Talk:United States Bill of Rights

Coronavirus question

Should it be noted that the current state of affairs in the US is essentially that the First Amendment has been indefinitely suspended? People are being arrested for protesting the restrictions that prevent them from going to work, so the "right of redress" has essentially been eliminated. The "social distancing" rules enforced by fines and arrest have also eliminated the concept of freedom of association, and Easter was basically cancelled in the US for the first time in history and church services are prohibited in most areas, eliminating the concept of freedom of religion. This does seem to be a historically significant moment that might deserve mention in the article.174.28.227.60 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that would be beyond the scope of this article. It might, perhaps, be germane to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article, provided it was addressed from a neutral point of view. Cheers.Drdpw (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

A lot of the text in the Bill of Rights resembles text in Article II of the Northwest Ordinance. It reads: "The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same."

This article and this one point out that these rights appeared in the Bill of Rights only two years later. This paper seems to make the same case, though I have only read the abstract (as it's 65 pages long). So I propose listing it in the lead, along with the Virginian Declaration, the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights. Richard75 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added it, citing the second source I linked to above. Richard75 (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Have moved the Ordinance from "especially the" to "as well as" (leaving the Virginia Bill of Rights as the principal source for the concepts and not described as a duo-principal source). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

Reference in the opening section of this article to "the Magna Carta" should in fact be more simply to "Magna Carta". "The" is superfluous. Tomjoyner (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Article is written in US English, use of definite article here is acceptable. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Missing from this page is what the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 did to the Bill of Rights

In December 2011, Congress changed the Bill of Rights to remove habeas corpus using language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Only 13 senators, from both parties, vetoed this and on December 31, 2011 Obama signed it into law. AccuracyPrevails (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: A law can't change the constitution, and that source is unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References