The Bill of Rights. Has the bill come due?

My friend Janice Daniels wrote a piece for  IPatriot about the Bill of Rights.

Were We Right To Write a Bill of Rights?

She poses an interesting question.

Did we open a can of worms when we included the first ten amendments?

In a document that is written to supply limited powers to a federal government, should we have included verbiage that invites lawyers to interpret that verbiage?

I think it's an interesting thought, I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I'm still thinking about it.

Along those lines though, how is it that the First Amendment clearly states:

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.

And yet we are not allowed to sue an overaggressive prosecutor for a wrongful prosecution?

Wouldn't that suit be a redress of a grievance?

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.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have the First Amendment phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting..." involved in that protection?

Here's one we haven't worried about, that really is worrisome:

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.

So basically, if the government write a law that says troops can be quartered in your house during wartime, they can be.

We are still at war with North Korea. 

Got an extra room?

Should we have needed to amend the Constitution at all?
Did we really need a 14th amendment to state the obvious that now gives us anchor babies?

Or the Volstead Amendment? We needed an amendment to make booze illegal?

Maybe Janice was right.