In both situations, our BOR proved ineffective; they failed as firewall protection of our individual rights.
Bump for ongoing education
IMO, one of the principle reasons they failed is that it is prohibitively expensive to bring a case to the SCOTUS. Second only to education, the legal system has been the most crucial in bringing about our downfall.
There is a more basic concern about the BOR. The rest of the constitution was created with the understanding that once rules are written down, the first effort made will be to undermine and circumvent them.
For this reason, the rest of the constitution is a “balancing act” by equally powerful groups of people, with different prerogatives and motives, to keep other groups in check.
The most well known is the executive-legislative-judicial balance. But there is also the electoral balance of a truly democratically elected House; a state appointed senate; an electoral college appointed president; and presidential nomination, with senate (and thus state) approval of federal judges.
There is the balance of two senators for each state, which favors the smaller states; and population based number of congressmen, which favors the more populous states.
There is also the three way balance between the national government, the state governments and the people; with the intent that the states would protect the people from the abusive feds, and the feds would protect the people from the abusive states.
In any event, these balances worked generally well, except for abominations like the 17th Amendment
However, the BOR, as a “static” list of rules, has been horribly mauled by exceptions. For example, an effort to even list the exceptions to the first amendment is daunting.
But in the final analysis, all the balances only work so far as the collaboration between competing interests is maintained. If they work together “in the spirit of bipartisanship”, our rights are their first victim.
Not when today's kids were taught, their "rights" came from the government (the president fighting for their rights to equality or some such rot), and "I Am Willing to Give Up Some of My Constitutional Rights…to Be Safer".
The Constitution including the BOR should not have been 'hard to understand'. But not when it has been twisted to the present day interpretation.
Madison was amazing. Two of my grandfathers were named after him.
There is some fascinating history behind that pamphlet in James Madison’s possession, it wasn’t just some stray compilation of complaints with obscure origins. Madison knew the author as did George Washington.
All in attendance at the Convention knew who he was, he was regarded as one of the preeminent legal minds of the time. The author was also the author of the Virginia Declaration Of Rights and a Founder himself, who walked out on the Convention in Philadelphia precisely because it contained no Bill Of Rights, along with Elbridge Gerry.
He’s known in some circles as The Forgotten Founder. But he’s not forgotten in Virginia and he’s not forgotten here.
His name was George Mason.
http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Thank you, good learning today.
Patrick Henry at the ratification convention: “...If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — [a state] government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!
You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up.”
He was still a powerful orator. Madison made a better case but Henry beat him anyway.
If the B.O.R. had required that just 1% of the federal justices be impeached and removed every 4 years the Constutuion would still be in force...
No one imagined the courts would one day openly proclaim that they ruled by a ‘living’ constitution.
Far from what the original article would have us believe, history has proven the anti-federalists prophetic about the federalists' intentions and about the central government's 'mission creep' regarding the constitution. The BoR would not have been breached if Madison had been right about how the basic document would be interpreted.
Overview
America was governed under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1789. Unable to redress the problem of “majority tyranny,” the Articles were abandoned in favor of the Constitution, which created a “more perfect union.”
The creation in the Constitution of “a more perfect union” did not mean that the union—or its people—would get more and more perfect with time. Rather, this phrase meant simply that the Constitution marked an improvement over the Articles of Confederation.
The majority tyranny that prevailed under the Articles meant that instead of strong but limited government, the nation labored under weak and ineffectual government.
The Founding Fathers featured in this week’s readings—George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson—were united in their fear that America’s future under the Articles of Confederation would be short-lived. The Articles, they agreed, not only failed to solve the problem of majority tyranny, but in fact made that problem worse.
In Federalist 10, Madison outlines how the problem of majority tyranny is best solved by enlarging the republic. Factions, or groups acting adversely to the rights of citizens and the interests of the community, can thereby be multiplied, and in their multiplicity counterbalance the pernicious effects they produce. This solution is realistic but not cynical, for it is based on the idea that even though human beings are imperfect, they are still capable of self-government.
Ah—my friend — any written law is but a thing of wax in the hands of the ambitious. A written law is only as good as our ability to write the law on our hearts. If a written law is read often— and if it is taught to our youth,properly.If we the people are educated and informed of the laws -and understand the meaning of the terms —IF we the people insist that the laws be upheld as they are written—and if we the people hold forth the written law and insist violation be remedied——it is incumbent upon us—is it not to be the wellspring of our Constitution and laws?The written word can only do what it was intended it is up to us to determine how and to what extent the written word will be of use.