JENKINS: The Bill of Rights, Revised 2013 Edition

Rob Jenkins

Rob Jenkins

Evidence has been mounting lately that the so-called Bill of Rights -- the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States -- has become not only outdated and irrelevant, but perhaps positively subversive.

Apparently there are people in this country today who are not members of the government or Hollywood elite or even particularly wealthy, but who believe nonetheless that the Bill of Rights grants them, well, actual rights. This cannot go on.

Accordingly, in the interests of progress, I propose that the antiquated document known as the Bill of Rights be revised as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except of course for the two state-sponsored religions, Humanism and Darwinism.

Congress also shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, unless that religion is the one practiced by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Christians may not pray, exhibit their religious symbols or express their beliefs in public, unless they are star athletes or political candidates.

Muslims shall be free to exercise their religion in any way they choose, including praying in schools, even if they don't have a test that day. This, of course, is because Islam is a religion of peace, and also because we're afraid of them.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech offends protected groups, such as homosexuals, Muslims and Democrats; or of the press, unless the press is pursuing a story that might reflect negatively on the current administration; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble -- excepting, of course, tea party members and the NRA.

A well-regulated Department of Homeland Security being necessary to the security of a free Washington, D.C., the rights of certain people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those include presidential security details, congressional Democrats who wish to pose as constitutionalists, members of Chicago street gangs and mentally ill left-wing losers.

Those who may NOT keep and bear arms include decorated combat veterans, Republicans and anyone who has ever watched "Duck Dynasty."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, without due process, shall not be violated, except under extreme circumstances, such as when a wounded teenage bombing suspect is hiding in a speedboat. Then heavily armed police dressed in full riot gear may cordon off entire city blocks and force innocent residents out of their homes at gunpoint.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is exempt from any restrictions related to due process.

I realize I haven't covered all the amendments, but that's all I have space for. I'm sure Congress and the Obama administration will get to the others later.

Meanwhile, these few minor revisions represent an excellent start toward creating the kind of just society we all desire.

Rob Jenkins is a local freelance writer and the author of "Family Man: The Art of Surviving Domestic Tranquility," available at Books for Less in Buford and on Amazon. Email Rob at rjenkinsgdp@yahoo.com or visit familymanthebook.com.


Blueflag 2 years, 1 month ago


Well put and spot on. I fear I am one of 'those' who is even more of an anachronism in that I perceive the Constitution does not GRANT rights but rather restricts the Federal gummint from infringing upon Natural rights previously granted by our (gasp) Creator.

Given more column inches you could have made it to the 10th amendment, effectively redlined now, plus a personal favorite of mine - the 14th amendment. I realize the 14th is out of scope, but as you are not visually a member of a Constitutionally protected class, you might want to comment on how per our revised, living Constitution all classes are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Four legs good, two legs better ...

Greg in Suwanee, Ga


Elbonian 2 years, 1 month ago

Darwinism is not a religion. It is a scientific theory. If you have scientific facts which disprove any scientific theory, including Darwinism, then Darwinism goes away into the box labeled "flat Earth theories and other falsehoods." And if you don't know the difference between a religion and a scientific theory, then you should lose your right to pontificate in the public press on that and any related issue.

Similarly, anybody who believes Christians can't pray in public is seriously lacking in true knowledge of reality. Google "See You At The Pole" (SYATP), a school tradition for mostly Christians. Anybody of any religious persuasion whatsoever can exercise that religion in any "traditional forum," which generally includes (with few exceptions) anywhere on any public sidewalk, and in any other public space generally open for any kind of public demonstration.

And these two observations are just the beginning.

Jenkins: You are a clueless commentator providing heavily biased and non-factual assertions about important issues of public civility. Its a fine sermon. But its out of place in the real world.


FordGalaxy 2 years, 1 month ago

Elbonian - Where's your sense of satire? All Rob Jenkins was doing was making a satirical point. I've seen firsthand examples (albeit in the workplace and not school) or Islam being given a pass but Christianity being scrutinized. In fact, a sizable portion of the Humanist/Darwinist contingent would be all-too-happy to cast Christianity into the "flat Earth" box you mentioned. We agree that Darwinism is a theory. So is Global Warming, yet those who staunchly support these theories treat them as religions, and are every bit as fanatically dedicated to them as Christians or Muslims are to their respective religions.


Sign in to comment