Just last month in testimony before the Congress, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales again dismissed the notion that habeas corpus guarantees the right of all persons detained by the government to have access to a court to determine if they are being held lawfully.

Gonzales reached this conclusion because he apparently discovered that the Constitution of the United States did not "expressly" guarantee the right of habeas corpus. The attorney general's distressing conclusion followed by two months a speech by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich that the guarantee of freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is at least to some extent incompatible with the need to wage all-out war against "terrorists" and we should therefore consider curtailing that particular freedom.

Then, just last week here in Georgia, during a debate under the Gold Dome whether to allow juries in Georgia to decide application of the death penalty with less than unanimity, a local district attorney —- Danny Craig of Augusta —- argued that because "70 percent of people in Georgia support the death penalty" a law that requires 100 percent agreement among juries considering whether to apply it in a particular case is inappropriate.

I have reacted with profound disagreement to these attitudes that are dismissive of fundamental rights and procedures reflected in and based on our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. However, on more careful examination, it appears that perhaps the attorney general, the former speaker, and the district attorney are on to something here. Why shouldn't the Bill of Rights reflect simply the popularly held views of "the people"?

Moreover, insofar as recent studies seem to confirm that most people don't understand the Bill of Rights anyway, changing them to reflect such ignorance would make the job of the government —- and the courts —- simpler. In much the same way that biblical scholars have taken the King James Version of the Bible and through successive revisions dumbed down that magnificent tome so it is more "readable," we could shorten and simplify the Constitution.

For example, the First Amendment —- which guarantees the rights to freedom of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly and to petition for redess of grievances —- is so often misunderstood by government, the courts and the people that we'd probably all be better off if it were simply repealed. Few people really understand anymore why it might be necessary to "assemble" anyway, and who worries in this day and age about something as arcane as a "redress of grievances"?

Then take the Second Amendment —- that pesky sentence constantly getting in the way of efforts by big city mayors in New York, Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere to disarm the populace. Insofar as many government officials view the clause as applicable simply to a "militia" —- which they in turn believe we no longer need because, after all, we have the military and the police nowadays to "protect" us —- wouldn't it greatly simplify their jobs to just repeal the amendment?

Of course, there's that old Fourth Amendment, with its particularly long and convoluted sentence having to do with "searches and seizures" and "warrants" and "probable cause." Since most people probably view the Fourth Amendment as concerning itself only with criminals, who shouldn't have any rights anyway, why do we really need to concern ourselves with such things? After all, if the Fourth Amendment inhibits President Bush from ordering electronic surveillance of whoever he wants without bothering to get a court order, so he can protect us against terrorists, isn't the amendment a bad thing anyway?

The list goes on and on. The Fifth Amendment, the Sixth, the Eighth, etc. All these provisions written so very long ago (well over 200 years) contain pledges of rights guaranteed to people charged with crimes, or in other instances of limitations on the power of the federal government.

In this wonderful and modern 21st century, in which most people lack any meaningful understanding of the Bill of Rights, and a time in which a majority of the citizenry —- and of our elected officials —- appears willing to let the government have just as much power as it wants, wouldn't it make sense to just drop a few words from the Bill of Rights; make it more helpful to government and less coddling of criminals?

We easily could trim the cumbersome, nearly 500-word document down to a more manageable couple of dozen words: "... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects ... shall ... be ... delegated to the United States." Much simpler. Much easier. Now back to Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith.

Former congressman and U.S. attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org.

www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/02/28/edbarr0228.html