American Institutions - HIST 1700

Matthew Van Dusen

Val Sederholm

HIST 1700

15 July 2011

Comparing Bill of Rights

I found that the French Rights of Man and the U.S. Bill of Rights had the most similarities. They both focused on individual’s rights and had similar formats. The points I found most similar were the seventh point in the French Rights of Man and the 4^th amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights. The French version basically states that no one can be accused, arrested, or put in jail unless there is a lawful reason. It also states that if someone does these things to another person unlawfully they will be held accountable and punished accordingly. By contrast, if the person being arrested does not submit without delay when the arrest is lawful, then they can receive an additional punishment. The U.S. document states that you cannot be arrested or detained arbitrarily and that no agency or government may inspect or seize your property or possessions without a warrant. Furthermore, it states the warrant can only be used to search the place, thing, or persons that the warrant states in detail. Obtaining a warrant can only be obtained by showing specific cause under oath. Though the focus is different between the two since the French version focuses on punishment for the person doing the arresting or the arrestee if they are in the wrong, and the American version focuses on the person doing the arresting  having probable cause in order to search people, places, or things. They are really talking about the same thing when it comes to the person having authority to arrest. In the American document if you lie under oath, then that is perjury, which will have repercussions.  The French version just states there are repercussions if the person doing the arresting does something that is unlawful.

The next similarity is the tenth and eleventh point in the French Rights of Man versus the first amendment of the American Bill of Rights. The tenth point in the French version states that you are free to have your own opinion including your religious views as long as it does not disturb the public order established by law. The French document’s eleventh point starts out stating that free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights a man has, then continues stating that every citizen may speak, write, or publish anything they want as long as it does not conflict with any laws of the land. The American document states that laws cannot be passed for establishing a religion. Also, no law can be passed prohibiting the freedom of speech, of the press, or the right to peaceably assemble. The French’s eleventh point and the  1^st amendment in the Bill of Rights are pretty much the same with the exception of the tenth point of the French which takes religions views as an opinion and states that you are entitled to your opinion as long as it does not conflict with any of the countries laws. Whereas the Bill of Rights more tells the country what kind of law that it can and cannot be written depending on the subject.

I would next like to compare the French Rights of Man amendments seven, eight, and nine to the Bill of Rights amendments four, five, six, seven, and eight. The French seventh amendment and fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights have already been summarized and contrasted, but why I include them is because looking at these amendments combined gives the rights to someone who has been accused of a crime. So, for the French Rights of Man, the eighth amendment states that the law will provide punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary and that no one will receive a punishment that is not lawful.  Then only if they are guilty of an offense will they receive a punishment. The ninth amendment states that a person is declared innocent until proven guilty.  If they are found innocent and it is further found that the force used while apprehending them was consider excessive, then the person responsible will be prosecuted. The Fifth Amendment In the Bill of Rights states that no one outside the military may be tried for a serious crime without first being indicted by a grand jury of their peers. If they are found not guilty for the crime, the person cannot be tried again for the same crime. You also do not have to provide evidence or testify against yourself. You can’t go to prison or have your property taken away without due process and finally the government can’t take your property away from you unless they pay you for it. The sixth amendment states that if you are being prosecuted then you have the right to speedy public trial by impartial peers in the state or region that you committed the crime. You are entitled to know what you are being accused of, who is accusing you of it, and you are allowed to provide witnesses of your innocence. Finally you are entitled to an attorney to help you in proving you innocence. The seventh amendment states that you have a right to a trial with a jury due to civil matters and that the decision the jury makes is final except via legal processes. The eighth amendment states that the punishment must fit the crime and that bail or fines cannot be excessive. The French eighth amendment and the American eighth amendment are very similar in regards to the fact that they talk about that the punishment should not be excessive. Beyond that there are not really any further similarities but I bring them up because it shows that they both thought it necessary to provide rights to people who where criminals or potential criminals, which that in and of itself is a similarity. The AMERICANS just seemed to want to spell it out in further detail where the French continue to reference the law.

I could go on and on and, in fact, if I was comparing the AMERICAN Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the French Rights of Man I believe that they would cover all of the same topics. The French document seems to be shorter and more specific than the American document. The way they cover those topics is a little different however. The French say X is your right as long as there is not a conflicting law which seems to take precedence versus the American document which says these rights come first, and in fact, the government cannot pass laws changing or altering those rights. The French document also seems to focus on what is not right.  In other words, it is not right for people to not be able to be free versus the American Bill of Rights, which gets into the nitty gritty of due process.

The English Bill of Rights is kind of in its own little world. It starts out listing twelve reasons why the king needed to be killed. The rights they are talking about after that seem to be focused on what kings can and cannot do. The exception seems to be amendment seven that states that Protestants have the right to bear arms just like anyone else allowed by law. This, of course, is similar to the American Bill of Rights second amendment. The American document does reference that a well regulated militia is needed in order to protect a free state. The English Bill of Rights is similar to the French Rights of Man on this amendment in regards to the fact that the ability to bear arms is based off of the law. The American document is again consistent in regards to the fact that the ability to bear arms is not based on the law; in fact, the law is based off of the amendment which states that the ability to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The English document also states the way the king had been conducting business recently was illegal under this Bill of Rights and that future kings must follow the laws set forth by the Bill of Rights.  The English Bill of Rights also seems to focus more on taking away power from the king and giving that power or, at least, a check of that power to Parliament instead of focusing on the people like the French Rights of Man and the American Bill of Rights.