The White House Rewrites the Second Amendment


The following is a topic I have discussed before but it bears repeating.

The Constitution cannot be changed except by constitutional amendment but changing the wording of the Constitution can accustom people to a different way of thinking about the rights it defines for us.

The White House has posted the Bill of Rights on their website and they have changed the wording of the second amendment.

This might be a concern given the Progressive movement to ratify a new Constitution by 2020. Adding to this concern are recent comments by Justice Ginsberg referencing her admiration for the South African Constitution, which is the most Progressive Constitution in the world.

The Progressive vision does not accept constitutional amendments. Progressives want a living constitution which allows justices to substitute the rule of law with personal judgment.

The Open Society Institute is one organization behind the Progressive Constitution of 2020 which is out in book form. A number of the people referenced in the book now work for the Obama Administration, such as Cass Sunstein and Harold Koh. Still others never made it past Congress because they are considered too extreme. A second book on the same topic, “Keeping the Faith,” is offered for free on the Open Society website.

How would you like your Bill of Rights adjusted to meet the following requirements as outlined in “The Constitution of 2020” –

…Instead, the Court proposes one of several possible tests for finding a constitutional right under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, largely informed by a body of scholarship originating in The Constitution in 2020 project. The test considers constitutional rights to be part of a fluid jurisprudential dynamic rather than a finite list of historical absolutes. A privilege or immunity can be formed when a national–or perhaps international–consensus exists that some positive right becomes a constitutional right; or when “the time is right”; or during a “constitutional moment” as the result of “landmark legislation”; or as a result of a powerful social movement….

So, in other words, your rights are not unalienable. They will be fluid and will be governed perhaps by international consensus, when the time is right, or during a “constitutional moment,” or as the result of legislation, or a social movement. Does it sound dangerous to you? I do think it is.

A recent article in The Washington Post, Liberals and Conservatives don’t just vote differently. They think differently, was written by Chris Mooney, who authored, “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science – and Reality.” He’s not biased, he’s extremely biased.

Mooney is a journalist with an interest in science and politics. He emphatically states that liberals are more open and Republicans are closed because of their brains. It is unclear what gives him the expertise to make this judgement other than his own bias but it’s getting a lot of play in the lamestream media because it falls in line with a distorted view of why people on the right would oppose these Progressive changes to the Constitution.

People on the right are not opposed because of close-mindedness as he would have people believe, they are opposed because they want to maintain the rule of law.

The Bill of Rights recorded on the White House website plays with semantics. Knowing how the far left uses subtleties of language to effectively bring about change, I think these subtle changes do matter.

I’d like to know what was wrong with the original wording. 

Of concern is the change to the second amendment. Instead of the actual wording – the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed – it becomes a right given to us by the state with the following White House wording – The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms

The Founders believed that we have certain inalienable rights as recorded in the Bill of Rights. An inalienable right means that no one gives it to us, it is an inherent right.

In the ensuing paragraphs, the White House wording of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, leads off with the original wording by the Founders below it-

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I – 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.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Amendment II – 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.

Change: In the White House version, the government gives citizens the right to bear arms while the Constitution clearly states that the  peoples’ right to bear arms shall not be infringed

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

Amendment III – 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 Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

Amendment IV – 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.

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

Amendment V – 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.

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers, to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged, and to confront the witnesses brought by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, and to legal representation.

Amendment VI – 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.

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.

Amendment VII – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

Amendment VIII – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.

Amendment X – 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.

Maybe I’m overly concerned about the semantics but it seems like we are being inundated with propaganda from the White House and the media and words do matter.

More information: Soros-funded book, “Keeping Faith with the Constitution”


  1. Non of the Amendments are worded as in the Constitution, they are all worded in a very basic synopsis. How is this an issue? They even link to the actual Constitution at the top of the page.

Comments are closed.