37 Responses

  1. 5minutes
    5minutes at |

    Time to correct you:

    1. The concept of “a jury of your peers” is found in the Sixth Amendment, where, and I quote, “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”. The concept of “peers” doesn’t mean your friends – it means the people in the state and district you live in.

    2. The concept, if not the words, of innocence until guilt is proven, is found in the 5th amendment where a person cannot be “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. That means that they are innocent (and thus, able to be deprived of life, liberty, or property) until found guilty.

    3. Despite what it says on the internets, a right to vote is guaranteed under the Articles of the Constitution, not the Amendments. Article 1 dictates that the House is to be elected every 2 years “by the People of the several States”. The Senate was originally chosen by the legislatures. The President is chosen by electors, and while the Constitution doesn’t say how the electors should be chosen, most states switched to popular election back in the 1800’s. This means that there is a right to vote, so long as you meet the basic requirements (18 year old adult whose rights have not been taken away by due process).

    1. Zaknven
      Zaknven at |

      First of all, way to be a condescending know it all. “Time to correct you”, I wonder if you get pleasure in that.

      Second, all your examples of Correcting the author are leaps of logic, they don’t actually say what you are inferring. Exact wording in which we all have lived on never appears in the constitution, just like when popular quotes are attributed to sources they never came from. This is the same thing. So shamble off back into your dungeon and search the internet for more proof on how everyone is wrong but you.


      1. 5minutes
        5minutes at |

        Yes, it does give me pleasure. Lots of pleasure. Thanks for asking.

        The leaps of logic I am correcting are called “accepted legal interpretations of the US Constitution”. What the author did was to pull from a bunch of sources on the web without actually checking to see exactly what those sources were or if there were any contrary opinions on the subject.

        But hey, while I’m at it, let me point out a few other things:

        4. Taxation without representation. Again, while the exact words “taxation without representation” don’t appear in the Constitution, it does say, in Article I, Clause 8, that “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”. Since Congress is representative, that means that taxation with representation is ultimately guaranteed by the US Constitution.

        5. Paper money. Boy, did the author miss the boat on this one. For one, the Constitution empowers Congress to “coin Money”. The definition of “coining”, however is very flexible. The 1871 SCOTUS ruling referred to by the author was Knox v. Lee, where the court found that the government had the right to issue representative paper money to cover the coinage. Subsequent rulings (such as Juiliard v. Greenman) backed this decision and ultimately led to the interpretation that Congress has the power to regulate the money supply. And as much as the author would like to toss aside the repeated opinions of the Supreme Court as not being a “reliable foundation”, their interpretation is the law.

        Hope this helps me feel better about myself. I also hope that the opportunity for you to complain about my comments helps you feel better about yourself. I’m all about the love.

        1. ????
          ???? at |

          5minutes ur kinda missing the point….the author is saying those things are not literally in there quote for quote. Yes we understand how it is interpreted and such where those things came from but not quote for quote. So just take a chill pill and relax guy, not as big a deal as you are making it out to be….

        2. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          And the point you’re missing is that the constitution is an interpretive document and that the items I listed are interpreted as actually being in there. The other point you’re missing is that several of the items I listed are actually in the constitution, word for word: trial by jury of your peers and the right to vote.

          See, the author went off to other websites that had these items and “borrowed” the material. Had they actually taken the time to read the constitution (as they suggested Americans don’t do in the opening paragraph), the author would’ve caught these errors.

        3. tryingtobereal
          tryingtobereal at |

          5minutes: I don’t understand how you can say “I’m all about the love.” when you make comments like these. I do understand that this article may not be 100 percent correct, but is that really a reason to get all worked up? If you truly want to be all about the love, then be slow to anger and quick to listen. Love is patient and kind, and listening is a great way to learn–and learning HOW to love is just as important as liking the idea of “love.” Please take this the best way possible, as I am just another man trying to make it in this world, just like you.

          just tryingtobereal

        4. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          Wow. Welcome to a year-old article.

          Here’s an idea, just a suggestion: go to a dictionary and look up “sarcasm”. Get back to me on that.

        5. tryingtobereal
          tryingtobereal at |

          Yep, sarcasm. Good stuff!

          Now do me a favor and look up the word “respect” you might learn something. In fact, you could learn a lot!

          As Bryant H. McGill has said, “One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.”

          Obviously, you did not do that. Please note in my last post that I stated, “please take this the best way possible, as I am just another man trying to make it in this world, just like you.” In that I meant that there is no hate needed here, and I certainly did not post that in order to call you out to the rest of the users, only to voice my own opinion and to maybe help you out. Is voicing your opinion not why you started posting here as well? I respect your opinion, even though I may not agree with it 100 percent, however, it is your own opinion. And I also respect that you would be courageous enough to voice it. I would like to share a mutual respect with you, but at this point, I see that it probably is not going to happen.

          once again,
          just tryingtobereal

        6. 5minutes
          5minutes at |

          Thanks for your valuable opinion.

          PS: respect is earned.

        7. TopTenz Master
          TopTenz Master at |

          I used to feel respect was earned too, but then I thought that means I don’t respect anyone until they earn it? That doesn’t make sense. So I think respect is given to everyone, but it can be taken away if it isn’t appreciated.

    2. Like I'd Tell You
      Like I'd Tell You at |

      That’s exactly what I was thinking… The article was awful, and those things are all very obviously implied in the Constitution. The article was clearly clickbait. 🙁

  2. rajimus123
    rajimus123 at |

    is there a point for you guys to have a constitution anymore though? re: Patriot Act and SOPA

    1. A BiPolar Guy
      A BiPolar Guy at |

      Zsopa fortunately did motmake it but then thered:’s acta and much worse like rece t law allowing indefinate detention without charge, trial, lawyer or anything really but the gov’ts decisioj to do so. OF course it’s “xonly for terorists”. How do we know the prisoner is a terrorist if there is no trial? Would your goverment lie to you? Anyone can now be be snatched at will and locked up forever for any reason pr no reason. Of course no one in our goverment would ever abuse this power, or make a mistake, or cover up an error or their own corruption. Constitution? Pfft! That old thing? By bye land of the free. Don’t get me started on the unpatriotic acts. Won’t callit patriot acts because patriots support the constitution

  3. Nixcell
    Nixcell at |

    This list was….wow. appallingly ignorant.

  4. Eanor
    Eanor at |

    There is no provision made for public education.

  5. Jose Hernandez
    Jose Hernandez at |

    Whoever made this list paid no attention in government class!

  6. Jay
    Jay at |

    Oh, I thought this counted amendments. Still, the other half are interesting. I need to read more political stuff.

  7. anon
    anon at |

    lmao it seems like the authors never heard of the bill of rights or any of the other amendments

  8. Craig
    Craig at |

    Did any of you people actually check out the sources in this thing? It`s not like the author pulled this out of his ass.

    1. Sarah
      Sarah at |

      Read 5minutes’ responses above. The author may have quoted sources, but many are incorrect interpretations, or the author is incorrectly interpreting them.

  9. Dan
    Dan at |

    I think the author took some artistic license with this article. Maybe the exact wording is not in the constitution but the many of the concepts are covered in the Bill of Rights (Admendments) if not in the Constitution itself.

    One common miss that should be in the list is “All men are created equal” which does not appear in the Constitution but is in the Declaration of Independence.

  10. Josh
    Josh at |

    First amendment of the US Constitution – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    The author missed the first part of the first sentence of the amendment…

    1. joe jim
      joe jim at |

      “Congress” shall make no law…………..
      Does not say the U.S.
      Review the meaning of each word not just part of the phrase.

      1. Josh
        Josh at |

        Considering we’re talking about the U.S. Constitution, and the Congress is a part of the U.S. government, I’m pretty sure they’re referring to the U.S. Congress and not that of another country….

        Which Congress did you think they were referring to?

        1. A BiPolar Guy
          A BiPolar Guy at |

          I think he was implying that other us government bodies – state and local level – are not covered. I think the courts disagree, reading it that congress – meaning the lawmaking branch, is a general statement that covers all lawmaking bodies in the US.

    2. 5minutes
      5minutes at |

      There is a great deal of debate over the interpretation of the 1st Amendment. The SCOTUS has adopted Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between the state and religion, but in doing so, has opened the door to effectively establishing secularism as the state religion.

      My own interpretation is this: I think the courts have gone way too far in denying the right of religion a role in our government. Just because Congress is forbidden from establishing a state religion doesn’t mean that religion and the state are whole and separate and should always be thus. The founders certainly didn’t view it that way, as they established a government that acknowledged God in practice if not in law.

      And we have to remember that government is made up of people, and those people have religious beliefs. To expect them to give up their beliefs and values the minute they adopt the role of a government official is as wrong as expecting them to sign an oath of loyalty to a church.

      Or, to put it another way: while I think a moment of silence in schools in the morning is OK, a teacher-led prayer is not.

      Allowing faith-based organizations to provide charity through government agencies is OK, but allowing only specific religions is not.

      Local governments setting up passive nativity displays and menorahs during the winter holiday season is fine.

      Holding a candlelight Christian Christmas Eve service led by city officials on city property is not.

      Inviting multiple members of the community to open government meetings with a non-sectarian benediction is OK. Opening the same meeting in the name of Jesus is not.

      1. Al Martin
        Al Martin at |

        Your comments are intelligent and insightful. What the hell are you doing on the internet? It’s not safe here for people like you. GET OUT…SAVE YOURSELF!

      2. Sassy
        Sassy at |

        Secularism is neutral. It doesn’t choose a religion. It is “nonreligious.” The Founders? did not establish a government based on any god. They purposely left all gods out of government. They were still trembling over the Salem Witch trials during which Christians had burned their own to death, including children. No way did they want to mix religion and politics. I think you need to study early political records and read accounts by the like men Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. You will find our Founders were secularists and Deists, not Christians. *shudders* You are not for RELIGION in politics. You are for CHRISTIANITY in politics. I doubt you’d be happy having Sharia Law enacted for those who believe it should be in place.

        Allowing faith-based government control opens the door for fundamentalist control. This includes the control of ANY faith. Perhaps even one that YOU don’t like. Think about it.

        No one asks anyone to give up their faith when they assume a government position, but they need to keep it in the privacy of their homes. If you are a Christian, then do as your bible says and pray in the closet. Thanks.

        And I know I’m replying old posts, but oh, well.

        1. A BiPolar Guy
          A BiPolar Guy at |

          not that it effects your main point, but in the interest of accurate history – the Salem trials were in 1692 – 96 years before constitution was written in 1788. So I don’t think any one was trembling even metaphorically. No one was burned, they were hung. Although some were accused, nor children were killed or even brought to trial so far as I know. 19 men and women were hung on 4 different days, 5 more died in prison. Sometimes you get the impression that all one had to do was accuse someone in this hysteria and they were condemned, but more actually were acquitted than convicted.
          In additional support that religion and government should be separated – the trials were very likely an example of people manipulating religious ideas for personal and secular reasons – not really the act of sincere believers. It’s not certain, but personal grudges seem to have been a major motivator of accusations. The 3 girls often blamed as major accusers only did so under great pressure form adults – another evidence of personally motivated manipulation of the system.

  11. thebigweasel (Zepp Jamieson)
    thebigweasel (Zepp Jamieson) at |

    The author would have been better off saying that these PHRASES are not to be found in the constitution. The concepts are there, either inferred (people vote every two years for House representatives) or penumbral (rights acknowledged by the courts as essential to the intent of the constitution but not specifically ‘enumerated’, such as the right to privacy.) To note another example, while colleges and workplaces may limit speech, they cannot extend that to off-campus or off-work.

  12. Chad
    Chad at |

    Very poorly researched article. Separation of Church and State, the Right to Vote, Trial by Jury of Peers, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, all these are CONCEPTS found in the Constitution, but not under that exact phrasing. Just like the 3/5ths Compromise isn’t to found under a heading “3/5th Compromise for Counting Slaves”, but IS in the Constitution. Author might as well say “Holy crap! Did you know that the Constitution doesn’t even mention the 37 other states! Told you they didn’t actually exist…”

  13. PragmaticStatistic
    PragmaticStatistic at |

    To find out what is, or is not, in the Constitution of 1790, use this Word document of the original Constitution of 1790 to do a Find and Replace for various terms. So, if you want to challenge all the political rhetoric in this article, and in the all the comments shown here, do your own search with this tool:


    For example:
    democracy: 0 times
    capitalism: 0 times
    citizen rights: 0 times
    voting rights: 0 times
    conservatism: 0 times
    war: 9 times
    taxes: 3 times
    states rights: 0 times
    freedom: 2 times
    slavery: 2 times
    liberty: 3 times
    welfare: 2 times
    election: 12 times
    power: 42 times
    lobby: 0 times
    corporations: 0 times
    states: 133 times
    religion: 2 times
    laws: 13 times
    guns: 0 times
    firearms: 0 times
    bear arms: 2 times
    crime: 9 times

  14. A BiPolar Guy
    A BiPolar Guy at |

    when you are are dealing with concepts, not specific words, such a list of words as posted is next to useless.

    Is a word absent? That proves nothing – the concept contained in a word may be expressed without using the word (for example every definition in a dictionary does this.)

    is a word present? Likewise means nothing. A word may mean different things in different contexts (again see how dictionaries provide multiple meanings ) Words also change meaning over time, and the document is of varying ages.

    Stop arguing about what words were used or not, and deal with what it means, not only in it’s historical/cultural context, but in terms of it’s application today. Only then will you know what is there. Not that people will all agree, since dealing in concepts is not as simple as dealing in specific words.

  15. Steve Hill
    Steve Hill at |

    The First Amendment (freedom of speech) applies to the states (see Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652). The example of a public university or college (state run institutions, therefore, part of the state) being able to control your speech is wrong. Speech codes enforcing politically correct speech have constantly been overturned by courts as a violation of the First Amendment.. See Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989), Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Tex. 2004), Dambrot v. Central Mich. Univ., 55 F.3d 1177, 1184 (6th Cir. 1995), and DeJohn v. Temple University, 537 F.3d 301, 317 (3d Cir. 2008).

    Under the “incorporation doctrine,” the Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has held that the Constitution applies to the states. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine.

    Additionally, whether you agree or disagree with Court rulings, virtually every example given has been upheld as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court. The mere fact you can’t find the right to vote, for example, specifically mentioned, Court rulings have affirmed it is there.

  16. Kyle
    Kyle at |

    While God was not mentioned in the Constitution, you can find God referenced in the declaration of independence. While the declaration is not legally binding, it is in the spirit of the founders and reflects
    their political ideas. I don’t know of any founders who were atheists (see bottom about Paine). While a number of them were deists, (ex. Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, if you count him as a founder) the majority were christian, or at least were members of a church. So most of the founders came from that mindset and didn’t need to lay that out in the Constitution (which is very proper in form as opposed to the more poetical declaration). We must remember that political theory is not always
    an easy thing to write into the constitution, which was more focused on function. The equality of men was not included because men were assumed to have rights so you could write a constitution that lists those rights. No explanation was given because it was already assumed. Therefore the constitution may not list out broad philosophical topics like God or natural rights because they were already laid out in things like the Declaration of Independence.

    P.S. Before someone replies by saying, “Paine was an atheist, not a deist!” I will go ahead and say that they are dead wrong. If anyone really doubts me, you can find his beliefs in his “Age of Reason”

  17. auto devis
    auto devis at |

    Wow very informatif


Leave a Reply