Why not just get rid of all of them? They're all antiquated, aren't they?
You can start with creating a State religion - make the U.S. a state sanctioned protestant government (say Calvinists or Quaker) and anyone who doesn't believe as such must get out of the country, not be able to hold a job, cannot own property or have a business; all atheists must leave the country or be imprisoned for 30 days and then be executed. Not ever appealing is it?
You can start by doing away with the 1st Amendment, the right of free speech and sensor the Internet. Anything said of a politician gets expunged, for example. (And don't think it is isn't already being done and that politicians aren't thinking of doing it.) TV is already being censored, the news are being censored, books are being censored, films are being censored, etc.
The 3rd Amendment is antiquated too, isn't it? Why not do away with that one? It does say "In time of Peace," doesn't it? Doesn't that mean that in time of war soldiers can walk into your home, throw you out, and take over your house? Has that happened in other countries? Surely they have during time of war, but what about in times of Peace? If the answer is "No," then why was it written into the Bill of Rights? Surely the British did it before the American Revolution. Can you, today, rationalize "Probable cause" for interring the Japanese Americans during WWII? Why weren't the Italian or German Americans interred during WWII? Seeings as Germany took over France, Poland, etc., why weren't French or Polish Americans interred? Franco ruled Spain and was in cahoots with Germany, so why weren't all the Spanish Americans interred? etc.
Would you want the 4th Amendment rescinded? We already have Passports between countries, why not make Passports necessary between States, or between Cities, or between Towns and villages? Everywhere and anywhere you go an official can detain you, demand documents, put you in jail until a judge can hear your case. Not very appealing is it? Exactly who would determine what is "unreasonable searches"? Every politician will say that it was necessary...
The 5th Amendment will certainly pose problems for most people. The politicians will re-write the laws so that they are all capital offences, so that everything is a felony. The 5th is very problematic as it says that "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;..." I bet those who see no need for a militia (it being the People armed) will have a problem differentiating between
"land or naval forces, or in the militia,". And since the Air Forces aren't named then the State has the right (only individuals can have rights, no?) not to be 'prosecuted' should they decide to bomb houses, towns, villages, cities, states, no? Surely this is a spacious and ridiculous argument and reasoning.
Pick and choose all you want. What you're giving up is not just "their" rights, you're also giving up your own rights. The 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments obviously won't affect you because you're not guilty, but, as Spiro Agnew once said, "You have nothing to fear if you're innocent". (Paraphrased). He did get one thing right though,
"Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb." That is exactly what you're doing when you advocate doing away with one right - it won't be long before you have no rights whatsoever. You're throwing away the baby with the bathwater.
