A proposal to defend our liberties By Warren Bluhm News-Chronicle I stole the idea for this column, but it’s such a good idea it’s worth stealing. It’s been proposed that we introduce a law that reasserts the rights we have as Americans, which seem to be under such constant attack lately. In fact, such a proposal has been drawn up; we can call it the Civil Liberties Clarification Act of 2003. Here’s what it says: - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - No 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 offense 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. - 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 defense. - In suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, 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. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 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. Hopefully you recognize that the “Civil Liberties Clarification Act” already has been passed, and in fact it took effect Dec. 15, 1791. Its more common name is the Bill of Rights. A few years ago, a petition with the above statements was circulated at a Green Bay Independence Day festival, and sadly enough, more than a handful of people declined the invitation to endorse it. A lot of debate has ensued as to what these first 10 amendments to the Constitution actually mean, but I hope you’ll agree that you don’t have to be a “gun nut” or a “bleeding heart liberal” to understand what they mean. And Lord help us if anyone ever convinces a majority that they don’t mean what they say.