Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Bill of Rights

Recommended Posts

Staff

 

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

 

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

 

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on

Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

 

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

 

Article the third... 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.

 

Article the fourth... 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.

 

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Article the sixth... 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.

 

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, 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, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Article the eighth... 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 defence.

 

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

 

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Article the twelfth... 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.

 

ATTEST,

 

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate

 

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

 

Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

 

Amendments 11-27

 

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

 

The U.S. Bill of Rights

 

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

 

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on

Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

 

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.

 

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.

 

Amendment III

 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

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 V

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, 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, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Amendment VI

 

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 defence.

 

Amendment VII

 

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

 

Amendment VIII

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

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.

 

Amendments 11-27

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If only the federal government would stick to its enumerated powers and our "leaders" would actually learn and follow the Constitution instead of sidestepping it (or in some cases, blatantly disregarding it). The checks and balances are too often ignored.

 

So many of our current issues should be states rights issues. The founders design intended the several states to be like their own "countries" under the protection of the central government. People have more access at the state and local level to change the things they don't like or agree with. If the majority disagreed with you, you could still move to another state.

 

When the feds take over, there is little recourse. Now, in many cases, you'd have to move to another country, because the fed gov has made laws across the board, things that aren't even within its purview.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sad but most of the Bill of Rights is dead or dying, States have surrendered their 10th amendment rights in exchange for Federal funds so they can try to retake their 10th rights BUT the Fed will simply cut off the $$$ and close all Federal facilities and see how a State operates then.... only way We the People could ever take back this nation would be to repeat the 1770's/1861... at this point in history and with time short and with all the surveillance technology and the progression of the Global Government its time no past time to be ready for the final death of freedom and hence Christians being hunted down. IF you are not familiar with the REAL ID Act of 2005 and its implications you best do so NOW! Its not the Mark but the precursor and once you take a REAL ID approved form of ID you are in the system. I gave up my drivers license 2007 and will NOT take a new DL/State photo ID period. I accepted Christ over 50 yrs ago so a NWO don't mean squat, they can take my freedom my life but NOT my soul nor my heavenly mansion.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Colorado Civil Rights Commission Updates Mission Statement To Simply Read 'Destroy Jack Phillips'

      DENVER, CO—In a change designed to make their mission more transparent to Colorado citizens, the state's Civil Rights Commission updated its mission statement Thursday to read simply "DESTROY JACK PHILLIPS." The post Colorado Civil Rights Commission Updates Mission Statement To Simply Read 'Destroy Jack Phillips' appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Judge Says Christian Baker Jack Phillips’ Lawsuit Against Civil Rights Officials Can Proceed

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in Denver rejected Colorado’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that state civil rights officials are waging a campaign of harassment against Jack Phillips, the Christian baker at issue in the landmark Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Three weeks after Phillips prevailed at the Supreme Court, a state anti-discrimination panel issued a new probable cause finding against him, arising from his refusal to create a gender transition cake for a would-be patron called Autumn Scardina. In turn, Phillips’ attorneys charged the panel with acting in bad faith, and asked a federal court to stop the new prosecution. “Colorado is acting in bad faith and with bias toward Jack,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Jim Campbell, who represents Phillips. “We look forward to moving forward with this lawsuit to ensure that Jack isn’t forced to create custom cakes that express messages in conflict with his faith.” The state asked Daniel to dismiss the lawsuit on three grounds: first, the state argued that the case should be dismissed because of legal rules that forbid federal courts from intervening in ongoing state court proceedings. Second, Colorado said that the 11th Amendment — which generally forbids lawsuits against state officials — bars Phillips’ suit. Daniels rejected those arguments. Phillips is also challenging a provision of Colorado law forbidding business owners from posting notices indicating certain patrons will not be served. The state argued that Phillips does not have standing to challenge that law. Daniel disagreed, explaining that provision chills Phillips’ speech and prevents him from engaging in an activity the First Amendment protects. However, the court dismissed Phillips’ bid to make the individual members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and its director personally liable for the damages he is seeking. The judge explained that the director and the commissioners are the functional equivalent of prosecutors, who enjoy total immunity from lawsuits when performing their official duties. Elsewhere in the decision, Daniel said that Phillips has presented evidence of unfair conduct on the commission’s part. The judge noted that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission extended protections to three bakers who declined to produce cakes bearing anti-gay messages, reasoning that those bakers do not have to relay messages with which they disagree. When Phillips made the same argument, however, the commission still found against him and assessed various penalties. “This disparate treatment reveals Director Elenis’ and the defendant commissioners’ hostility towards Phillips, which is sufficient to establish they are pursuing the discrimination charges against Phillips in bad faith, motivated by Phillips’ suspect class (his religion),” Daniel wrote. The Supreme Court found that the commission acted with unwarranted hostility toward Phillips’ Christian religious beliefs in June 2018. Former President Bill Clinton appointed Daniel to the federal bench in 1995. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Judge Says Christian Baker Jack Phillips’ Lawsuit Against Civil Rights Officials Can Proceed is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Nancy Pelosi And House Dems Introduce Bill That Would Immediately Restore Voting Rights For Convicted Felons Nationwide

      By Andrew Kerr - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats unveiled a bill Friday that would immediately restore voting rights to convicted felons nationwide. Convicted felons who have completed their prison sentences would have their voting rights restored, but those incarcerated at the time of an election would still be barred from voting. The bill would also mandate automatic voter registration nationwide. House Democrats unveiled details of a sweeping federal elections reform package Friday that, if enacted, would immediately restore voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their prison sentences nationwide. The bill, titled the “For the People Act,” would also mandate automatic voter registration nationwide for eligible voters that provide information to state government agencies such as the DMV. The act “makes automatic voter registration a mandate nationwide — not just in certain states or in certain counties — but nationwide,” Rep. John Lewis of Georgia said at a press conference announcing the bill Friday. “We must get there, and we will get there, as Democrats.” “It restores voting rights to felons who paid their debt to society,” Lewis added. The bill, also known as House Resolution 1, or H.R. 1, includes dozens of measures from House Democrats including election security, campaign finance and anti-corruption reforms. The package was introduced Thursday by Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland and co-sponsored by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It also includes a measure that would require sitting presidents and vice presidents, in addition to presidential and vice presidential candidates, to release 10 years of personal tax returns. The bill will “strengthen our democracy and return political power to the people by making it easier, not harder, to vote, ending the dominance of big money in our politics and ensuring that public officials actually serve the public,” Sarbanes said Thursday. The bill holds that “the right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.” Convicted felons who have served their sentence or are sentenced to serve “only a term of probation” would have their voting rights restored, but those incarcerated at the time of an election would be barred from voting. Convicted felons would be able to vote “in any election for Federal office held after the date of the enactment of this Act,” were it to be signed into law. The proposal was welcomed with open arms by the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, a law policy institute that focuses on voting rights and campaign finance reform. “The Brennan Center for Justice fully supports voting rights restoration for formerly incarcerated people who have past felony convictions,” Brennan Center spokesperson Alexandra Ringe told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The proposal comes less than two months after Florida voters elected to restore voting rights to nearly 1.5 million convicted felons. Pelosi committed to pushing the entire reform package through the House during a press conference Friday. “We are introducing H.R. 1 to … clean up corruption and restore integrity to government,” she said. “We put power back into the hands of the people.” “[W]e will have the complete H.R. 1 passed by the House of Representatives with the knowledge, transparency that the American people will know that this is an option that the House has given the Senate of the United States and the President of the United States to take action in support of the American people,” Pelosi said. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Nancy Pelosi And House Dems Introduce Bill That Would Immediately Restore Voting Rights For Convicted Felons Nationwide is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Ohio Legislature Defeats Kasich’s Veto On Gun-Owner Rights Bill

      By Henry Rodgers - Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich’s veto opposing a bill for gun owners’ rights was overturned by the Republican led state legislature Thursday afternoon. The state House first voted to overturn Kasich’s veto on the bill, which makes it easier for off-duty police officers to access guns and also changes laws regarding self-defense cases. The state Senate then voted a few hours later, 21-11, turning down Kasich’s veto on the legislation, The Associated Press reported. The bill was heavily supported by pro-gun groups in the state that pushed lawmakers to overturn the veto. The Republican governor also vetoed a bill banning abortion if an unborn baby has had a heartbeat, known as the “heartbeat bill,” which was voted on Thursday as well. However, the Senate failed to overturn Kasich’s veto. Kasich, who is known as a more moderate Republican, has been a critic of President Donald Trump, blaming GOP leadership and Democratic leadership for many of the problems going on in Washington, D.C. He has not ruled out a 2020 run as a third-party candidate against Trump. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Ohio Legislature Defeats Kasich’s Veto On Gun-Owner Rights Bill is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Civil Rights Groups Demand Zuckerberg Step Down Following Reports Of Anti-Soros Lobbying

      By Chris White - Several civil rights groups are calling on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg step down from the company’s board of directors after reports showed executives paid lobbying firms to target liberal financier George Soros. The Southern Poverty Law Center and MoveOn.org were among dozens of groups that wrote a letter to Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg demanding the company restructure its board. The request comes after The New York Times reported in November that the company worked to discredit Soros. “It’s become abundantly clear that, as currently constituted, your leadership team is unable to adequately address the valid concerns of the civil rights community,” the groups wrote in a letter Monday night. “It is now time for significant changes in, not only your policies, but also your leadership structure.” Liberal activists believe Facebook’s decision to use Republican-lobbying firm Definers Public Affairs to target the billionaire businessman is anti-Semitic. “Though Facebook has had significant time, opportunity and the benefit of input from experts and advocacy groups to address the problems on the platform, your company chose to target civil rights groups and our allies instead of changing the way you do business,” the letter adds. Facebook has not yet responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment regarding the letter. The Silicon Valley company has taken heat from conservatives and liberals as executives continue wrestling with claims they are not doing enough to suppress so-called fake news. President Donald Trump, in particular, has accused Facebook of censoring conservatives. “Facebook, Twitter and Google are so biased toward the Dems it is ridiculous! Twitter, in fact, has made it much more difficult for people to join @realDonaldTrump,” the president wrote in a Dec. 18 tweet. “They have removed many names & greatly slowed the level and speed of increase. They have acknowledged-done NOTHING!” The New York Times report is all the more surprising considering Facebook’s past alliance with Soros-linked groups. The company partnered with the Atlantic Council, an anti-Trump outfit that receives funds from Soros’s groups, in May to combat election meddling. The Atlantic Council has a “stellar reputation looking at innovative solutions to hard problems,” Facebook said in a press release at the time. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Civil Rights Groups Demand Zuckerberg Step Down Following Reports Of Anti-Soros Lobbying is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.