kill, no AK-47s, or any other kind of automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Are you not aware that homes with guns are much more likely to cause an accidental death than they are a purposeful one? I'm not saying there should be no guns, but you are not accurately interpreting the constitution. Militias are specifically given the right, and that is to protect against tyranny of the government, definitely a good thing. But it does not protect an individual's right to carry a handgun or automatic weapon. That is where gun right's activists are misled.

Liberals love to point to the advancement of firearms as an excuse to regulate peoples rights. I guess we should limit freedom of the press because TV and Radio weren't around in the 1700s. There are numerous verifiable quotes from our founding fathers that express their exact intent when drafting the second amendment.

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

As for self defense, you are not allowed to murder somebody because they break into your home. You are allowed to use reasonable and necessary force to remove yourself from danger. We already have laws on the books that address this very situation.

As for fully-automatic firearms, they are already regulated. Most liberals don't know the difference between fully and semi automatic anyway.

Look at how Ruston, conveys himself: Militia's are "given" the right. The whole point of the bill of rights is that they are not granted or given, they are protected. Your right to life, liberty, and property are granted by God, not the government. Never mind that Militia's are run by the state, and thus would not be an effective deterrent against tyranny.

As for accidental deaths, his statement is just plain wrong. With respect to accidents in the home, toasters are much more likely to cause accidents in the home than firearms. With respect to the kill ratio of 'accidental deaths' vs. 'purposeful ones' this is probably in reference to Kellerman's 1986 paper. I'm not going to get into the flaws of his paper, but you can read about it here.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment II: "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."

Just as Amendment I confirms your basic rights to freedom of expression and religion, Amendment II confirms your basic individual right to keep and bear arms. Like it or not, your basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, expression, and religion are all protected at the point of a gun. Whereas the government is your first line of defense, your individual freedom to bear arms is your last.

In the US, self defense is a basic human right. Believe it or not, the police have no responsibility to protect individual life and property, and officers dispatched by the 911 emergency system are very rarely able to prevent crime. In fact, in the vast majority of cases the Police simply investigate crimes that have already been committed, and try to enforce laws after the fact. This doesn't help you very much if you are already dead. In nations like Britain, citizens have no right to self defense, and can actually be jailed for harming an attacker.

Freedom to keep and bear arms also provides a safeguard against tyranny. Throughout the ages, most murders take place at the hands of governments. People in power simply cannot be trusted, even during this day and age. Power has the ability to corrupt people, and an armed populace is a check and balance on that power. "Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty." -- Vladimir Lenin

Also, believe it or not, an armed society has proved to be a deterrent to foreign invasion. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan opted not to try to invade the US mainland for fear of armed citizens. Japan knew that millions of private citizens in America have firearms, and an invasion would be very costly.

Despite recent attacks on the individual right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment stands firm. September 11, has reminded us that our government is not always able to provide basic safety and security. Your individual right to protect yourself and your family should not be taken away.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The basic rights confirmed (not granted) by Amendment I are, by far, the most important foundations of a free society. Totalitarian governments usually have strict control over people's right of worship, expression, as well as their right to criticize the government. Controlling the press, and preventing criticism is especially important in maintaining any good dictatorship.

Today, people often confuse the freedom of expression with a right to be heard, or a right not to face the consequences of what is said. While you may have a right to express yourself, you don't have the right to force others to listen, nor do you have the right to force others to provide you with a medium. You must also be prepared for backlash from people if what you express is offensive. Just because you have the right to speak, doesn't mean that you should. Some people need to learn to shut up for their own good.

Freedom of religion is often confused with freedom FROM religion. So called, 'civil libertarians' see a religious display in a public place, and they wish to abolish it. They wish to expunge even generic references to 'God' and 'Creator', under the semblance that it is the state establishment of religion.

Regardless of these attacks, Amendment I is still at the core of our free society. Our founding fathers realized that certain rights were 'unalienable', and could not be taken away. Amendment I doesn't grant your freedom of speech, it protects it. It restricts the government from trying to take it away. Without it, we would never have gotten this far.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X was part of the original 10 Amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. Basically, it says that the power of the federal government comes from the individual states, and the people.

Two hundred years ago, people referred to themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, or Pennsylvanians rather than Americans. Our founding fathers realized that regional decisions were best made at the regional level, and not at the Nation's Capital. The Tenth Amendment was reassurance that States would remain in charge within their own borders, and could best represent their populace.

Unfortunately, by the mid 19th Century and culminating during the Civil War, Amendment number 10 was killed off. The Imperial Federal Government has seized sovereignty over all states within the Union, and these powers have been upheld in federal courts. The ever expanding Government reaches out with taxes on productivity, regulation of interstate commerce, and ownership of land within the states.

Limiting or even slowing down the growth of the Federal Government has proved to be very difficult, as more and more Americans look to the Fed to solve all of their problems. Congressmen, whether idealistic or opportunistic, use this welfare dependency to foster and maintain the power of the government and politicians.

Hopefully, some day Amendment X will be restored. Hopefully it will once again return to keeping a check and balance on the power, the size, and the reach of the Federal Government.

Today's Constitutional Amendment of the Day is Amendment XXI. What better way to celebrate Amendments than with the one that restored our freedom to celebrate in the second place. Amendment XXI (That's 21 for people in Palm Beach) repealed prohibition of alcohol and allowed people to once again purchase and possess it legally.

The repealing of prohibition is often overlooked, but it should stand as a prime example of what happens when special interests attack human behavior. Prohibition of alcohol seems absurd today, but there are many people out there that would like to prohibit cigarettes, fatty foods, gambling, and all the other vices in which we imperfect humans currently relish. A proliferation of dangerous home-made 'bathtub gin' and increased organized crime and bootlegging resulted from the passing of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).