The Bill of Rights has become a controversial topic and too few people have read the Constitution.  Is this a result of a lack of Civics classes in High School?
123889
They usd to teach civics when I was in High school- I don't know why they did away with it.\n\nI think with the emphasis in Social Sciences to teach kids multiculturalism, knwoing our own government has fallen on the wayside.\n\nSad, but apparently the powers that be would rather we know about semi-historical kingdoms in Zimbabwe than how or own government works.
656318
it is everything that you said. the way that America was set up made it so that it could last through the times with only slight changes. if you look at the constitution you can see that they have only made clarifications with all of the amendments but as a whole it hasn't changed for the 200+ years that it has been in place. we also offer many basic freedoms that many countries take away from people.  when you think about it when this country was formed with the government and all there had to be someone behind all of the process some God like being behind it all trying to help it all form correctly and to be able to run smoothly.
412591
Conflicts between liberty and order....officers of the peace!\n\nThe Bill of Rights was necessary....many state leaders feared  that without it, personal freedoms could be lost. They wanted them included or they would not ratify the Constitution. Due process....check the rights of the accused in the Constitution...Aamendment 5 if memory serves
567343
Whether you believe we need it or not, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, which the Founding Fathers found so important they called them the Rights Which We Hold True. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are not to be changed, and can not be changed, by law. If we were to give in, change them because we no longer think it is valid, how soon until the right to free speech, the press, freedom from quartering, search and seizure, the right vote, all become obsolete in someone's opinion, and removed.\n\nNo, need it or not, it must stand, because it is part of what we stand for, as a nation, from day one.
64776
the funny thing about the constitution is that it is exactly as democratic as anyone wants it to be (or doesn't).  basically it can be anything based on your interpretation of it.\n\nan example.  the constitution protects our freedom of speech.  meanwhile, there are a thousand laws limiting this freedom.  some are for legitimate reasons and some aren't.  someone like george w. bush reads the constitution and believes that we as americans have very few civil liberties, that it is okay for him to put restrictions on our "constitutionally protected" rights of free speech, religion, assembly, privacy, due process, and many, many more, and that these rights can be sacrificed in order to protect "national security".  other people and organizations, such as the ACLU or the democratic party before its spine mysteriously disappeared a few years ago, believe that these rights should not be infringed, ever, for any reason.  \n\nthis just goes to show how two different people can read the same thing and come away with two completely different opinions about what it actually means.
214809
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
435978
Welll, to develop an answer to (A), look over the following web site:  www.usconstitution.net \nUnder the section "Declaration of Independence", click on "History" for an excellent discussion of why and how the Constitution came about.  This will give you some good examples of why it was a product of its time (freedom, division of power, rights of citizens).  \n\nFrom this understanding of why the colonists were so desperate to separate themselves from the monarchy of Great Britain, you can then answer (B) by applying those same basic and universal human desires to modern times and show how the Constitution has furthered our progress as a nation -- primarily by protecting and expanding the rights of its citizens and limiting the concentration of political, judicial, executive and legislative powers.  You can also discuss challenges of the future:  gay marriage, privacy rights, affirmative action, prayer in schools, balance between personal liberty and national security, states vs federal rights, etc.\n\nHowever, it should be noted that the Constitution is simply a set of words; it is people, human beings that are a product of their own eras, that interpret and apply those words.  On rare occasions the interpretation has been shameful, i.e., the defense of slavery.  However, more often, the Constitution has been interpreted to broaden and defend the rights of the people (Miranda warning, right to a lawyer in a criminal trial, voting rights, educational rights, rights of physically and mentally disabled citizens, etc).\n\nGood luck!
539605
I don't think so!!!! Just like the media, many schools are turning liberal and are teaching opinions and not history!!!
523541
I think that that is true in general, and i happen to know the bill of rights and what the number 2 at mcdonalds is. But yea, on average, most people take the USA for granted and dont even bother to learn what upholds our rights.
657240
As much as I dislike politics, I do remember my political science classes in school. It seems we must be missing those classes these days as people seem to think the president makes every single decision about every issue in this country and doesn't have to answer to anyone.
46081
Your rights are not dependant on the Constitution but predate it in Common Law.  The Constitution is specifically about creating a general government for the States.  \n\nThe Bill of rights is not a list of personal rights (refer to Article IX of the Amendments).  The first eight articles are statements excluding the federal (general) government from doing specific things.  The last two are declaratory statements of basic truths in part underscoring the fact that individual rights are to numerous too list.\n\nRead Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, preferably his first draft. \n\nBy the way the Constitution of the United States is not long, it is only seven Articles of which the longest only has 10 Sections.  It is written in clear, easy to understand English.
526434
It's not very interesting, I'm afraid.  The proposed amendment, which was the first of the twelve, was a technical amendment that pertained to the reapportionment of the United States House of Representatives following the census every ten years.  This amendment, which was never ratified, is technically still pending the state legislatures' approval, but it never will be.  \n\nIn any case, since the first two of the twelve originally proposed amendments were not rights issues but issues pertaining to congress, only the last 10 were ever referred to as the "Bill of Rights."
443352
That was the norm back then. They had to compromise on the slave situation or the Constitution would never have been ratified by all the states.  But the people who wrote the constitution provided a legal framework and a form of government that allowed for progress and the eventual provision of rights to blacks and women. That is what makes us a great nation now.
471675
well the state is build on the constitution and has so by violated the very democratic thing that once brought forth the liberty of freedom by which we all have come from. and further more we must continue to fight for the freedom to constitutionaly solve the issues of statehood and democracy.  there that makes about as much since as the question.  Thanks for asking it was fun.
115007
Our current form of Democracy is sometimes referred to as "tyranny of the masses".  In other words, the majority will constantly create and vote in laws which reduce freedoms of the minority.  And, since we all belong to some kind of minority, we will eventually create enough laws so that every-ones' freedoms are gone.  Every law passed restricts your freedom in some way and leads to harsher laws in the future.  So, in a way, you are right.  Think about that the next time you vote on a law banning something.  Just because it doesn't effect you at the time, you are giving up rights of others and your turn will come.  I also like what this Douglas guy below me has to say.  I am for less government, if it takes more political parties to do that, fine.
315913
What this country needs is for YOU to read the Constitution.\n\nNearly everything you are babbling about is not accurate.  Even the courts screw it up sometimes.  Roe vs. Wade was decided based on a right to "privacy".  Go find the word in the Constitution, and while you are at it find the word "torture".\n\nI seldom come to this section just because of people like you who know so little about this country and what it is based on.  \n\nI will leave now, and go somewhere else where the average IQ of questioners is a positive number.
368414
You hit the problem right on the head. A good answer would be a mix of both views if the public is totally against you you should follow the public unless the public wants to ignore or over ride the constitution. If the public doesn't care or is evenly split then the politicians personal convictions should win out. That would solve the problem don't you think?