The Divisible Bill of Rights

At the end of the last day of the school year, every year, many of the drivers at my terminal gather at a local tavern. This year, we went to Greenfield's. Kelly (a hot-blooded woman of Irish descent) showed, even though she no longer drives a bus, having transfered to a better job with the Warehouse department. I had not seen her for several months.

Kelly knows many of my Columbine kids. A few years ago, her Ken Caryle Middle School route served the same neighborhood. She knows Patrick, the boy dragged out of the library window on national television. We talked about the kids we both know for about an hour. (I had promised one boy on the bus, Reed, that I would say, "Hi!," for him the next time I saw Kelly.) We both remarked on the peculiar feeling we had watching the events unfold on television that day, suddenly realizing that people we know were caught up in it.

Kelly, politically, is a real liberal. I have seen her argue the pro-choice position, ceaselessly, against all comers. Imagine my surprise when she urged her firm support for the Second Amendment. Once, in high school, one of her teachers spoke of gun ownership as a 'privilege.' Kelly erupted, "It's not a privilege. It's a right! It's called the Bill of Rights! All ten are precious or none of them!" Then, with an epithet-filled exercise of her First Amendment right, she stormed out of the classroom.

She makes a fine point, don't you think? All ten are precious. A local talk show host, Peter Boyles, apparently does not agree. Lately, he's been sealing his arguments with gun owners, saying, "What if one of the victims was your kid? Would you sacrifice your kid for the Second Amendment?" I take that to mean Mr. Boyles considers the Second Amendment expendable. Is he right? Or, is Kelly right? Is the Bill of Rights a unified whole? Or, are those Rights divisible?

Let us assume those Rights are divisible and we should throw out those which have wrought too much evil.

During Slavery and Jim Crow days, the southern states defended their racist policies behind the Tenth Amendment - State's Rights. Those states contravened the spirit of the Constitution by insisting on the letter of it - the Tenth Amendment. Behind its shelter, thousands of black Americans were lynched. Millions were intimidated from exercising their right to vote and denied access to the courts. With that kind of bloody history, we really ought to throw out the Tenth Amendment along with the Second. Maybe we could do it on the same day?

What about the Fifth Amendment? It has blood all over it. Thousands of racketeers, pimps, drug pushers, and other scum have escaped justice by invoking the Fifth Amendment. What if your daughter died of a drug overdose? Would you sacrifice your child for the sake of the Fifth Amendment?

If you don't agree with chucking out the Fifth, how about the Fourth? Why should the police have to wait for a search warrant? Let them swoop out of the blue and pounce on those drug pushers. Or, we could get rid of the Eighth. Remember those Wyoming goat ropers who tortured Matthew Shepard? Why should they be sheltered from cruel and unusual punishment? They merit torture. Let's do it! And the same for those racists in Texas who dragged their victim two miles down a dirt road. We should tie them to the back bumper of their pickup truck and drag them down the same dirt road until they die. Let's do it! And televise it! Do you think any racist would dare torture anyone ever again, knowing that they themselves would become the object of their cruelest fantasies? Let's get rid of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eight Amendments all in one fell swoop.

Amendments Six and Seven can stay. I have some qualms about the Sixth, though. It's in the interest of us all that criminals receive a speedy trial. A competent prosecutor can get a conviction and quickly punish the criminal. But, I don't see why the criminal's accusers should have to go through the ordeal - and danger - of a public trial. Why can't they remain anonymous? What use is a Constitution which compels people to be so brave? It simply sets them up to be victims again. Maybe I was too hasty. We should also get rid of the Sixth - or at least that part of the Sixth.

We can keep the Seventh. Of course, juries can act perversely. We all remember the O.J. trial. The Defense team managed to put together a jury ignorant enough to dismiss solid, conclusive DNA evidence when presented with a cockeyed theory that a racist cop must have planted that evidence. Throw in the fact that the victims were adulterers, stir in some breast implants - and you have a gross miscarriage of justice. I must admit - trial by jury is also expendable.

I am a writer, so naturally the First Amendment is sacrosanct. But, if we keep the Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" - maybe I don't need it. Maybe I can look a censor in the eye and say, "Look! I retain certain rights. I think I have the right of Free Speech. You cannot stop me from saying whatever I damn well please!" Maybe, he'd agree.

Maybe?