Talk:Virginia Declaration of Rights

Bill of Rights 1689

This article is in contradiction with Bill of Rights 1689 page -- It states here that Virginia Declaration of Rights was the first declaring the "protection of individual rights, in contrast to mutable laws or previous compacts granting limited or restricted protections, such as to members of Parliament" -- which is contradicted by the fact that the English Bill of Rights 1689 predominantly dealt with the ordinary citizens of the United Kingdom, not the members of Parliament. A phrase needs to be added -- either "the first to exclusively deal with individual rights" or the "first to deal with rights of citizens living in America" or just "one of the first". Alternatively, sources should be found which demonstrate that the English Bill of Rights 1689 page is incorrect.

Rnt20 11:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the difference is in the fact that the Virginia Declaration of Rights can't be altered, whereas the unwritten British Constitution can be changed by Parliamentary law. Thus not all Virginian laws were/are considered constitutional, but British laws are inherently constitutional. As the sentence is currently written I do agree that it is factually inaccurate. Once I'm done with exams I will see what I can find out specifically.

I would however suggest that this line be deleted as I'm unaware of any historian that would argue that the Virginian Declaration of Rights did apply to all people. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I don't think I am. "Some people and historians believe that the declaration did not apply to all people, including women and slaves."

Knightw 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A pertinent quote from the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution: "The gravest defficiency of the Virginia system, according to Jefferson, was that the legislature, having framed the constitution and declaration of rights without having provided that they be perpetual and unalterable, could change them by ordinary legislation. That was true in theory, although the constitution lasted over half a century and rarely did the legislature enact measures inconsistent with it. In practice it was regarded a Fundamental Law, especially the declaration of rights."

--Thesoffish (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Allusion to US Constitution's Second Amendment

It seems to me that the newly included reference to the Second Amendment is somewhat disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the language in Article 13 of the VA Declaration of Rights influenced the language in the Second Amendment, the modern (and highly charged) debate is all about the "Right to bear arms". Many of the parts of the Bill of Rights are influenced by the VA Declaration - it seems to support an agenda to highlight just this one.--Kubigula (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. I have removed that phrase to reflect what the Virginia Declaration actually states. 24.60.181.75 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Article vs. Section

This topic is inconsistent in its description of the document. The Contents topic calls the parts of the Declaration articles, whilst the Text section shows them as Sections. IPBiographer (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Declaration of Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220231/http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/VirginiaGazette/VGImagePopup.cfm?ID=5610&Res=HI to http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/VirginiaGazette/VGImagePopup.cfm?ID=5610&Res=HI
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711010553/http://www.icitizenforum.com/resources/george-mason-virginia-declaration-rights/george-mason-virginia-declaration-rights to http://www.icitizenforum.com/resources/george-mason-virginia-declaration-rights/george-mason-virginia-declaration-rights

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Text of section 13

According to the National Archives, the text of section 13 is:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

which is not identical to the wording used in the constitution of Virginia TEDickey (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the text of the 13th Section earlier today (in Wiki article, not in National Archives) and someone had added part from 2nd amendment regarding 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' into the text -- glad to see it was removed later. This 13th section is pretty clear evidence that, in fact, 2nd amendment was about militias, and not about general right, or lack thereof, of people to own arms. Wmsears (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)