Posted on 02/15/2003 1:34:26 PM PST by forest
As the federal government goes about its unassigned function of regulating every aspect of the life, liberty and property of American citizens, we sometimes point to the Bill of Rights for protection. So, herein we excerpt a passage from The Federalist Papers #84, written by Alexander Hamilton.
This excerpt is worth reading, and studying. It tells the forgotten story of the American Rule of Law. And it also points out that it is time We the People have a little job description discussion with our servants in government.
"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 which are 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."
This excerpt tells the forgotten story of the American Rule of Law.
Bills of rights ... are not only unnecessary ... but would even be dangerous.
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?
It is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. (E.g., C2G - Clinton, Clinton and Gore.)
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.
This was a major concern of the anit-federalist during the debate for ratification of the new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.
James Madison acknowledged this concern and penned the Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We, as U.S. citizens, have "others (rights) retained by the people, which are too numerous and encompassing to ever list in it's entirerty, but a few examples might be enlightening.
Remember, Hamilton and Madison based all of their beliefs on the presumption of liberty.
to smoke a cigarette on private property if the owner allows it, in spite of any regulation to the contrary.
to smoke a cigerette on public property, period.
to not wear a seat belt.
to drink the beverage of your choice while you drive an automobile.
to carry a gun on public property, airport, school, city hall, court house, police station, park, fire station, etc.
to travel by aircraft without being searched by government employees without warrant.
to park at an aiport without being singled out driving a SUV and having a "security" individual look into your vehicle.
to operate and use a cell phone while driving an automobile.
to choose to rent, sell, or serve or not to rent, sell, or serve any person for any reason.
to love and/or hate any person for any reason.
to raise and educate your children as you see fit. Truancy laws are blantantly unconstitutional.
The list goes on.
Federal power over municipalities in general -- and over Citizens in particular began with the perversion of the treaty clause when the USSC allowed the fedgov to bypass the pursuancy clause with respect to treaty enforcement provisions which abrogated unalienable rights of Citizens by force of arms.
I think this would have happened regardless of whether or not the Bill of Rights was included as part of the Constitution. That's what happens when evil men, bored with tradition and far-removed from the people are elected to government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.