*clicky*

That’s a screen shot of the Bill Of Rights  as posted on the White House website.  It appears that they have made an effort to present them in layman’s terms.  Or maybe there is an attempt here by our Constitutional scholar in chief to bend the meaning a bit.  Let’s compare, shall we?

Here is the First Amendment as it appears in the Constitution:

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 on the White House page:

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I’m not really noticing any glaring issues here.  They’ve rearranged the words a little, but seem to have left it intact.

How about the Second Amendment?  Here’s the actual version:

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.

And the Teleprompter approved version:

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Gives?  Excuse me?  Um no.  The second amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon our inherent right to bear arms.  The Bill of Rights does give any rights at all.  It protects the rights we already have.  I give this one a big fat FAIL.

The Third Amendment as it appears in the Constitution:

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.

And the White House:

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

This one is overly vague.  No mention of homeowner’s consent in the sanitized version.  Nor is there anything about the role of the law.

The 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.

As stated by the White House:

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

Again, overly vague.  No mention here about the warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.  This is concerning because it seems to imply that a very vague warrant could be issued against people fitting within a demographic group (maybe people Janet Napolitano considers potential domestic terrorists) instead of particularly describing a specific person.  Due to this ambiguity, I rate this a FAIL.

The 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 offense 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.

And the White House version:

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

Notice they leave out the provision about War?  Hmm.  It also lumps being deprived of life, liberty, or property under the term of punishment. FAIL

The 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 wherein 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.

White House:

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers, to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged, and to confront the witnesses brought by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, and to legal representation.

Where’d the part about the public trial go?  And obtaining witnesses in favor of the accused?  I see that the accused has the right to confront witnesses brought by the government.  That sounds a little different than confronting the witnesses against him.  Does this mean that the accused has no right to confront the original accuser since they were not brought by the government?  Traditionally, the accuser would approach the government for justice.  In the White House version, the accused has the right to compel testimony, but the process for obtaining witnesses in their favor is glaringly absent. FAIL

The 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.

According to the White House:

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.

And where’d the part about it not being re-examined go?  Perhaps leaving a bit of wiggle room to squeeze in some hate crime prosecution?  FAIL

The Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The White House:

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

Reasonable.  I’m not spotting any creative edits here.

The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The White House:

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

Just a little nitpick.  The Constitution specifically states that rights not listed are not denied or disparaged.  The implication being that they are also protected just like those listed.  The White House just states that the non-listed rights remain but does not go so far as to protect them from being denied.  FAIL

The 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.

The White House:

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.