Talk:United States Bill of Rights/Archive 1

Second Amendment
The current description could be improved, in my opinion. It borders on being biased towards the "collective right" argument. I'm not sure what to put, it's a hard topic to write a completely unbiased description on. I'm going to edit it to "relates to the right to keep and bear arms" for the time being, but that's far from perfect. --71.225.229.151 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unquestionably biased. Even Tribe and Amar, the ultimate sources for most of the "collective right" theory in recent years have changed their viewpoints after further research.

On 10/28/1999, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe discussed the update to his text American Constitutional Law in the New York Times: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1999Militias.pdf He notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble."

In "Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals" by Tony Mauro, USA Today 8/27/99, Tribe discussed an article authored by Amar (quoted in 1992 in the extant Wikipedia entry) and him saying, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

In commenting on the reaction to his corrected position, he observed, "I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?' [...] But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."

The present article ignores this new reality, preferring an out-dated viewpoint. Bob Alfson 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Right for the people to keep and bear arms, as well as to maintain a militia." This is a terrible description of one of the most controversial amendments in the Constitution. This blatantly ignores the syntax of the amendment, making militias a footnote to the abstract assertion of "the people." It should be removed and the amendment should be kept the way it is, or a Constitutional scholar should come on here and write something more intelligent. Heruka2006 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed "Right of a militia to keep and bear arms." to simply "Right to keep and bear arms." so as to avoid bias and controversey. Those that are interested are more than welcome to review the Gun Politics in the United States article if they wish. I feel that the one sentence summaries of the amendments should be short, concise, and neutral. Hopefully this edit accomplishes this goal. If not, feel free to correct it. HeyPete 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I salute your effort to eliminate POV on this issue. However, eliminating all mention of the "militia" idea makes it look definitely biased. Regardless of whether or not someone believes it refers to a militia keeping and bearing guns or also the individual, the militia concept should definitely be included in the summary. Aceholiday 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Similarly saying "right to keep and bear arms" where the ammendment says specifically "right of the people to keep and bear arms" shows POV. Arthurrh 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to confuse these leftists with facts! Clearly, there is bias directed against the right of individuals to keep and bear arms in the following statement, which is how the article reads as of this date:


 * "the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; the well-regulated militia's right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; and the rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination."


 * The purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to outline the rights of all citizens of the United States, not the rights of militias! The above description of the second amendment is clearly biased inappropriately.


 * I would delete this unnecessary preamble myself but I'm sure it would be reinstated within a few hours. Eegorr (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The version of Article the Fourth (2nd Admendment) is wrong. It shows the 3 comma version. If you follow the links provided and read the orginal copies, they show the single comma version. I didn't change the commas but this issue needs to be resolved. The text should read "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."

Here's a link to the ratified version by New York state:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=002/llac002.db&recNum=378

214.13.200.200 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Open Mind
Although the Bill of Rights may have (Which I doubt) some flaws, each right is made to counter one another due to the ignorance of some people who easily violate these laws. Although sometimes, you must, I believe, twist, bend, or break some rights in order to try and balance out what can be considered right. I'm not saying anything bad about the Bill of Rights, but what I am saying is this. Weather the laws are perfect or not, each right will always be in conflict with the others and some rights will always have conflicts alone when they are broken.

As for the right to bear arms, that right shouldn't, in any, way be complained about unless it violates the human law of society. Because despite the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, there are a few other laws or existing forms of law and rights.

so on... --Zhang Liao 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The rights of Society
 * The rights of a Nation
 * The laws of lands

I would like to nominate this as a feature article. I feel that most US citizens have forgotten about this precious document. Although I have read the nomination page, I am unclear about the proper protocol. Can anyone help?

--Harry Kolp 06:23,  28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to justify that it should be illeagal to break, bend, or twist the Bill of Rights. They were worked on by people that tried very hard and they wouldnt wasnt people fucking them up. For example if you worked an a paper all day then your sister deleted it you would mad, right?

Thought of the Day
Although I am a simpleton when it comes to knowing the Bill of Rights, I am not dumb struck with what should be known about each use for the right.

The only thing that I consider sometimes wrong is when people break, bend, or twist the Bill of Rights around just to do as they please. (Sorry if I get too personal) Moreover, when it comes to all the democratics, the republican, or the politician. I say, as my own thought, that they truely do not know what it means to live life as an American let alone an open minded person. (Or as what Chris Rock would say, "If anyone makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fool!")

--Zhang Liao 03:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the powers of the Federal government. The goal was to protect state government and individual person's rights being overriden by Federal power. Over the last 200 years some of the amendments have been considered by the courts as no longer operative because of subsequent amendments (9th and 10th versus the 14th) or have been interpreted in a manner 1st and 2nd) that puts restrictions on the rights of persons and states resulting in a much greater concentration of power and responsibility at the Federal level than was desired by the drafters of the Bill of Rights. 64.254.97.10 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Flying Circus

Whopper 1
I am editing, I know some stuff about this topic. Whopper 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Whopper 2
I now joined a church that covers these quotes, and so I could post the important info

I am very excited about joining this church because It has hot guys plus it has a lot of religious belief I am estactic to learn about

The Preamble
The Congressional Resolution that submitted the Bill of Rights to the State Legislations on September 25th 1789 contained a preamble that is legally significant, and should be included in the article. If you have read this far you need to get a life. From the National Archives comes the following text:

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.

Perhaps someone can find a way to include this in the article. Too Old 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC) yes the preamble is imporant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.94.125 (talk) 15:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Addition of other written amendments
As we all know, there were originally 12 proposed amendments but only 10 were ratified. One of the unratified amendments later became the 27th amendment but the other has yet to be ratified. Should I add in the text of those amendments since they are written on the Bill of Rights? Also, should I include a picture of the Bil of Rights on the pages of those two originally proposed but later ratified/unratified amendments' pages since they are written on the Bill of Rights?
 * There were many proposed amendments, hundreds if I am not mistaken, though I suppose not all were proposed in front of Congress, but were simply suggested by the states. Is this what you mean? How were these two extras "proposed", precisely? Fearwig 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Madison and Henry
There has been some historical discussion of Madison's motives for so abruptly changing his opinion to favor of the BoR, most notably that he was forced (in return for a more or less promised seat as a Virginia U.S. Representative) by Henry to write a letter to a minister in promise that he would introduce the amendments. He had previously argued that they were worthless, unenforceable, et cetera. So the "Father of the Bill of Rights" had some political motives, in addition (or in place of) the moral motives so often ascribed to him. Is this matter relevant to the main article? I find the existing description of the ratification process somewhat schoolbook-simplistic. Fearwig 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Bill of Rights and other amendments?
Does the Bill of Rights have precedent over other amendments? In other words, is it legally possible to repeal an amendment from the Bill of Rights like the eighteenth amendment (prohibition) was repealed? For example, if an amendment that said free speach does not apply to criticism of the President somehow got through Congress and the States, and was ratified, I assume the Supreme Court would have to uphold the amendment since it becomes part of the Constitution - unless there is some special protection for the Bill of Rights. Texinian 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bill of Rights has no special legal status, and its amendments, like every part of the constitution, can be amended by the constitutionally provided process. Fearwig 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated above, later amendments actually have precedence. The 18th amendment is still there (only with a postscript that it has since been repealed) as you can't simply erase it from the document and pretend the whole thing didn't happen. Liu Bei 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, later amendments do not automatically have precedence; that's just a principle of statutory construction. The IRS argued that the amendment (sorry, I forget  the number) which authorized income taxes trumped the free speech clause of the 1st amendment because it was later.  The Supreme Court said sorry, nope, it doesn't.  Turtle Falcon 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets put it this way, if there ever was a "flag burning" admendment, it would curtail the 1st admenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question
Now was the Bill of Rights written and signed in Philadelphia? The article really doesn't say. Bcody 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights was ratified after the original Constitution--while I'm not sure where it was authored, it was passed in Congress, just like other amendments. As for location of authorship, you should also take into mind that most of the first ten amendments were written, in some form or another, long before they were put forward as amendments--those that weren't from older documents were written before the Convention (literally thousands of additions to a proposed "bill of rights"--originally rejected--were written in preparation for additions planned for the Articles of the Confederation, additions hijacked by Federalists to become the Philadelphia Convention). So the Bill of Rights is kind of a collection of the ten "most agreeable" peoples-rights amendments that were put forward over a long period of time... you could say it was authored in many places, over many years. Fearwig 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

origins
just a question, I read in this book (Russell Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America ISBN 0-385-50349-0 (New York, Doubleday, 2004) about the founding of new york, that new york's citizens in these early days adopted a certain package of rights which again was based on liberties that were prevailing in the free republic of that time, the Netherlands. It argues that the bill of rights was heavily argued for by the state of new york, since it was based on a bill that was already in place there. can anyone confirm this? thanks!

Blackhole in WP Con Law Pages
As a law student, I know that there are different levels of scrutiny in reviewing violations of the Bill of Rights. I don't see these spelled out anywhere on WP. If they exist, can somebody point me to them? If they do not, this should be an article that gets created. After all, it's fundamental to every S.C. review of violations to the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, I have my hands full at the moment. --DavidShankBone 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize this question is a little stale, but see judicial review, strict scrutiny, rational basis review, and the various articles they lead to. Newyorkbrad 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those articles are in bad shape and of little help. There's also, for example, a seperate article on "compelling state interests" and a proposal that it be merged into strict scrutiny. People at WP:law are discussing how best to clean up the mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bills of rights
since there is no talk page for Bill of Rights in general, im posting this here.

on the original page, the US Bill of Rights was posted at the bottom with no reference that that was the US Bill of rights. since the page is specifically bills of rights in general, i edited this out.

everyone agree with me?

The reference about Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusets not ratifying the bill of rights does not lead to a usefull reference. Here is a better one: http://ourgeorgiahistory.com/chronpop/1131

For non-Americans
I think that the introduction should mention that the Bill of Rights actually covers both Americans and non-Americans that are living under the US government's jurisdiction. This is of vast importance, is often overlooked (by people who assume the Rights are only due to citizens) and is especially important these days. Sad mouse 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) It sucks
 * Done in the second paragraph, though if you really wanted to go along this route you need to seriously reword some lines like "...protecting the rights of people...". It's a guideline, but it doesn't absolutely protect rights all by itself, as evidenced by the vast number of historic laws (much less current events) that were later ruled unconsstitutional. Liu Bei 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry... where? Sad mouse 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, whoops. Second sentence. people -> all people Liu Bei 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be surprised at how many people assume that "all people" means "all citizens" ;) and actually, "all people" is not correct, it is only all people living within the jurisdiction of the US government that are covered by the Bill of Rights. Sad mouse 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source stating the Bill of Rights necessarily applies to non-citizens in all cases? It is certainly not enumerated in the document. Tomsv 98 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Article 1
Is it me, or does this article say nothing about Article 1 except that it was rejected? As far as I can tell it's only on Wikisource. Melchoir 00:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Yeah why are there 12 amendments? --71.9.55.80 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Liberum veto"
The article contends that a weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was that each state had the right of liberum veto. I had not encountered that term before, but the liberem veto article defines this as as "a parliamentary device in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that allowed any deputy to a Sejm to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify all legislation already passed at it." While legislation under the Confederation required unanimity of all states represented, I don't believe there was any analog to "nullify[ing] all legislation already passed" at a session. I suspect that if the term "liberum veto" were applicable to the U.S. Government right after the Revolution, this would be mentioned in that article, and hence that it does not belong in United States Bill of Rights either. However, given that I had never heard of the term before, I didn't want to edit it out without raising it here. Comments? Newyorkbrad 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Protect
Given the vandalism, it seems like this page should be protected. Is that a bad idea for some reason? SirBob42 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a strong presumption against protecting the day's featured article. Although it's often the target of vandalism, it's also viewed as one of the first thing that newcomers might try to edit and be discouraged if they can't, so protecting it is seen as a last resort. From time to time there are proposals to change this policy, but consensus still seems to support it. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need a huge box on the top of article of the day pages to tell people that WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROTECT THIS PAGE UNLESS THE VANDALISM IS VERY BAD so that they will stop asking. I swear everyday someone has to ask this question and its always the same answer. Sigh. Gdo01 06:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but I'm afraid that would just encourage the vandals to try to push things until the vandalism is deemed to be "very bad." Newyorkbrad 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There could just be a comment that is added to the talk page of featured articles to explain this to relative newcomers like myself. SirBob42 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll mention this suggestion the next time there is discussion on this issue. It comes up every few days, so that won't be long. I'm also going to suggest again that at least the images should be protected. Newyorkbrad 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We did semi-protect J. R. R. Tolkien when the vandalism patrol noticed it had been reverting to a truncated version for a while and threw its hands in the air, though we caught a bit of flak for that. Protecting the images sounds like an idea that deserves serious consideration if it truly is a problem. --Kizor 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * THE VANDALISM IS NOW TOO BAD. Look at the history. This page needs to be protected for at least the rest of the day. Ahudson 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the fact that the issue of feature-article protection comes up every day is a daily opportunity to reconsider a less-than-optimal practice. My hunches are:
 * Most people seeing the featured article would no more edit it than they'd remove their own tonsils, so there's little value in allowing them to.
 * The ratio of useful-newcomer-edits to vandal-edits is roughly the ratio of Pluto to Jupiter.
 * The featured article is vandal bait. Its prominence encourages those who have time on their hands but aren't yet in POV or usage arguments to "experiment."
 * As a consequence, people who've worked long and collaboratively on a featured article -- rarely, I would guess, people new to Wikipedia -- receive negative reinforcement for their efforts. Meanwhile he malicious, the idle, the ax-grinding, and the juvenile get sparring partners until the novelty dies down.
 * It would make sense to protect a featured article on the day it appears, and maybe a day or two afterward. — OtherDave 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would take a very big project to get more articles protected; I actually think that people who are not users should not be given the convenience of being able to drop in and vandilise at no hassle. Jasonxu98 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Apportionment Amendment
Shouldn't the above be mentioned somewhere, probably the intro? It seems a bit strange to me to mention it had twelve but only 10 were ratified with one later being ratified but fail completely (from what I can tell) to mention one of the other one that wasn't ratified. I could do it myself but as it would require self changes and I probably should read the article to work out where, I can't be bothered. I had to go through a few links to find what the other amendment was BTW. 203.109.240.93 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
I just semi-protected this page, due to the fact there have been more than four instances of vandalism today by different unregistered users. I think that this page may have to remain this way, as it appears that it has had a lot of trouble with vandalism... Any objections? Ahudson 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read the previous argument about protecting this article... However, there have been four counts of vandalism in the past hour and more than fifteen in the average day. I beleive this merits semi-protection, at the very least. Ahudson 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where you here during the time San Francisco was an article of the day? The vandalism was a good 10-20 per minute at one point with an average of about 1 vandal per minute overall (when not protected). I'd say that 4 in an hour is extremely low given that many non-featured articles have a sizable amount more vandalism than that without even being on the front page. 128.227.34.235 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This page needs full protection - has anyone made the effort? The vandalism is getting to be a little ridiculous.  It's surprising how much time people have on their hands.  --DavidShankBone 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is on the main page; policy is to avoid protecting it. We only semi-protect articles when it becomes impossible to keep up with ongoing vandalism from anonymous and newly registered users; this article is nowhere near that level yet.  And we only fully-protect articles for very limited periods of time, for extreme vandalism or edit warring. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)


 * Pardon me, but that was extreme. I've never seen that level of vandalism on one article before; and it would be better semi-protected anyway, almost all of the vandals were unregistered IPs. But if you really think it's worth your time to watch one article constantly for six hours, that's your problem, although I would suggest you find something better to do. Ahudson 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not registered, and that might have something to do with it, but does anyone know how to fix that random 'bitch' in the Antifederalist section? I can't find it in the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.209.165.164 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

List of Rights in Article Introduction
The intro tries to list all of the specific rights guaranteed in the amendments, and to me it seems to do so clumsily. It does not clarify whether the list is exhaustive, or in which amendments the rights appear. I think it should be edited somehow so that the beginning of this really important article will provide ALL the relevant information in an easy to read fashion. 68.253.193.255

Incorporation
the article know reads "However, in the 1925 judgment on Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been adopted in 1868, made certain applications of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states."

Is it worth expanding this section to include the prior of case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad company v Chicago 1897 which was the first example of incorporation? it was a minor case but was the first time any of the bill or rights was applied to the states (see incorporation for (some) details) and as the article reads know it is not strictly true thought it may be less misleading than trying to add a not particularly relevant fact. Beckboyanch 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorporation Original Intent Dumped
I spent a great deal of time today posting quotes and links regarding the introduction of what would become the 14th Amendment and the original intent of the incorporation doctrine, only to find it missing later this evening. The passage began, "This is especially problematic, and ironic[.]" I would appreciate some explanation here and/or link to such elsewhere. Such explanation would be a good idea, even if the poster were anonymous, as in this case.

I think that the full-incorporation original intent of the 14th Amendment should be included each and every time the US Supreme Court's partial-incorporation position and subsequent intent is mentioned. --BEAST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.241.149 (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Incorporation Original Intent Dumped
[Disregard: Automated double-post. --BEAST]

What happened to this article
It's currently a red link. Is wikipedia going screwy, my computer going screwy, or did it get deleted somehow? Thanatosimii 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, whatever was wrong seems to be right now. Thanatosimii 04:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Rjensen, sorry to revert again, but I disagree with your viewpoint. The article is better with the short background section that sets up why the Philadelphia Convention adopted a stronger executive and Federal government (because of the Articles of Confed. failures) and how that in turn made prominent Founders nervous, bringing about the debate over whether a BOR was necessary or not. As you have it, the article starts with "arguments against" and the Federalist views of why a BOR would be unnecessary, without examining why this was even an issue to be questioned. Kaisershatner 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Drafting
I note that it says in this section that John Locke introduced the notion of "inalienable human rights". This is strictly wrong - there is No Such Thing as an 'inalienable' right: if you can't alienate it, it's not a right. Social Contract theory, which Locke endorsed, depends on precisely this point. In order to secure good government, putative citizens agree to alienate some of their rights to life, liberty and property to their proposed state, the better to secure their individual lives, liberty and property. Taxes, in which the state takes some of your property for its own use; the penal system, in which the state is permitted the right to deprive you of your liberty - to paraphrase Weber, the state is that institution which claims the monopoly on the legitimate exercise of kidnap - are two instances of such alienation. 'Free title' means that you are the sole legitimate owner of a property and therefore entitled to sell, i.e., to alienate it.

What the author probably means Locke to have said, and what drafters of the declaration of the Declaration of Independence probably meant to say, was that people had an inalienable birthright which included such rights as..., or an inalienable claim to these rights, but the DoI is a political, not a philosophical document, and 'inalienable rights' is a much better soundbite.

--Paulredfern1 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm not sure what the right thing to do in this situation is, and I only have a couple minutes on the computer right now, but I spotted some vandalism in this article:
 * the original document proposed by Men from Mars actually contained

Descriptions
The short descriptions of each amendment were removed by another editor. I have reverted those changes. The summaries are useful to have to clarify the meaning of each amendment. If someone wants to add something that clarifies that they are not part of the amendment, go ahead. But removing them outright is going overboard. SirBob42 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comma after (and capitalization) of militia?
"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." (from the article)

The article shows the second amendment with "militia" capitalized, and no comma following it. Both http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm (a government site) and http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii (an education site) have it without capitalization, and followed by a comma.

Although less relevant to the meaning, the two pages linked to in the previous paragraph do not show any capitalization of "soldier" in the third amendment, nor "assistance of counsel" in the sixth.

Not being from the US, I don't know which is correct, so have refrained from editing the article.--58.173.82.174 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've checked a scan of the original, and added the comma. I'm not going to pretend to be able to read old handwriting enough to comment on capitalization, though --90.208.93.81 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What I found upon reading the archival copy of 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 unconstitutional (?) 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(s). 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 be not 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 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 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 Representative

(Tom?) (Sam?) A. Otti(?) Secretary of the Senate.

Please note the usage of "article the (number)" to denote each proposed amendment, rather than Roman numerals; thus, amendments one through ten ought to have "article the first, second, third, etc." in their headings. Also, since articles one and two above didn't pass muster, "Article the third" ought to be "article the first", and so on.

204.52.215.107 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting thing is that "article the second," or something substantially similar to it, was ratified... in 1992! What's even more interesting is that a footnote in  this version, posted on an official government website, refers to it as a "purported" amendment. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick question that I would like to be answered.
I read somewhere that there were originally twelve (12) proposed laws (id est: bills) that were meant to become the United States Bill of Rights. Ten of these bills were accepted and became the BoR that we think of as the BoR today. One of these rejected bills later became a different amendment down the ambling road of time. The final proposed law was, as far as my knowledge extends, has been discarded to the sands. My question is in two parts: Part the First: What was the originally rejected, but later ratified, right of all humans; and, Part the Second: What is the law-that-wasn't that still has yet to be named as such (i.e.: a law)? Any answers are much appreciated. If any so do choose to respond, may you please place the answer either on my talk-page or there and here? Also, please verify your sources so I may read up more on the topic. With much curiousity, good intent, and graditude- yours 76.188.26.92 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to wikify this link:
I can't because the article is protected. In the fifth paragraph of the intro, change

''However, only the third through twelfth articles, corresponding to what became the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, were ratified by the required number of states by 1791. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of members of the House of Representatives, never became part of the Constitution.''

to

''However, only the third through twelfth articles, corresponding to what became the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, were ratified by the required number of states by 1791. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of members of the  House of Representatives, never became part of the Constitution.''

The change is wikifying the 'first Article' part. 99.245.173.200 07:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --CapitalR 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo
There is a typo in this document, "Magna Carta" is misspelled in one place as "Magna Charta".

Full sentence: Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from King John.

Sbeverly 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was spelled that way in the original, according to the website cited in footnote #2. According to the Wikipedia article on the Magna Carta, it was sometimes spelled that way "in the past."  However, the original, at least as posted on that website  and rendered in my browser, has no quotation marks around Magna Charta. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

possible typo
In the section Copies of the Bill of Rights to the States, the external link next to "Virginia" points to a North Carolina government website. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this was fixed previously. The link is good now. Thomprod (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

typo in description of First Amendment
Under the subheading Amendments, "tp peaceably assemble" should be changed → "to peaceably assemble" or "peaceably to assemble." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this was fixed previously. Thomprod (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

typo in text of Sixth Amendment
The text herein says that somebody accused of a crime has the right of trial by "jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed," but both this version and this version (which, by the way, do not agree on all spellings) spell "wherein" as a single, compound word. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

request to check text of Seventh Amendment
The article says that "...no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" which is identical to the spelling and capitalization in this version but differs from that in this version. Please compare with the original. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson or madison?
There is confusion about who created the bill of rights.wiki article says that james madison is the creditor to the bill of rights but dont you think it should also include thomas jefferson.he was the architect manchurian candidate 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vermont

 * Vermont has a Copy of Bill of Rights-although not said if orginial or modern day copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.74 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Location?
If there are fourteen original copies of the bill how can you describe the location of it as if it was a single object? CrispMuncher (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I have protected this article from editing by new and unregistered users due to the recent spate of vandalism. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)