It’s a legitimate issue that he is taking his oath on the constitution instead of the bible. We can also wonder whether he genuinely believes in the limited powers of government bestowed by the constitution. But complaining that the copy of the constitution he used did not have the bill of rights is not a legitimate issue.
Most people are forgetting the reason why the constitution as originally proposed did not include the bill of rights — the founding fathers were concerned that if it did, people (and particularly the government) would think that they only had the enumerated rights — that they had freedom of speech because of the first amendment. Instead, the original idea was that people had freedom of speech because nothing in the constitution granted to congress the power to regulate it.
In modern times, the bill of rights act as essential limits to governmental power. But that is only because in modern times the constitution is seen as a limited grant of power from the government to the people instead of the exact opposite it was conceived as.
Most people are forgetting the reason why the constitution as originally proposed did not include the bill of rights — the founding fathers were concerned that if it did, people (and particularly the government) would think that they only had the enumerated rights — that they had freedom of speech because of the first amendment. Instead, the original idea was that people had freedom of speech because nothing in the constitution granted to congress the power to regulate it.
In modern times, the bill of rights act as essential limits to governmental power. But that is only because in modern times the constitution is seen as a limited grant of power from the government to the people instead of the exact opposite it was conceived as.
Well said. Excellent post. Thank you.