Happy Bill of Rights Day
Today is the 318th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights Institute has some resources, as does The Examiner.
PolicyBlog has moved!
Thank you for visiting, PolicyBlog has a new address.
Our new location is http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog
Please adjust your bookmarks. Archived posts will remain here for now.
Thanks
2 comments:
More then just a *&(^ piece of paper, Its the LAW.
An alternate view........
The Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but dangerous to the liberties of the citizens. They were, I believe, prescient in their view, but more on that later.
The Federalists argued, from Federalist No. 84 ( http://64.203.107.114/fedpapers/fed_84.html ):
"...It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. ``WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights...."
Seeing the Bill of Rights as a guarantee of our rights is misguided. This misunderstanding of the origin and nature of our rights has led to the mistaken belief that the metes and bounds of our rights are delineated in and by the Bill of Rights and that we retain only those rights which enjoy specific enumeration. Instead of forcing the government to demonstrate that we surrendered our God-given, unalienable right of self-defense, modern courts struggle to define the metes and bounds of the Second Amendment. The Federalists were prescient.
However, the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Their argument can be found in Anti-Federalist No. 84, here: http://64.203.107.114/antifedpapers/antifed84.htm
Not wishing to squander all of the work and effort of the convention, the Federalists acquiesced to the demand of the Anti-Federalists; agreeing to draft/ratify a Bill of Rights as soon as practical after ratification.
James Madison's first proposal for the Bill of Rights can be found here: http://64.203.107.114/histdocs/madamend.htm
Post a Comment