GOVT 2305
Civil Liberties and
the Bill of Rights
The final constitutional
principle we will discuss
is individual liberty.
The fancy term we will use is civil
liberty.
Note that other principles are
contained in the constitution, but
these (most notably equality) were
added to the document after the
original document was ratified.
For past blog posts on relevant
material for this section, click on
these:
Bill of Rights
civil liberties
establishment clause
first amendment
free exercise
procedural liberty
Two quick definitions of the term “civil
liberty.”
1 - The protections of individuals from the
arbitrary powers of government.
2 - “the freedom of a citizen to exercise
customary rights, as of speech or
assembly, without unwarranted or
arbitrary interference by the government.”
So civil liberties are guarantees
against arbitrary power and in
favor of the ability to engage in
certain activities central to self
government.
You can find more expansive definitions,
thoughts and comments here:
About.com
ACLU: This Week in Civil Liberties
Cato Institute: Civil Liberties
David Hume, Of Civil Liberty
Wikipedia
Note: A civil liberty is not the same as a
civil right.
Freedom of speech is a civil liberty. The
right to equal protection is a civil right.
We will cover this more fully in the next
section.
Civil liberties are established by
limiting the government.
Specific limits are placed on its
powers. The question is how is this
best done?
As we will see, there are two ways to
do so.
The first is to design the system so
that its various parts check each other.
The second is to place explicit limits on
the powers of government in a
document called a Bill of Rights.
The document as ratified
contained the former, but not the
latter.
The Federalists thought the
republican design, in addition to
the checks and balances was
sufficient to limit governing power,
but the Anti-Federalists needed a
further guarantee.
This guarantee would become the
first Ten Amendments, also known
as the Bill of Rights.
Have a quick look through it by
clicking here: U.S. Bill of Rights.
Its short, it wont take long.
The Bill of Rights places two
general types of limitations on the
powers of the national
government:
Substantive
Procedural
As a consequence we can speak of
procedural liberty (notably due
process) and substantive liberty.
A substantive limit refers to what
government can pass laws about.
(religion, speech, press etc…)
Example: You are free to say what
you wish because government is
limited from passing laws which
restrict speech.
(we will analyze exceptions to this
in due course)
A procedural limit refers to how
the executive and judicial powers
can be used.
The Due Process of Law
Example: How, and under what
conditions, can someone be
searched? And if one is accused of
a crime, what justifies a trial? And
one goes to trial, what rights does
a defendant have in a court of law?
Basic Fact:
The U.S. Bill of Rights has ten
sections – these are the first ten
amendments to the Constitution.
There is no separate section titled
“the bill of rights.” the term simply
refers to the first ten amendments.
Some useful links regarding the Bill
of Rights.
- Its History and Significance
- Wikipedia
- James Madison and the Bill of Rights
It is relatively short and vague. As
is the rest of the Constitution. It is
commonly reinterpreted, often
controversially so.
Example: A recent Supreme Court
case dealt with the question
whether gaming was
constitutionally protected speech.
Bills of Rights were commonly
attached to state constitutions. It
was argued that they were
necessary because the states had –
as we know – powers that were
“many and undefined.” States
could potentially pass laws that
treated people arbitrarily and
limited individual freedom.
As we will see soon, many states –
and colonies before them – did
restrict religious freedom. Many
had state sponsored religions.
Hamilton and Madison both
argued that a national bill of rights
was unnecessary because the
national government’s powers
were “few and defined.”
Think about it – Congress has no
delegated power to pass laws on
religion and speech, etc ….
The Anti-Federalists were
unconvinced and demanded that a
Bill of Rights be added to the
document to ensure that specific
limits were placed on the national
government.
Five states, including
Massachusetts, ratified the
Constitution on the condition that
such amendments be added
immediately.
James Madison agreed to
introduce and push it through the
House when he became a member
of it.
He thought it was harmless.
The addition of the Bill of Rights is
therefore a product of a
compromise between the
Federalists and the AntiFederalists.
It was the subject of Federalist #84
(wikipedia). Its argument was
rebutted in Anti Federalist #84.
Some argued that adding a Bill of
Rights was dangerous.
Noah Webster for example.
It is impossible to spell out all the
rights of individuals. To only list a
few would imply that others did
not exist.
Listing six freedoms in the First
Amendment might lead others to
suggest that these are the only
ones that exist.
What about rights not mentioned
in the Constitution?
Privacy?
Travel?
Contract?
Property?
Voting?
For general information: Things
that are not in the Constitution.
If the right is not explicitly written
in the Constitution, it may be
argued that the power does not
exist.
Here’s an example of this
reasoning. It involves the rights of
gays and lesbians and whether
they sexual orientation is covered
by the equal protection clause.
Clarence Thomas’ Dissenting
Opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the
law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the
Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing
his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with
another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law
enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not
empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather,
is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United
States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the
Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of
privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both
in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.
There would be no way to make
this argument if there was no First
Amendment because the rights
cannot be limited to those listed.
Was this what Hamilton was
concerned about here?
“. . . bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in
which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would
even be dangerous. They would contain various
exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on
this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to
claim more than were granted. For why declare that
things shall not be done which there is no power to
do?”
Nevertheless, a bill of rights was
proposed and debated during the
Constitutional Convention
(August 20).
It was not accepted.
But it is also argued that a
statement of the specific liberties
held by the people is essential to
the formation of a free society.
It clearly establishes the
importance of these rights.
Every time we read the First
Amendment, for example, we are
reminded of the importance of
religious liberty as well as that of
speech, press, assembly and
petition.
They attain a unique status among
all liberties.
th
14
And once the
Amendment was
added to the Constitution these
rights guaranteed by the national
government has to be recognized
by the state governments.
Many states didn’t.
Some History
The rights listed in the Bill of Rights
evolved over time.
Some of this history we have
discussed, so this concept should
be familiar by now.
We have noted four specific
predecessors, in British history, to
the Bill of Rights.
The Charter of Liberties
Magna Carta
The Petition of Right
The English Bill of Rights
The Charter of Liberties (1100) was
issued by Henry I in order to
convince the nobility and the
church that he would abide by the
law.
These were a bit random, and
were soon forgotten. But they
would become the model for the
Magna Carta which established
specific procedural limits on the
power of the monarchy.
Magna Carta (1215)
As we know, Magna Carta was
forced upon John by the nobility. It
was intended to minimize arbitrary
rule and establish certain defined
rights on the part of freemen.
No freeman could be punished
unless it was in accordance with
the law of the land.
The term freeman is worth digging
into further. These rights did not
apply to everyone.
- Wikipedia: Freeman
Click here for a good summary of
the specific rights and freedoms
secured in the Magna Carta.
A handful of its provisions establish
what we now know as the rule of
law – or procedural liberty as we
are calling it now.
38. No bailiff for the future shall,
upon his own unsupported
complaint, put anyone to his "law",
without credible witnesses brought
for this purposes.
39. No freemen shall be taken or
imprisoned or disseised or exiled
or in any way destroyed, nor will
we go upon him nor send upon
him, except by the lawful judgment
of his peers or by the law of the
land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no
one will we refuse or delay, right
or justice.
Respectively these establish the
idea that convictions must be
based on eyewitness testimony,
convictions must be rendered by a
jury, and that justice is available to
all.
th
6
Much of the
Amendment –
which establishes the procedural
liberties of criminal defendants - is
based on this.
The Petition of Right (1628)
The Petition of Right was written
to remind Charles I of the “ancient
rights and liberties” agreed to in
Magna Carta.
As discussed earlier, Magna Carta
had been forgotten over time.
The petition was written by
Edward Coke who modified Magna
Carta to apply to all subject of the
crown, not just the nobility.
All subjects of the crown should
have liberties from the arbitrary
actions of the government.
Charles was unconvinced and
suspended Parliament as a result.
But he would be executed soon
enough, and the Scottish Stuarts
would be removed in the Glorious
Revolution, which led – as we
know to:
The English Bill of Rights (1689)
This document, backed by a
powerful Parliament, would not
only ensure that the procedural
limitations placed on the power of
the monarch would be secure, but
it also added substantive liberties
as well.
A Small Sampling:
The English Bill of Rights
• . . . it is the right of the subjects to petition the king,
and all commitments and prosecutions for such
petitioning are illegal;
• . . . the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
for their defence suitable to their conditions and as
allowed by law;
• . . . the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings
in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned
in any court or place out of Parliament;
• . . . excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted;
Aspects of the First, Second, and
Eighth Amendment can be found here.
But notice that religious liberty is not
recognized. Protestants are privileged over
Catholics (this is something to think about
prior to our discussion of equal protection
and civil rights). Early colonies had
religious requirements.
Recall that part of what motivated
the colonists in the 1760s through
the revolution was that they were
not recognized as Englishmen and
were not granted the rights given
to Englishmen.
The Declaration of Independence
would establish that the liberties
of Englishmen should apply to the
white, property owning, male
inhabitants of the colonies.
The Declaration of Independence
(1776)
Note: what happened here was
similar to what would occur later
in American history.
We cover the expansion of liberties
to other groups in society when we
discuss civil rights.
The Declaration is based on
John Locke’s argument in the
Second Treatise on Government.
We covered this material
previously so it should be familiar
to you.
It establishes that certain rights are
unalienable in the individual.
But again – they didn’t apply to
everyone. The notion of individual
liberty existed, but was very
limited.
Here are two other useful
documents. They help us
understand how the subject of
individual liberty was handled
elsewhere.
The Virginia
Declaration of Rights
The Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen
The Virginia Declaration of Rights
was also written by Jefferson and
was intended to serve as Virginia’s
Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of the Rights of
Man was France’s Bill or Rights,
written during their revolution.
Each document is far more forceful
than the U.S. Bill of Rights in how
they state these rights.
Certain things are inherent in the
individual and must be guaranteed
proactively. The US Bill of Rights is
more passive.
The Bill of Rights does not make
similar statements. It is really less
about the rights of individuals than
it is about limiting the power of
government.
The document assumes that
people have certain liberties, and
establishes them by negating the
power of government to interfere
with those liberties.
Two useful terms:
Negative Liberty
Positive Liberty
Negative Liberty
A liberty established by the
negation of the power that can
suppress it.
The First Amendment, for
example, starts with the phrase
“Congress shall make no law.” The
subject of the document is not the
people and what they can do, but
government and what it cannot do.
This is distinct from a positive
liberty which places an obligation
on a governing authority to
actively provide for the right.
This is a good definition
of a civil right.
For example, many people
consider education to be a right,
which means that we are obligated
to provide it.
But there is no language
mandating it on the national level.
Five quick points about
the Bill of Rights.
1 - It is Undemocratic.
It establishes that, for example,
certain laws cannot be passed,
even if the majority supports it.
This minimizes the ability of the
majority to impose its will on the
minority.
“Congress can make no law...”
Even if the majority wants it to?
This is meant to save the minority
from the majority, but it does so by
limiting the majority.
This explains why the
implementation of these
limitations can be very unpopular.
2 - Civil Liberties are not Absolute.
They can be limited if doing so
secures the greater interest of
society.
Example:
Freedom of Speech does not
protect you from being punished
for falsely shouting fire in a
crowded theater.
The most stringent protection of free speech
would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in
a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question
in every case is whether the words used are used
in such circumstances and are of such a nature
as to create a clear and present danger that
they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent.
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. U.S.
A related concept:
Ordered Liberty
People are free to act within the
confines of what it takes to have
an orderly society.
Another example:
“The Constitution is not a suicide
pact” - Eric Posner
Can restrictions on searches and
seizures be too restrictive on the
ability of government to enforce
the law?
Controversy: What factors
justifiably limit constitutional
liberties?
How do we define the greater
interest of society?
This is an ongoing source of
controversy, but it is generally held
that liberties have their limits.
Establishing those limits is an
ongoing source of controversy.
3 – Civil Liberties can
come into conflict
For example:
The Freedom of the Press can
conflict with The Right to a Fair
Trial.
The Right Against Self
Incrimination vs. the Right to
Obtain Witnesses in Your Favor
4 – The specific recognition of
rights is up to the Supreme Court.
This involves controversies over
how the Constitution is to be
interpreted and what role the
court should have in overturning
legislation.
Examples of rights established by
Supreme Court Decisions:
The Right to Privacy
One Person One Vote
Miranda Warnings
Rights of Corporations
The Right to Privacy
The Supreme Court recognized in
Griswold v. Connecticut within the
broad language of the
Constitution, a right to privacy.
One Person One Vote
in Baker v Carr the Supreme Court
ruled against the existence of
uneven districts because they
violated an implicit guarantee that
votes be equal.
Miranda Warnings
In Miranda v Arizona the court
argued that the Fifth Amendment
right against self incrimination had
to be made clear to criminal
suspects.
Rights of Corporations
In Citizens United v. FEC the
Supreme Court argued that
corporations have the same
speech rights as citizens.
Controversy: How expansively
should rights be inferred from the
document?
How should the Constitution
be interpreted? As discussed
previously, this is highly
controversial.
This is material we covered before.
Constitutional language can be
interpreted in different ways:
- Strictly
- Loosely
Those who argue for a strict
interpretation tend to battle over
whether meaning must be
determined by trying to figure out
the intent of those who wrote the
document, or by sticking to the
narrow reading of the text.
Strict Interpretation
Original Intent
Textualism
Those who argue for loose
interpretations often argue that
the loose language in the
Constitution is intended to allow
for flexibility in how it is applied.
This is often referred to as the
Living Constitution. The document
must be adapted to the changing
circumstances of society, including
the changing morals of the
community.
One with a loose interpretation of
the Constitution is likely to see
rights embedded within the
document that are not
acknowledged by those with a
strict interpretation
Example: Privacy / Abortion
Key current controversy: Do
“evolving standards of decency”
mean that the juvenile death
penalty is cruel and unusual?
Competitive elections often
include statements regarding a
candidate’s viewpoint concerning
how the Constitution should be
interpreted.
5 – Originally the Bill of Rights
applied only to the national
th
government, but the 14
Amendment made it applicable to
the states.
“All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States …”
This made the restriction placed on
the national government applicable to
state and local governments as well.
States could not deny liberties to
American citizens. Their citizens were
also American citizens, so the conflict
was inevitable.
Controversy followed since states
were no longer able to deny certain
liberties to their citizens.
They were freer to speak, organize and
use the press. They also had freedoms
against the arbitrary use of law
enforcement.
Supreme Court cases the apply
national civil liberty restrictions to
state governments contain
language stating that the national
limit applies to the states through
the 14th Amendment.
The doctrine of “equal protection
of the laws” was also established in
the 14th Amendment, but we cover
that when we discuss civil rights.
Next Topic
The Content of the Bill of Rights
Responding to demands by the
states ratifying conventions, James
Madison introduced several
constitutional amendments to the
House of Representatives when it
first met.
Twenty were introduced, twelve
would be sent to the states, ten
would be ratified.
One of the rejected amendments
was a right to conscience.
“No State shall violate the equal
rights of conscience, or the
freedom of the press, or the trial
by jury in criminal cases.”
It was rejected by the Senate.
To repeat a point made above:
There are two types of liberties
established in the Bill of Rights,
substantive and procedural.
We will review each.
Substantive Liberties
The “what” of government
These are contained in
Amendments 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10
First Amendment: 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.
It establishes six specific liberties:
Establishment
Free Exercise
Speech
Press
Peaceful Assembly
Petition
More attention is paid to this
amendment than to any other. We
will dig into these controversies
soon.
Second Amendment: 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.
Until several years ago, the Supreme
Court had never clarified the meaning
of the opening phrase.
Is the right to bear arms absolute or
conditional upon the existence of a
militia (which a standing army has
made unnecessary)?
In the case DC v. Heller, the court
ruled 5-4, that it was an absolute
right.
McDonald v. Chicago made this
applicable – through the 14th
Amendment – to the states.
Third Amendment: 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.
There is very little jurisprudence
associated with this amendment.
Ninth Amendment: The
enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
Establishes, controversially, that
other rights may exist, but it does
not explain how these rights might
be justified.
This amendment was used to help
establish the right to privacy.
There is debate regarding how
often, and how, it ought to be
used.
Tenth Amendment: 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.
As we already know from a
previous section, this amendment
defines the terminology
of federalism.
Procedural Liberties
The “how” of government
Amendments 4 - 8
As suggested above, together these
amendments define the parameters of
what we know as the Due Process of
Law.
The legal system – from beginning to
end – has to follow certain guidelines
to keep it from being an agent of
arbitrary power.
Given the power government has
to remove an individual’s life,
liberty and property, these
amendments restrict the potential
that this power can be used in a
discretionary or arbitrary manner.
These are what some people
derisively call “technicalities.”
Fourth Amendment: 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.
After the First Amendment, this
gets more attention form the
courts than almost any other
amendment.
It places limits on the investigative
power of law enforcement.
A search must be justified. Police
cannot go on “fishing expeditions”
casting their nets wide to see what
they can catch.
Searches have to be based on
probable cause and be based on a
warrant which states what they
are looking for and where they
think they will find it.
But: how broadly will the court
define “probable cause?”
What level is suspicion is necessary
to justify a search?
An additional area of controversy:
The Exclusionary Rule
Can evidence gathered in an
unreasonable search be excluded
from being introduced in court?
Fifth Amendment: 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
offence 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
This places limits on the arbitrary
actions of district attorneys.
The state cannot take anyone to
trial that they choose. This power
is checked by a group of citizens
from the broader community.
Trials can only be justified if an
indictment is issued by a grand
jury, they only have one crack at
finding a defendant guilty, and
defendants can’t be tortured in
order to get evidence.
Areas of Controversy:
Double Jeopardy
Eminent Domain
Sixth Amendment: 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 where in 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 defence.
This applies to trials. Judges must
ensure that defendant know what
they are accused of, can challenge
accusers, have access to a lawyer,
and have access to a speedy and
public trial before a jury of their
peers.
This limits the arbitrary power of
judges.
Again there are significant areas of
controversy:
Assistance of Counsel
How competent must public
defenders be?
Seventh Amendment: 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 re-examined in
any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.
Eight Amendment: Excessive bail
shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted.
This is almost word for word what
exists in the English Bill of Rights.
Punishments must be proportional
to the crime
Ongoing area of controversy:
Is the death penalty cruel and
unusual?
A bit more on the impact of the
th
14 Amendment.
The 14th Amendment makes these
procedures mandatory to the
states.
At least in theory.
The 14th Amendment was written
after the Civil War to negate Dred
Scott decision. The Supreme Court
ruled that Scott was not a citizen
and had no right to sue in the
courts.
th
14
The
Amendment ruled that
anyone born in the US was a
citizen and states could not violate
their rights (their privileges and
immunities) as Americans.
This included access to the courts.
“No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws”
The question soon became
whether this argument applied to
all other matters raised in the
Constitution as well, including the
liberties guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights.
Over time these limitations on
national power were applied to the
states (incorporated) on a case by
case basis.
This process was called selective
incorporation
The Selective Incorporation of the
Bill of Rights to the States.
- Wikipedia.
- Exploring Constitutional Conflicts.
- Free Legal Encyclopedia.
This idea was rejected early on
however:
The Slaughter House Cases.
th
20
Beginning in early
Century a
series of cases began to use the
14th Amendment to protect
American citizens from the actions
of the states.
Gitlow v New York
The freedom of speech is applied
to the states
Mapp v. Ohio
Applied the right against
unreasonable searches and
seizures to the states
McDonald v Chicago
Applied the right to keep and bear
arms to the states.
What is the current status of
incorporation?
From Exploring Constitutional Conflicts:
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: Fully incorporated.
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found
to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing
criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection
against "cruel and unusual punishments," but no specific
Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive
fines" and "excessive bail" protections.
Study Guide
- Be able to define “civil rights” and understand
how they are protected both in the body of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
- What is the difference between a liberty and a
right?
- What is the difference between a substantive
and procedural freedom?
- Why was the Bill of Rights added to the
Constitution? What arguments were made in
favor and against doing so?
- What factors might be used to limit the
liberties listed in the Bill of Rights?
- What predecessors influenced the Bill of
Rights?
- Be able to answer questions about each of the
first ten amendments.
- How are conflicts over the precise nature of
the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights
resolved?
- What controversies have resulted from loose
interpretations of the language in the Bill of
Rights?
- What impact has the 14th Amendment had on
the relationship between the Bill of Rights and
the states?
- What are the similarities and differences
between the U.S. and Texas Bills of Rights?
- What does the U.S. Bill of Rights not
guarantee?
- What does the First Amendment actually limit?
What does this tell us about the overall
structure of American government?
th
14
(Note that prior to the
Amendment, the Bill of Rights
applied only to the national
government.)
Basic Fact:
The Texas Constitution does
have a unique section called the
Bill of Rights. It is the first Article
of the document. It has 33
sections, and has been heavily
amended since it was first
written. Most recently in 2009.