The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

Americans seem to have forgotten the reasons behind our Bill of Rights

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” ― Benjamin Franklin

Jim Kempton. File photo
Jim Kempton. File photo

By Jim Kempton

Two hundred and twenty two years ago our forefathers amended our constitution with 10 articles known as the Bill of Rights. In the glaring light of revelations that the U.S. security agencies have overstepped their bounds it is a good time to consider why we have some seemingly very odd protections in our first 10 Constitutional amendments. The reason? Our first civil guarantees were a direct result of our experience with Britain’s autocratic government.

Most Americans can name the First Amendment as protecting free speech and religion, the Second as the right to bear arms, and the Fifth as protecting citizens from forced self-incrimination. But the “quartering of soldiers?” Yep, that’s the Third Amendment. It states “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 British “redcoats” you see, moved into Boston homes. The military occupation of private premises was highly resented by the colonial citizens. So, Americans wrote the third amendment, making sure nobody could do that ever again.

The odd thing is that with many of these essential rights, we seem to have forgotten to practice what our founding fathers so brilliantly preached.

Take the quartering of soldiers issue. Having failed to read our history the first thing our leaders did when we invaded Iraq was to establish “safe houses” which meant U.S. combat units could live in houses of Iraqi citizens. And if you know how delighted Bostonians were about this you can probably guess how well the people of Baghdad responded as well.

“Taking the Fifth (or refusing to answer questions that might incriminate one)” has in recent years been disparaged as a loophole for criminals. But it was stipulated by the veterans of the Revolution so no one could torture us into a confession like the British often did. Which makes you wonder why we think it is OK to torture others now that we are the world’s power.

When Congress promised “to make no law respecting an establishment of religion” they did so because they wanted no religion in the government—because they didn’t want a specific one that might harm the particular one they themselves practiced. Some colonists were driven out by the singular restrictions of the Anglican church of King George.

Some folks get quite indignant when Christmas trees and manger scenes are not allowed in public squares (or paid for by government taxes). But can you imagine how some would feel if a Buddhist wheel of Dharma, a Muslim star and crescent, a Hindu aum or giant menorah were erected in public locales during each of those religions many holy days?

So it is good to remember where our sense of rights comes from and why we were so insistent about them. No one should take illegal search and seizures lightly. Nor should we allow our soldiers to commandeer homes, our security forces to extract forced confessions or our officials to promote one religion over another. It defeats all we have fought for—and all we stand for.

Jim Kempton is an armchair political observer who has watched the saga of Edward Snowden with great interest. While he believes Americans have a responsibility to expose wrongdoing in our government, he finds it hard to believe that a patriot would choose Russia as his place to protect his civil rights from the United States.

In an effort to provide our readers with a wide variety of opinions from our community, the DP Times provides Guest Opinion opportunities in which selected columnists’ opinions are shared. The opinions expressed in these columns are entirely those of the columnist alone and do not reflect those of the DP Times or Picket Fence Media. If you would like to respond to this column, please email us at

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (1)

  • re: Snowden and Russia. I’m not sure Snowden had much choice, and it just happened fate provided an opportunity for safe haven, for whatever Russian reason. All of this is far from resolved, here we sit gobsmacked because of Russia’s cruelty to its own gay people, while our government chases an potential America hero away from his own haven with We the People. Secrecy and lies will destroy our democracy, that’s a fact, as our founders knew. The problem doesn’t lie with Mr. Snowden, the problem lies with a government that wants to operate outside of scrutiny of We the People. Bring Mr. Snowden back to this country, thank him for his small part in renewing this country, and let him go.

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>