According to this joker who posted in the Politics & Society part of the Bitcointtalk.org forum, the Bill of rights hinders personal rights. Read what he has to say in his two posts about this, below.

People misunderstand the Amendments. An Amendment acts a bit like the Uniform Commercial Code. Here is what I mean.

The UCC is a set of legal documents regarding things like money and transactions and contracts and the like. The UCC doesn't have any power of its own. It takes all of its power from laws and court cases. The reason we have the UCC is, since the court cases and laws clearly express what the UCC says, the UCC is like a summary of those laws that makes it a lot easier to implement what the laws and court cases would have implemented anyway.

To say it shorter, The UCC is a shortened version of the laws and court cases. You don't need it. You could get the same results by using the laws and court cases. But it is easier to simply use the UCC that is an accurate representation of the laws and court cases.

The Amendments are similar. For example, the right to privacy of the 4th Amendment would still exist without the 4th Amendment. Why? Because the Preamble to the Constitution made the setting up of the Constitution to be a benefit for the people. When government exposes private things of the people, it harms the people. This is opposite of being the benefit that the Constitution and government were set up for in the first place. It's in the Preamble.

So, why do we have the 4th Amendment? We have it because it is a lot easier to simply focus on the 4th for the things of privacy that we need. But if the 4th Amendment were gone, we still could claim privacy based on the fact that exposure by government is harming us individually, and that is the opposite of what the government was set up for. It's in the Preamble.

----------

The problem with the Amendments is, it makes the people legally lax. People can simply say, there is an Amendment for that. If the Amendments didn't exist, the people would have to learn how to exert their rights through the Preamble, which can't be amended away. The people would get a whole lot more freedom if they learned to use their rights rather than depending on some Amendment.

Like as we could operate all the laws regarding transactions and contracts without the UCC, so we could maintain our rights without the Amendments. Personally, I believe that if we learned to use the Preamble, we could maintain our rights way better than we can by relying on the Amendments.

While the students' attitudes are wrong, they have a point.

Originally, the Amendments were necessary to keep the people lax enough so that they didn't destroy the fledgling U.S. Government before it got off the ground.

Now, with the ways that government is intruding onto peoples' rights, the people need vigilance and strength rather than laxness. Getting rid of the Amendments would make the people look for other ways to maintain their rights. They would find the Preamble.

Once they found how easy it was to maintain all their rights - right to free travel, right to not pay taxes, right to smoke all the pot they wanted, right to sue cops and win, etc. - through non-government common law, they would virtually destroy the strength of government. And we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

Keep the Amendments so that government remains strong, and the people remain weak in their rights!