The "context" of the Amendments ...
Actually, for a foreigner, understanding that emotional bound helps a lot to see how important is the 2nd Amendment for almost all American citizens. It's something unique to the USA, totally alien for most
foreigners (like i am).
The lowest numbered US Amendments have a lot to do with the policies of the British government the last few decades of the American colonies.
Too many Americans have never read them. The ones that do are utterly confused by several. And many overlook what was actually most important in each.
First Amendment:
A major issue with the UK that went into the First Amendment was Freedom of Assembly, not so much Press or even Speech. Even Freedom of Religion was more of a "bid deal," more of a protection of the states from the federal (and influence of one another, using the federal against each other), and the right of any individual citizen to practice what they wanted, regardless of the state. Although many of the submissions and states realized they were equally as important, and a core balance. That would prove crucial later with the [Jeffersonian] Republicans against some of the Federalist Party's policies.
It was also long debated whether the 1st Amendment is more about individual or state rights, but it's actually individual rights that are also state rights (against the federal), as long as the state rights do not override the individual (the common, complementary Supreme Law ruling). The problem with that later part has always been then, who decides if the individual's rights are being violated by the state? Especially given the Tenth Amendment. That has been a debate that holds true to today -- especially during both the 1860s and the again in the 1960s.
Second Amendment:
Is it about the militia or not? One of the greatest debates ever seen was just his past year on this fact. As much as people want to demonize W., or the justices he appointed, people forget that both Democrat and Republican appointed judges agreed with one another on some things, disagreeing with their alleged own on the same. The reality is that not only did both individual and state submissions guarantee the right of the individual, but several forms of the 2nd Amendment included different grammar.
In the end, the worry was that the federal government could say, "hey, look, we said the people could bear arms individually, not states against the federal government in sedition." That's why the militia comment was included, which came up in a very historical sense (and has been largely ignored by the left). Hell, even Obama stated that individuals have the right to bear arms, and the consensus is that DC went too far by banning ownership.
Key Supreme Law Here: The US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that you have a right to do with and in your home what you wish. Defense of your home is considered very legal, and goes to the very right of "property" of Locke.
Third Amendment:
Americans look at this and get a dumb stare, or worse yet, use it as an excuse that "look, this is over 200 years old and
none of it is applicable." What if I told you the 3rd Amendment is at the heart of some of the debates on the War on Terror (among others)? It's an interesting debate indeed.
BTW, this has still been a major issue in Europe over the years, where most every national does not have this protection like the US does (let alone not in a time of war, like the US).
Fourth Amendment
Another British-driven biggy. I do not even have enough room to begin discussing this. The debates today are still like they were over 200 years ago, even 300 years ago before the US was even considering becoming a nation. The War on Drugs has destroyed this far more than the War on Terror.
Fifth-Sixth Amendments
These two go together much like the 1st and 2nd, a duality that most people see as very much crucial. The War on Drugs actually "tore down" many aspects of these Amendments far more than the War on Terror. But there's still a lot of core, individual rights that are heavily protected out of these very British-driven Amendments -- things many citizens of the UK wish they themselves had and are not offered in the Magna Carta nor the British Bill of Rights either.
The right not to incriminate oneself is regularly used today. Unfortunately, it is not applicable to those under Congressional inquiry. Some good people spent 20+ years in jail (well into the '70s) because of McCarthyism, and some every decade since because of politics by both Democrats and Republicans. One of the biggest complaints I have repeatedly made of both the Whitewater scandal (during the Clinton administration) and the Plame Leak (during the W. administration) is that McCarthyism had returned. Argumentative people in this country (and on this board, among others) continually, directly and irresponsibility support McCarthyism type tactics -- the direct denial of people's rights under the 5th Amendment which Congress can deny citizens -- because they think something is of "greater good," and I'm sorry, I refuse to agree.
I would never, ever want to testify before Congress because of that reason. Both Whitewater (and subsequent inquires) as well as the Plame non-sense were great examples of McCarthyism. During the Clinton series of investigations, the most they ever got was the whole Monica incident, and then only lying to a grand jury about something that was not a crime. So then during the W. administration, even several left-leaning news organizations openly questioned how the Plame investigations were being handled as a result (especially since it was never a crime either, much less they never prosecuted the person who actually leaked the name, which was not Scotter Libby), as the saw their own colleagues thrown in jail (most who had nothing to do with it).
Throwing people in jail for not offering hearsay that people want (which would only be perjury later anyway), yeah, great.
Seventh-Eight Amendments
This lesser visited amendments are actually my favorite, and another great duality. Based on many things of both British and even Colonial abuses, the US finally put an ended to the eye-for-an-eye non-sense, for good. You could no longer be jailed for merely screwing up unintentionally (such as financial), indentured servitude was basically outlawed (although people played games with that), and many other things that are still very much argued today. Unfortunately select people also abuse these rights (like everything else).
Ninth Amendment
This one drastically reduced the fears (argumentative stances in some cases?) that Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists argued, especially the individual versus the state (the state v. federal is the 10th).
One example I still point out where the Ninth Amendment has partially failed has been a driver's license. They call it a "privilege," not a "right." Actually, it is a "right," and any state government would have difficulty enforcing it on private property. But because the states own the roads, that makes it a little more difficult to argue. And then one might try to argue it's really a "state right," but then again, that's why we have the 10th Amendment. The 9th, like 1-8, are clearly individual (and state rights can only be complementary).
Tenth Amendment
The US states stood behind this for years -- especially the 1860s and then again in the 1960s -- enough that to most African-Americans, the term "state's rights" is a racist term, sadly enough. As I always point out, "state's rights" is essential. The problem is that when a US state uses its rights to abuse the rights of others, then the US federal has to come in, remove those rights, and
we all lose as a result! "Civil Rights" were the Supreme Law granted that allowed the US federal government to intervene -- basically when individual rights are being violated (such as those of the Constitution or any Common Laws thereof that is considered Supreme Law).
E.g., during the '60s, the US Federal government couldn't prosecute racists for murder or other laws (rights of the state), only Civil Rights violations.
To this day, Federal Supreme Law tries to override the 10th Amendment. Too many people assume the US Federal government can do that on-a-whim, and it scares me shitless that they do think that! God help us.
