When  a person asks what America means to you , should I feel like I should include the Bill of Rights   are?
414835
They are asking what America means to YOU.  And you are right on for wanting to include the bill of rights.  It is the most perfect documeht any government has ever had.  It is the foundation for anything that makes us great, that and our multi-cultures.It is the only justification we have ever had for stealing the Indians land from them.  Anyway our country is on the right track you can trace it down and find that in that area we are alligned with the constitution.  With the precept and concepts of equality and justice and people governing their own government.  With those rights we hold to be God give and inalienable (meaning they CANT be taken away) Any area where we arent being or doing what we should shows how we are not aligned with the bill of rights,its concepts and precepts. As an American I believe the bill of rights is America. Its the liberty bell, Betsy ross, fourth of july picnics, boats trains cities like New York all rolled up.  I know the bill of rights will save the world someday.  Because America will wake up in time to say what is the point of freedom of speech, to worship as we see fit, to assemble, if all our freedoms our on a dying soil. And we will get rid of the corporate take over, and glutted big business and the military industrial complex, and we will have nothing but forest rangers and coast guards where there was once a killing military. And instead of the dow chemical corporation we will have Lloyds home laboratories  and small businesses will flourish.   America will once again be a fertile paradise and the Indians hearts will be glad.
908335
I don't really understand the question.  As a citizen you have the rights of legal and political nature as guaranteed by the Constitution.
822054
You just have to read each of the amendments, and do it yourself. Then look on line for summaries and explanations, (search "bill of rights", "US constitution")then just rephrase.
424507
A resounding yes!\n\nWe should change the name of the Bill of Rights. Considering the hilarious nick u have Una-bonger, I think u could come up with a few great ones, if you please...
312821
It is to briefly explain what Americans were fighting for and what they expected in the shaping of a better America, so that issues concerning everything around us, could be properly managed for "WE the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union and establish justice to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity do ordain  to establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\nEach of the points stated in the preamble signfy what we as Americans stand for and believe in.
172829
The Bill of Rights is the first X Amendments to the constituition.\n\n(If that's alll you wanted to know, stop here. :o)\n\n They were added because the Antifederalists in Virginia and New York would not ratify the constitution. It was important that they did because Virginia was the largest  state at the time, and if New York didn't ratify, the U.S. would be geographically split. Thus, in order to gain the ratification of those two states, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
274524
Is it our right to question/challenge? or is it our duty? What do you really think our leaders do with all of the insults that are thrown their way? Do they go home and seriously contemplate about whether the people have a point? Or do they stand up and dust themselves off and blow off the criticism completely? Are we really heard? Or do we just gain satisfaction knowing we've had our "say?" \n\nOk thank god I didn't get deducted 5 points for each of those questions I just asked!!\n\nI guess my point is......yes, it is just par for the course. And people will say what they want to say and I suppose the ammendment to the constitution gave us that right. And if this is stated in our constitution, how could that possibly be unpatriotic or Un-American?? \n\nDoes it do us much good in the long run? *shrugs* Probably not.....but it is a right given to us by our forefathers. So have at it!! :) \n\nEnjoyed your question! I have a similar question posted on my profile.....would love your opinion. :)
1116365
Right is right. 'Rights' are inalienable. 'Wrongs' need to be righted.\n\n'Rights' are not priviledges. They are not earned.\n\nBut, I aggree that freedom isn't free.
334684
Yes. And if you doubt that answer, ask people the following questions:\n\n1. What 5 rights are guaranteed by the 1st amendment (Speech, religion, petition the government, assemble, and press).\n\n2. What does the 10th amendment say?\n\nI doubt most people could get one right, much less two.
58970
With all due respect, your stated desire doesn’t make any sense.  The ten articles of the United States Bill of Rights are written in clear language with most economical use of the language.  There are only 462 words of content in all ten amendments.\n\nIt would be interesting to know what is your intended use.  In my seminars I find that rather than summarize them I have to expand from both a origin perspective as well as from a case law perspective.  To do less is to cloud them in misunderstandings.     \n\nIf this is a class project, have your instructor contact me and I'll explain why this is not possible, something the instructor should already know.
167434
Questions like or similar to this one have appeared here several times.  Other than those who ask such questions to simply get a response to see what others think, often they come up (in my opinion) because the asker (present company excepted, of course) due to a lack of education as to what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights actually are and mean.\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States was created to create a general government (in this case a federal government) and the relationship between that general government and the ratifying States and their citizens, as ratified by the several States as representing the citizens of each of their States.   \n\nIt is not a document of laws nor does it grant any rights.  It is a structure which acts as a foundation from which laws are to be enacted which are necessary (and proper) to carry through the powers delegated to the federal government created by those delegated powers.\n\nThe Bill of Rights is the result of an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention to gather the votes necessary to propose the draft of the Constitution to the then standing Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  It first came up (by George Mason) during the discussion concerning trial by jury.  \n\nAt that time 8 of the 13 State Constitutions (the States had real Constitutions prior to the Constitution of the United States) had forms of a Bill of Rights and George Mason had written Virginia’s in 1776.\n\nSubsequent to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and during the first session of the Congress, James Madison was given the task of drafting this Bill of Rights and in this effort he used the Virginia Bill of Rights as a guide.  His work resulted in a Bill of Rights with 12 articles being proposed to the several State legislatures.  Only 10 were ratified at that time.\n\nBills of Rights are not new to our historical roots, certainly Magna Carta can be considered a form of a Bill of Rights and there were others through the years such as “The Petition of Right [1628] and “The Bill of rights” [1689].\n\nEven so, the United States Bill of Rights is less a listing of individual rights than it is selected controls on the federal government.  This is because of the structure of the Bill of rights, that is, the first 8 ratified articles of the Bill of Rights are exclusionary articles in that they exclude the federal government from doing specific acts.  The final two articles are declarations of basic truths and are therefore controlling of the federal government.\n\nAll of this structure of government can reasonably be considered as being a natural evolution of our heritage of the Common Law easily traceable to the Great Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta) and, in my opinion, founded in the developing Common Law during the preceding 2,000 years.\n\nDuring the intervening years since 1791 (year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights) 27 Amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States changing that structure.\n\nLegislative statutes are enacted within this structure and the constitutional structures of the various States.  Those enacted laws, in the style of our common law, evolve and produce new laws, as well as new judicial interpretations.  In that sense we do, and yet we don’t, live within what occurred 215 years ago.  \n\nIn such a system, how can it be out of date?  It has lasted so long with relatively little change because its roots and its intent and its content are focused on individual rights.
522063
I agree with Ben Franklin on that. Liberty is our utmost human right, it is not interchangeable or up to be sold to whoever has enough money. I truly believe that our government has used scare tactics on us and staged terrorism and what not to convince us that we need their protection, but for this we need to hand over our liberty. That is truly criminal and unconstitutional, and so not what America stands for! And I know that if we hand over our freedom we will certainly regret it.
1020057
is it rude? no its na opion. if you live in america you'll probably get charger with treason. like me i live in america.....\n"Death to America!!!"\n"Death to America!!!"\n\nthat is how i really feel . i hate this place
579119
The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution.
684874
It's my country. I have the freedom to disagree with it if I don't agree with it's policies. I have the right to vocalize my disagreement. I have the right to form groups that challenge the government. I have the right to run for office, and support candidates that run for office. \n\nI am an American. I have the right to challenge and question my government. That's what freedom is about. Questioning authority. If you can't question those in power, you don't live in a free society.
1152293
The Bill of Rights grant any American citizen to say what ever he wants about the country.  However, threatening the country or their leaders could rightfully lead to being shot in the face
86197
What is referred to as the Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.  They are actually the ten “ratified amendments in that 12 were proposed to the legislatures of the then several States 25 17 September 1789.  Ratification was completed 15 December 1791.\n\nThis “Bill of Rights” evolved from an agreement during the constitutional convention to reach the votes required to send the proposed constitution to the then congress functioning under the Articles of Confederation.  The draft of proposed 12 amendments were written primarily by James Madison who was heavily influenced by the Virginia List of Rights.  \n\nThey differ from lists of rights in “other” governmental jurisdictions (as parts of other constitutions) which are generally lists of specific rights.  The U.S. Bill of rights is basically a list things that they federal government is excluded from doing (the first 8 articles).  The last two articles are declarations of basic truths.\n\nThere are 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (inclusive of the ten in the Bill of Rights).  However, there has been a number of amendments proposed (in total I believe 36) of which only the 27 have been ratified.\n\nAmendments must follow the Constitutional amendment process as detailed in Article 5 of the Constitution.  Beginning with the 18th Amendment Congress has taken up the practice of noting a time limit for ratification by the States.  I believe that this was held valid in Coleman v. Miller [1939]\n\nFollowing is my working list of the Amendments that I use on a daily basis.  One note of import, you will notice that amendment 2 is different from what is normally printed in that is has a single comma as opposed to the typical 3 commas.  My version is the version which was proposed to the several States and ratified.  Its meaning (due to the different punctuation) is quite different.  My reference on this is the Library of Congress.\n\nAmendment I - Religion, Speech, Assembly, and Politics\nCongress 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.\n\nAmendment II - Militia and the Right to Bear Arms\nA 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.\n\nAmendment III - Quartering of Soldiers\nNo 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.\n\nAmendment IV - Searches and Seizures\nThe 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.\n\nAmendment V - Grand Juries, Self-Incrimination, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, and Eminent Domain\nNo 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.\n\nAmendment VI - Criminal Court Procedures\nIn 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 distric