Here’s a rewrite to the Constitution I could get behind.

The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer, but we don’t know for sure. In any event this essay really hits the mark. Because so many liberal progressives seem to be confused about The Bill of Rights, maybe this would help clarify:

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional.

As such, we hereby present this Bill of NON-Rights.


You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.


You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.


You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you get the blue juice if you resist a peace officer.

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure as you have been experiencing while incarcerated.

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

This is an English-speaking country. We don’t care where you came from. English is our language. Learn it!


You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history. Sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.


  1. This country was founded on principles inspired by the Enlightenment. Most of the framers were deists, and detested the mingling of church and state. Thus, the words “god” or “faith” are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

    • Some were deist at some point in their lives. But most would be considered Christian today. They detested government interference, something you seem to have missed in your hatred of religion. They were however “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” One, the free exercise of religion, happened to be enumerated in the First Amendment. Don’t make Jazz superfluous.

    • Creator means different things to different people. The intent is to proclaim rights are not to be controlled by the King. “They detested government interference” is exactly what I said. I didn’t “miss” it.

    • Some of them were Deists, such as Jefferson. There were those who were devout Christians as well. What they were against was a State Church such as the Anglican Church. This would infringe on the liberties of non-believers or those of a different faith by such practices as England forcing the King’s subjects to financially support the Anglican Church whether or not they were, indeed, Anglicans.

      However, they were far from being against Freedom of Religion. The problem is that most folks stop reading too soon:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…”

      So such nonsense as prohibiting a Christian child from praying and/or reading their Bible during free time at school, nativity scenes and the like under the 1st Amendment is ludicrous.

      Oh, and the words “…separation of Church and State…” also do not appear in the Constitution, much to the chagrin of Liberals near and far.

      • The Church-State control of England was exactly what they were trying to get away from. Why re-create the same system here?

      • You must be very young. The grammar in your previous post makes it anachronistic. Sorry I couldn’t help!

      • Yes, I am very young. At 46 and having studied history quite a bit through middle school and through my 20’s, most folks who know me have considered me a history buff for most of my life. Your posts don’t make much sense. Do you even know what an anachronism is? Please tell me how my grammar is anachronistic, as I’d like to understand what your point was. (I read our last 5 posts as a conversation to my 10th grade son who has been on the Dean’s Honor Roll list for the last 2+ years at school, and he agreed that you post makes no sense to him either.) Trying not to get off topic TOO far, would you please explain what problem you perceive in my grammar? Thanks!

        I will try to restate my questions for you in a simpler manner, as maybe there is just a failure/breakdown in communication here. (If Spanish would be a better language for you to understand, I will do my best there as well, please let me know which you prefer.)

        You stated that the Founders were trying to get away from a state controlled religion (ie. the Church of England), and asked why would we recreate that system here. I’m sorry, but your reference doesn’t make any sense to me… That is why I asked which religion do you think someone is trying to make into a state religion here in the US? The only two that make any sense, based on your question would possibly be Islam (due to Obama’s obvious sympathy and eagerness to embrace the religion he grew up in) and atheism or anti-religion/secularism based on the nutjobs who keep insisting that since they don’t believe in the God of the Bible that no one else can have the Ten Commandments in their courthouse (even though our legal system was based in large part on the Bible), that no one can display a cross (such as the Ground Zero Cross) in public, and that most any religion EXCEPT Christianity and Judaism can be taught to kids in public schools.

        Please enlighten me as to what you were trying to refer to, so that we can carry on an intelligible conversation. That would be the best help you could give! 🙂

      • Nice to see such a thoughtful answer. Anacronism was the wrong word.
        Now I see the problem. You are basing your Qs to me on a series of wrong assumptions. About me, about Obama (who is not relevant to this discussion), and about the founders intentions, which I assure you, was a secular Constitutional Republic. I’m not coming back after this, I just don’t have time for it. So:

        First, our Constitution is NOT based on the ten commandments, or the Bible. Have you READ THEM lately? Second, you can put 100 crosses all over the country if it makes you happy, JUST NOT ON GOVERNMENT property. Is that SO hard? The lawn of a courthouse is not “IN PUBLIC”, nor (especially!) is a public school. That also goes for Islam, Hindu, Catholic, Jewish, and Scientology. Keep studying history, the myths in the Bible are borrowed from many, many, MUCH older faiths. Good Luck.

      • A child’s is free to pray to him or herself, and to read the Bible. What’s not allowed is school officials (teachers, principals, coaches) leading prayers, or students leading prayers over the P.A. system. And nativity scenes are allowed on private property. But when you allow them on public property, like the town hall, then you have to allow displays from any and all other religions.

      • According to the book Beyond Megachurch Myths, there were 320,000 Christian U.S. churches in 2007.
        Of these U.S. churches, 1,250 were megachurches with an average weekend attendance of 2,000 or more.
        According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 98,817 public schools during the 2009-2010 school year.

        Oppression is having 3 times as many churches as there are public schools
        and yet still feel entitled to whine and complain that there isn’t prayer in schools…
        they’re so, so oppressed….

      • Um, I don’t know anyone myself who is claiming that certain CHURCHES are oppressed… yet! The believers are the ones being oppressed, their individual rights. As a follower of Christ I don’t recognize same sex relationships to be marriage in any sense… calling sin good doesn’t make it so, even when (maybe) a majority would call it so.

        Personally, I think the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business, but I do realize that at one time it was a legitimate interest to support nuclear families which are the core building block of any society throughout recorded history. Giving them tax breaks (and other benefits) makes sense when you are trying to encourage families to stay together and thrive, does it not? Any research worth it’s salt has shown that the majority of children do the best long term when raised by their biological parents in a stable, committed marriage.

        I know that last statement will offend some, but it’s true IN THE MAJORITY of cases. Yes, there have always been crummy parents who philander, who beat/abuse their spouses, who never should have been parents, etc. As a society though, it seems that we’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water… since we are gonna call anything marriage apparently (including that dude with 5 “sister-wives” on TLC… and how does he support 5 women and something like 15 kids?), when do you want to start allowing people to marry their dog or horse, or some 10 yr old kid, or their sister or stepmother? Just a couple questions as far as where does this whole gay “marriage” thing lead?

    • Wiki isn’t the best referrance, but it sure doesn’t agree with you… ”

      Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of
      the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional
      Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons).[18] Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.[18]

      A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson,[19][20][21] who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin.[22] Others, notably Thomas Paine, who challenged institutionalized religion in The Age of Reason,[23] were deists, or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[24]

      Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams,
      Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington)
      were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid “theistic rationalism”.[25]”

      So, 51 of 55 delegates were Christian apparently. Some may have changed their views, but a large majority WERE Christian, even if they didn’t choose to impose it on everyone else. (Freedom OF religion is guaranteed, NOT freedom FROM religion!)

      • “Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice.
        It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite.
        The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and no religion.

        [Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 1968.]”

      • Oh I agree, people should not have the government imposing ANY views on them about having to conform or not to any religion. If people choose to follow nothing at all that is OK! Government should also NEVER endorse the lack of religion and impose their values on those who follow a religion, the caveat always being that is as long as the citizens are PEACEFULLY following their chosen religion or lack thereof. Ie. all those cases suing Christians for refusing to participate in a ceremony that they object to on religious grounds should be dropped and the party who brought the cases made to pay court costs and reparations (IMHO.)

      • When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select
        any religious faith or none at all.
        —Justice John Paul Stevens

      • I won’t waste time arguing Wikipedia, but you don’t understand the meaning of the word freedom, if you would deny freedom FROM religion. That’s ISIS doctrine. Believe or die. Ridiculous.

      • Why do people believe clowns like Ben Carson or Allen West has a chance of getting the Republican nomination??

      • they just do,,, because they can’t,,or won’t take there heads
        out of their ___’s and see how far to the right these wacka-doodles are,,, in the end,, people want a more centrist POTUS,,, maybe a little to the right,, maybe a little to the left
        but pretty much center…
        west (even if he really wanted to) could never get the
        nomination.. if you archived this site,,, on top of all the bigoted things and accusations he’s made in public,,etc, etc…
        not many (if any) big money would back him,,,
        but the clown car is filling up,,,and west is not going to be in it,,
        lol,,, he wasn’t even invited to the NRA thingy,,
        he could have prattled on about gunz,, and Hillary,, and shown everyone his new Samurai sword..
        we don’t need any more rabid neo-cons,, we have plenty in

    • Students should learn that the universe can be confronted and understood, that ideas and authority should be questioned, that an open mind is a good thing.
      Education does not exist to confirm people’s superstitions, and children do not learn to think when they are fed only dogma.

  2. Gotta watch what you put out there. The liberals will think you’re trying to take stuff away from them! The old bill of rights is just fine as is. Go tightening up perceived conceptions and the left will take their mile out of every inch they get.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here