That we should abandon the Bill of Rights

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from totalitarian encroachment from their government. It is from the bill of rights that legislative code is derived, because of the explicit limitations imposed on government by the Bill of Rights. The argument then, that the BOR is "entirely unnecessary because its job is done by our established common and legislative law systems and codes" holds no water because the source of legislated law is derived from the constitution in totality (of which the BOR is a vital component). As for "human rights" being "protected by the international community" I would only ask the opponent to consider the means of protection? Even assuming that the US submits to the UN (which it categorically does not) what would the UN do to the US if it didn't uphold human rights? Sanctions? The United States is a permanent member of the UN security council, meaning that anything that the UN does -has to be approved by the US because the US has veto power. Case and point- China (I can explain in greater detail later). Moreover, the US does not recognize UN authority as superior to that of the US. For the US to submit to the UN is to undermine US sovereignty, which is infeasible considering the global political economy is in a unipolar hegemonic state -i.e. the US is top dog and no one can challenge us -for now. For the third point of argument one, people, if given the opportunity, are inclined to yield liberty for security. The historical examples of this range from Nazi Germany to the election and legacy of FDR. Because people are inclined to cede liberty for security (against their best interest) a check to ensure balance is necessary -that check being the constitution and the BOR. This is the crux of our majority rule/minority right system. The constitution begins with We the People, The People, being the citizens of the US -the source from which all just power is derived. The BOR itself does not stand as a barrier to protection of human rights, rather it serves to outline what they are and how they are to be upheld by placing specific limitations on what the government can do.Onto argument 2. The mechanisms by which the BOR serves to limit governmental encroachments on the rights of the people are executive, legislative, and judicial. The BOR does not apply to only one branch of government, but to all 3. The Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court INTERPRETS the constitution to ensure that no body (including the judiciary itself) has violated the constitution. Power is not deprived from the people, merely safeguarded by the judiciary. The purpose of the constitution and the BOR is to ensure that the people are not deprived to the right of consent by the governed -in that regard it serves to frame the structure of our government and outline the powers to be afforded to all three branches. Secondly, people do not "choose" rights, rights are natural and flow from natural law (Read up on some John Locke). The BOR merely serves to specifically limit what the government can and cannot do to prevent tyranny -which it has (and would more effectively if it were more respected these days). Thirdly, because rights flow from natural law and all people are created equal, what would be "democratic" or just about letting people choose what rights ought to be protected or not be protected? The fact remains that the US on a purely structural note is not a pure democracy, but a modified one. Originally, we were a republic. Now, our governmental structure more or less comprises elements of both. If we are all created equally, what right would I have to deprive you of your rights? What right would you have to deprive me of mine? Groups (majorities) are composed of people who all have equal rights. Numerical supremacy does not grant authority to a majority to deprive a minority of their rights (life, liberty and property) without just cause (for example, like if someone has been convicted of murder, it would be justified to deprive that person of their liberty). Innocent parties, however, cannot be justifiably deprived of their rights. There is the possibility that the constitution may be amended, but as my opponent points out that is an extremely difficult process and for good reason -to protect the rights of the people from the political whims of the present. The Pro seems fixated on this notion of democracy, but he has offered no evidence to substantiate the claim that the BOR is undemocratic -only a fundamental misunderstanding of the BOR, the constitution and the respective application of both documents to US governmental structure.And now Argument 3. Rights do not evolve over time. Rights are inherent to human hind, on an individual level. They are Life, Liberty and Property (or as Jefferson would describe property, "the pursuit of happiness"). Reforms, then, are unnecessary because rights are static. It is true, that interpretational issues have been a hot topic of contention for the duration of this nation -but the same applies to laws. Do we follow the letter of the law? The spirit of the law? The intent of the law? The same questions can and have been asked for the constitution/ the BOR. PRO seems to believe that rights change over time -do they? Locke would argue that rights exist, have always existed, and will always exist -the only question of discussion then is wether those rights have been protected by the government in power at present. In the second sub-point, PRO brings up Guantanamo Bay. No nation is perfect, but to cite flaw with the decision makers presently in power does not mean that the system is flawed itself. As they say about throwing the baby out with the bath water...The Bill of Rights, at the time of the ratification of the constitution, was included to place specific limitations on what the government (and at that time specifically the federal government) can do to people. It was designed to and effectively has over the trajectory of our nation's history, protect the essential liberties of the people. Anti-Federalists passionately feared what impact would be felt by allowing the government to operate without restraint, and thusly imposed limitations to prevent governmental abuse of power. In that regard, the BOR was necessary at the time of its adoption and continues to be necessary to this day.back to you.